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 OLEVERE acting suspiciously . The police officers, stopped and frisked the suspect and found in his possession dried marijuana leaves. Upon investigation, suspect Olevere declared that he bought the recovered marijuana leaves from one ROGELIO RAMOS The following day, a police team proceeded to the residence of appellant Rogelio Ramos and arrested him. During the custodial investigation, suspect Malcon Olevere executed a written sworn statement implicating the accused-appellant Rogelio Ramos as the source of the marijuana leaves. The accused, verbally admitted the commission of the offense charged. He likewise admitted that he sold to Malcon Olevere the marijuana leaves for P10.00. 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 right to meet the witness against him face to face and to cross-examination e him has been violated. Held: Yes. For the court to admit the sworn statement of Malcon Olevere without giving the adverse party the right to cross-examine him would easily facilitate the fabrication of evidence and the perpetration of fraud. The inadmissibility of this sort of evidence is based, not only on the lack of opportunity on the part of the adverse party to crossexamine the affiant, 17 but also on the commonly known fact that, generally, an affidavit is not prepared by the affiant himself but by another who uses his own language in writing the affiant's statements which may either be omitted or misunderstood by the one writing them. 18 For the same reason, that Malcon Olevere was not presented as a witness and insofar as they impute to appellant the commission of the crime charged, the adduced evidence are nothing but hearsay evidence. They cannot be regarded as competent evidence 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 is considered hearsay and may not be received as proof of the truth of what he has

learned. Since Malcon Olevere was not presented as a witness, the testimonies offered by the witnesses for the prosecution are regarded as hearsay, insofar as they impute to the appellant the commission of the offense charged. WHEREFORE, accused acquitted.