Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
416
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ONG
G.R. No. 137348 June 21, 2004
DOCTRINE: To determine whether there was a valid entrapment or whether proper procedures were undertaken in effecting the buy-bust operation, it is incumbent upon the courts to make sure that the details of the operation are clearly and adequately laid out through relevant, material and competent evidence. For, the courts could not merely rely on but must apply with studied restraint the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by law enforcement agents. This presumption should not by itself prevail over the presumption of innocence and the constitutionally protected rights of the individual. It is the duty of courts to preserve the purity of their own temple from the prostitution of the criminal law through lawless enforcement. Courts should not allow themselves to be used as instruments of abuse and injustice lest innocent persons are made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses
FACTS: On July 27, 1998 accused William Ong, Ching De Ming and Robert Tiu were charged with violation of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, for selling or offering for sale 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. The prosecution, through the testimony of SPO1 Rodolfo S. Gonzales that a confidential informant reported the illicit drug activities of William Ong and unidentified Chinese. The team decided to conduct a buy bust operation The officers brought the two (2) accused to their office where the corresponding booking sheets and arrest report were prepared. The plastic bag containing the white crystalline substance was referred to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. The two (2) accused were subjected to a physical and mental examination as required. They were found to be free from any external signs of trauma. Forensic chemist testified that the specimen she examined had a net weight of 980.50 grams and manifested "positive 3 results for methyl amphetamine hydrochloride" or what is commonly known as shabu, a regulated drug. Her testimony was supported by her Physical Sciences Report.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is a valid entrapment
RULING: No, there is no valid entrapment.
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment, which in recent years has been accepted as a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law. It is commonly employed by police officers as an effective way of apprehending law offenders in the act of committing a crime. In a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a crime originates from the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the offense.
To determine whether there was a valid entrapment or whether proper procedures were undertaken in effecting the buy-bust operation, it is incumbent upon the courts to make sure that the details of the operation are clearly and adequately laid out through relevant, material and competent evidence. For, the courts could not merely rely on but must apply with studied restraint the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by law enforcement agents. This presumption should not by itself prevail over the presumption of innocence and the constitutionally protected rights of the individual. It is the duty of courts to preserve the purity of their own temple from the prostitution of the criminal law through lawless enforcement. Courts should not allow themselves to be used as instruments of abuse and injustice lest innocent persons are made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses
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.
