PEOPLE V. ONG (REMEDIAL)

Rule 116 Sec.1 (a) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:

Sec.1. Arraignment and plea; how made -

(a) The accused must be arraigned before the court where the complainant or information was filed or assigned for trial. The arraignment shall be made in open court by the judge or clerk by furnishing the accused with a copy of the complaint or information, reading the same in the language or dialect known to him and asking him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty. The prosecution may call at the trial witnesses other than those named in the complaint or information.

The arraignment of the appellants who are Chinese nationals violates the above rule. Their Certificate of Arraignment states that they were informed of the accusations against them. It does not, however, indicate whether the Information was read in the language or dialect known to them.

What leaps from the records of the case is the inability of appellants to fully or sufficiently comprehend any other language than Chinese and any of its dialect. Despite the inability, however, the appellants were arraigned on an Information written in the English language.

We again emphasize that the requirement that the Information should be read in a language or dialect known to the accused is mandatory. It must be strictly complied with as it is intended to protect the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. the constitutional protection is part of due process. Failure to observe the rules necessarily nullifies the arraignment.

We further hold that the prosecution failed to establish its claim of entrapment.

A BUY-BUST OPERATION is a form of ENTRAPMENT, which is recent years has been accepted as a valid means of arresting violators of Dangerous Drugs Law. 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. Its opposite is INSTIGATION or INDUCEMENT, wherein the police or its agent lures the accused into committing the offense in order to prosecute him. Instigation is deemed contrary to public policy and considered as an ABSOLUTORY CAUSE.

In the case at bar, the prosecution evidence about the buy-bust operation is incomplete. The confidential informant who had 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 a police officer who had no personal knowledge of the same. On this score, such police officer's testimony is HEARSAY and possesses no probative value unless it can be shown that the same falls within the exceptions 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 WITNESS against him, in this case, the informant, and to examine his for his truthfulness. As the prosecution failed to prove all the material details of the buy-bust operation, its claim that there was valid entrapment of the appellants mus fail.