Title
People vs. Ong y Li
Case
G.R. No. 137348
Decision Date
Jun 21, 2004
Accused acquitted due to invalid arraignment, insufficient evidence, broken chain of custody, and failure to present a key witness, violating due process and fair trial rights.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 137348)

Procedural posture and relief sought

Appellants were charged with violation of Section 15, Article III in relation to Section 2, Article I of RA No. 6425 for the alleged sale of 980.50 grams of methyl amphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). They pled not guilty. The trial court convicted and sentenced them to death and fined each P1,000,000. The case reached the Supreme Court on automatic review; the Court examined arraignment procedures, sufficiency of prosecution proof, the role and nondisclosure of the confidential informant, chain-of-custody and laboratory submission issues, and the appellants’ denials.

Facts as presented by the prosecution

The prosecution’s showing (largely through SPO1 Gonzales) was that: the CI initiated telephone contact and arranged a buy-bust to purchase one kilogram of shabu from a certain “William Ong” and an unidentified Chinese partner; the CI agreed to meet the alleged sellers at 6th Street corner Gilmore Avenue, New Manila; the team prepared marked boodle money and accompanied the CI; at the meeting a gift-wrapped package handed by the second male (identified as Ching De Ming) to Ong contained a sealed plastic bag with white crystalline substance; Gonzales opened it, saw the substance, paid the marked money to Ong’s companion, and arrests followed; the substance was sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory and tested positive for methyl amphetamine hydrochloride with net weight 980.50 grams.

Defects in arraignment and language requirements

Rule 116, Section 1(a) requires that the information be read to the accused in a language or dialect known to them. The records show appellants were Chinese nationals with inability to comprehend English; the Certificate of Arraignment and the arraignment order do not show the Information was read in a language known to them. Although a Chinese interpreter was used during investigation and later during trial (Richard Ng Lee was designated), the record does not establish that the mandatory procedure of reading the Information in a language known to the accused was complied with. The Court emphasized that this requirement is mandatory, designed to protect the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation, and its violation nullifies the arraignment.

Insufficiency of prosecution evidence — SPO1 Gonzales’s limited personal knowledge

The Court found that the prosecution’s case rested heavily on the testimony of SPO1 Gonzales, who acted as the poseur-buyer. However, Gonzales lacked personal knowledge of the initial telephone negotiations, the agreement on price and quantity, and other key pre-transaction communications—all of which were made by and known to the CI. Gonzales’s recounting of those matters was hearsay: he reported what the CI told him (and the CI’s account of conversations between the CI and Ong). Because the meeting of the minds (offer, acceptance, consideration) was established only through the CI’s communications, Gonzales effectively functioned as a deliveryman rather than a participant privy to the formation of the sale contract. The Court held that Gonzales’s hearsay testimony on these material points, standing alone, could not support a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

Entrapment, informant privilege, and the need for disclosure

The decision analyzed buy-bust operations and the distinction between lawful buy-bust entrapment (where the offender originates the criminal idea) and impermissible instigation. The Court reiterated that the prosecution must present a complete, objective picture of the transaction—from initial contact, offer, payment, to consummation—to guard against inducement by police. The CI in this case had sole personal knowledge of how the alleged sale started, how it was perfected, and the arrangements; yet the CI was not produced as a witness. The Court discussed the informant privilege (citing Roviaro v. U.S. and other authorities): while the State may have a privilege to protect the identity of informers for law enforcement purposes, that privilege is limited. Where the CI’s testimony is relevant, helpful, or essential to the defense (and to a fair determination), disclosure should be compelled; withholding may warrant dismissal. Given the capital nature of the charge, the appellants’ defense asserting instigation and the indispensable nature of the CI’s testimony to prove the essential elements of the sale, the Court found the CI’s nondisclosure fatal to the prosecution’s case.

Chain of custody and laboratory submission concerns

Although the forensic chemist’s qualitative test showing methyl amphetamine hydrochloride (980.50 grams) was uncontroverted, the Court identified serious gaps in proof connecting the tested specimen to the items allegedly confiscated from the appellants. The Joint Affidavit of Arrest listed identified team members; the Memorandum-Request for Laboratory Examination, however, indicated a different officer (SPO4 Castro) submitted the specimen. The records did not establish SPO4 Castro’s role in the operation, who actually took custody of the evidence from the arrest scene, how long any other person possessed the specimen, or who else had access prior to laboratory examination. These unexplained transfers and lack of clear custody chain raised a reasonable doubt as to whether the tested specimen was the same as that seized from appellants.

Credibility of appellants and significance of denials

Both appellants denied participation in the illicit sale and offered alternative accounts: Ong testified he was seeking employment and was abducted before being brought to the police; Ching De Ming testified he was waiting for his girlfriend and was forcibly taken and later found at the Quezon City Jail; a corroborating witness (Avelina Cardoz) supported De Ming’s account. In light of the prosecution’s evidentiary deficiencies—in

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

    About Privacy Terms