CARIAGA vs.

COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 143561. June 6, 2001

Facts: Aboitiz received reports that some private electricians were engaged in the clandestine sale of
DLPC materials and supplies. He initiated a covert operation with the following objectives: (1) ascertain
how DLPC materials were being stolen, the frequency of the thefts, who were perpetrating the thefts; and
(2) `catch at least one (1) DLPC employee that may be involved. Canuto Duran, Aboitizs undercover
struck an acquaintance with Cariaga and he told the latter that his boss ordered him to buy electrical
materials to be brought to Diwalwal, a gold panning area in Monkayo, Davao. Ricardo offered to supply
Canuto Duran with electrical materials, saying that he has a cousin from whom he can procure the same.
Sitons (Duran) undercover work came to an abrupt end on February 1, 1989 when members of Sgt.
Villasis team apprehended Canuto and turned him over, including the electrical wires that he
previously purchased from Jonathan through Ricardo, to the San Pedro Patrol Station. Canuto Duran
confessed in order to persuade Ricardo and the others who were involved to likewise come out with
the truth. Ricardo revealed that he acted as a fence for his cousin, Jonathan Cariaga and Canuto Duran
on November 27, 1988 and again on January 23, 1989; that the items that Canuto Duran bought from
Jonathan, thru him, were DLPC properties. Jamero also confessed that Ricardo was his fence in disposing
of DLPC electrical materials that he pilfered but the items were not sold to Canuto Duran but to
someone else. The recitals of Ricardo and Jamero in their sworn statements are substantially corroborated
by entries in the blotter. The accused was also invited to the San Pedro Patrol Station but he refused to
give a statement. The prosecution was unable to present Ricardo as its witness as the subpoena could not
be personally served upon him. According to the trial court, the prosecutions evidence considered as a
whole is strong, clear and convincing. The statements in the extrajudicial confessions of Ricardo Cariaga
implicative of the accused as the source of the stolen articles, corroborated by Sitons testimony and the
police records are formidable compared to the mere puny denial of the accused.
Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in admitting in evidence the sworn statement of Ricardo
Cariaga without him taking the witness stand since it violates the fundamental right of the accused to
meet the witnesses against him face to face.
Ruling: Yes. The records reveal that witness Ricardo Cariaga was subpoenaed only once and did not
appear to testify in the criminal case against petitioner. Concededly, this witness was not deceased or out
of the Philippines. It must be emphasized that this rule is strictly complied with in criminal cases; hence,
mere sending of subpoena and failure to appear is not sufficient to prove inability to testify. The Court
must exercise its coercive power to arrest. In the instant case, no efforts were exerted to have the
witness arrested which is a remedy available to a party-litigant in instances where witnesses who are duly
subpoenaed fail to appear. On this score alone, the sworn statement of Ricardo Cariaga should not have
been admitted as evidence for the prosecution, and we shall no longer delve into the other aspects of this
rule.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. WILLIAM ONG

G.R. No. 137348. June 21, 2004

Facts: July 24, 1998 , Quezon City, Philippines, accused, conspiring together, confederating with
and mutually helping each other not having been authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver,
transport or distribute any regulated drug, did then and there willfully and unlawfully sell or offer
for sale 980.50 grams of Methyl Amphetamine Hydrochloride, which is a regulated drug. Upon
arraignment, the two (2) accused, who are Chinese nationals, pled not guilty. The records do not
show whether they had sufficient knowledge of the English language. Their trial proceeded. In
the course of the trial, the two (2) accused were given the services of a Chinese interpreter.
Appellants denied the story of the prosecution. Accused Ong, a Chinese citizen from the
Peoples Republic of China, claimed that he came to the Philippines in 1997 to look for a job. In
June 1998, he stopped working at the factory and hunted for another job. Accused De Ming
testified that he is a legitimate businessman engaged in the RTW business. On July 23, 1998 at
around 4:30 and 5:00 P.M he was approached by persons unknown to him. They blindfolded and
brought him to a place. After a few hours, at Camp Crame, Quezon City, they removed his
blindfold. He denied knowing accused Ong and the charge of conspiring with him to deliver
shabu in New Manila, Quezon City. Avelina Cardoz corroborated his story. When they returned
to the car, accused De Ming was nowhere to be found. They saw him next at the Quezon City
Jail.
Issue: Whether or not the right to meet witness face to face was violated.
Ruling: Yes. In the case at bar, the prosecution evidence about the buy-bust operation is
incomplete. The confidential informant who had sole knowledge of how the alleged illegal sale
of shabu started and how it was perfected was not presented as a witness. His testimony was
given instead by SPO1 Gonzales who had no personal knowledge of the same. On this score,
SPO1 Gonzales testimony is hearsay and possesses no probative value unless it can be shown
that the same falls within the exception to the hearsay rule. To impart probative value to these
hearsay statements and convict the appellant solely on this basis would be to render nugatory his
constitutional right to confront the witness against him, in this case the informant, and to
examine him for his truthfulness. As the prosecution failed to prove all the material details of the
buy-bust operation, its claim that there was a valid entrapment of the appellants must fail.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RICARDO BOHOL

G.R. No. 171729

July 28, 2008

Facts: On or about August 2, 2002, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the accused, without
being authorized by law to sell, administer, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell or attempt to sell, or offer for sale for
P100.00 and deliver to PO2 Ferdinand Estrada, a poseur buyer, one (1) heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance commonly known as "shabu" weighing zero
point zero five four (0.054) gram, which substance, after a qualitative examination, gave positive
results for methamphetamine hydrochloride, which is a dangerous drug. Consequently, the
police officers brought Bohol to the police station and the confiscated four plastic sachets of
white crystalline substance were subjected to laboratory examination. The specimens were
confirmed to be methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu.

Upon

arraignment, Bohol entered a plea of "not guilty" to both charges.

Issue: Whether the trial court erred in convicting Bohol despite the absence of proof beyond
reasonable doubt.
Ruling:

No.

Bohol cannot insist on the presentation of the informant. During trial, the

informants presence is not a requisite in the prosecution of drug cases. The appellate court held
that police authorities rarely, if ever, remove the cloak of confidentiality with which they
surround their poseur-buyers and informers since their usefulness will be over the moment they
are presented in court. Further, what is material to the prosecution for the illegal sale of
dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of the corpus delicti. Both requirements were sufficiently proven in this
case. The police officers were able to testify positively and categorically that the transaction or
sale actually took place. The subject shabu was likewise positively identified by the prosecution
when presented in court. Hence, we agree that Bohols guilt has been established by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ALICIA A. CHUA

G.R. No. 128280. April 4, 2001
Facts: In September 1992, accused Chua received a facsimile message from Harmony Electronics
Company in Taiwan. The message was written in Chinese characters except for the names of To-ong
Zenon Tumenlaco and Tercenio Domingo Fornaliza. Harmony asked her to call up To-ong and Tercenio
and tell them that they were needed in Taiwan. Accused Chua contacted To-ong and told him the message.
In October 1992, To-ong and Tercenio went to the office of accused Chua, and the latter told them that
she could send them to Taiwan upon payment of a placement fee of P15,000.00 each. She also asked
them to secure NBI clearances and medical certificates. On October 29, 1992, Tercenio, together with
private complainant

Lonito Baluis, went back to the office of accused Chua and submitted the

requirements. Tercenio and Lonito Baluis paid P15, 000.00 each for which they were issued a receipt
bearing the name Man Tai Trading and General Services with accused Chuas signature. Accused Chua
assured Tercenio and Lonito Baluis that they would be able to leave for Taiwan soon. Three months
passed, but they were not deployed. Tercenio became apprehensive and told accused Chua that he would
withdraw his application and ask for refund of the placement fee. Accused Chua repeatedly promised that
she would give back the money to him, but she never did. After a few more months, Tercenio could not
anymore locate accused Chua. Accused Chua used the same modus operandi on the other private
complainants. After requiring each complainant to pay a placement fee of P15, 000.00 each, to secure
NBI clearances and to undergo medical examinations, she would go in hiding. In time, complainants
inquired from the POEA about accused Chuas activities. The POEA issued a certification that accused
Chua was not licensed to recruit persons/workers for overseas employment.
Issue: Whether or not the accused was denied of the constitutional right to compulsory process.
Ruling: No. The 1973 and 1987 Constitutions expanded the right to compulsory process which now
includes the right to secure the production of evidence in ones behalf. U.S. vs. Ramirez which laid down
the requisites for compelling the attendance of witnesses may be applied to this expanded concept. Thus,
the movant must show: (a) that the evidence is really material; (b) that he is not guilty of neglect in
previously obtaining the production of such evidence; (c) that the evidence will be available at the time
desired; and (d) that no similar evidence could be obtained. In the case at bar, the trial court correctly
denied appellants motion for the production of the records which were the basis in issuing the POEA
Certification dated February 3, 1994, as the same would not in any way alter the undisputed fact that
appellant was not issued a license until then.

A Compilation of Case Digests

For Constitutional Law II

Submitted to:
Atty. Jose Edmund Guillen, LL.B, LL.M.
College of Law
Central Philippine University

Submitted by:
Dianah Jane L. Huele
JD-I

February 14, 2015