8/12/2019 People v Ramos Digest

1/2

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROGELIO RAMOS

GUERRERO, J .:At about 10:00 o'clock in the evening of May 3. 1981, while P/Lt. E. Mediavillo

and P/Sgt. A. Linga were on routine patrol they had observed MALCON OLEVEREacting suspiciously . The police officers, stopped and frisked the suspect and found inhis possession dried marijuana leaves. Upon investigation, suspect Olevere declaredthat he bought the recovered marijuana leaves from one ROGELIO RAMOS

The following day, a police team proceeded to the residence of appellant RogelioRamos and arrested him.

During the custodial investigation, suspect Malcon Olevere executed a writtensworn statement implicating the accused-appellant Rogelio Ramos as the source of themarijuana leaves. The accused, verbally admitted the commission of the offense

charged. He likewise admitted that he sold to Malcon Olevere the marijuana leaves forP10.00.

At the trial, the prosecution presented three witnesses but not Malcon Olevere.

Issue:

Whether or not the constitutional rights of the accused, more particularly the rightto meet the witness against him face to face and to cross-examination e him has beenviolated.

Held:

Yes. For the court to admit the sworn statement of Malcon Olevere without givingthe adverse party the right to cross-examine him would easily facilitate the fabrication ofevidence and the perpetration of fraud. The inadmissibility of this sort of evidence isbased, not only on the lack of opportunity on the part of the adverse party to cross-examine the affiant, 17but also on the commonly known fact that, generally, an affidavitis not prepared by the affiant himself but by another who uses his own language inwriting the affiant's statements which may either be omitted or misunderstood by theone writing them.18

For the same reason, that Malcon Olevere was not presented as a witness andinsofar as they impute to appellant the commission of the crime charged, the adducedevidence are nothing but hearsay evidence. They cannot be regarded as competentevidence as to the veracity of the contents therein.

A witness, therefore, may not testify as to what he merely learned from others,either because he was told or having read or heard the same. Such testimony isconsidered hearsay and may not be received as proof of the truth of what he has

8/12/2019 People v Ramos Digest

2/2

learned. Since Malcon Olevere was not presented as a witness, the testimonies offeredby the witnesses for the prosecution are regarded as hearsay, insofar as they impute tothe appellant the commission of the offense charged.

WHEREFORE, accused acquitted.