3. Admissions and Confessions continued his attack and grabbed his gun.

After a brief struggle, my

client was forced to shoot the deceased in the defense of his person
Sec. 26. Admissions of a Party and money. My client will submit a formal statement during the proper
preliminary investigation, if needed.
[ABON] Sanvicente v. People, G.R. No. 132081, November 26, 2002 On June 13, 1995, my clients car (Mercedes Benz with plate no. TFU
736) was taken by your operatives led by Capt. Alejandro Casanova
DOCTRINE: An admission is defined under Rule 130, Section 26 of and [is] now in your custody.
the Rules of Court as the act, declaration or omission of a party as In view of the untoward incident, my client suffered serious anxiety and
to a relevant fact. A confession, on the other hand, under Rule 130, depression and was advised to undergo medical treatment and
Section 33 is the declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of confinement at the Delos Santos Hospital in Rodriguez Ave., Q. C. My
the offense charged or any offense necessarily included therein. client would have no objection if you assigned police escort/guard
under your supervision pending his confinement.
FACTS: For all intense (sic) & purposes, this letter shall serve as a voluntary
Petitioner was charged with homicide for the killing of one Dennis surrender, without admission of guilt on the part of my client.
Wong y Chua.On June 11, 1995, at around 5:30 p.m., petitioner fatally
shot Dennis Wong y Chua outside the Far East Bank along Katipunan At his arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty.
Avenue, Loyola Heights, Quezon City after the latter allegedly
attempted to rob him of a large amount of cash which he had just During the trial, the prosecution presented Ballistics Report No. B-046-
withdrawn from the automatic teller machine. 95, stating that slugs recovered from the crime scene, on the one
hand, and cartridge cases fired from petitioners caliber .45 Mark IV
Meanwhile, recovered at the scene were five empty caliber .45 shells, pistol, on the other hand, were fired from the same firearm.The
two live caliber .45 bullets and an ATM card in the name of Violeta Medico-Legal Officer who conducted the autopsy on the deceased
Sanvicente. failed to appear at the trial. In order to dispense with her testimony,
petitioner admitted the due execution and genuineness of the medico-
On June 13, 1995, police authorities located petitioners car in Barrio legal report. After trial, the prosecution filed its Formal Offer of
Malapit, San Isidro, Nueva Ecija and took custody thereof. Exhibits,which included the above-quoted letter of petitioners counsel
to P/Maj. Antonio Diaz, marked as Exhibit LL.
Petitioners counsel, Atty. Leonardo A. Valmonte, turned over to Police
Station 9 petitioners .45 caliber Mark IV pistol bearing Serial No. On August 29, 1996, petitioner filed a Motion To Dismiss (On Demurrer
5504095. He also wrote a letter addressed to P/Major Antonio Diaz, to Evidence) based on the following grounds: (1) the lack of positive
Station Commander of PNP Station 9, CPDC, Anonas Road, Quezon identification of the accused is a fatal omission warranting dismissal;
City which reads as follows: (2) prosecutions evidence are totally hearsay/incompetent, hence,
According to my client, Joel Sanvicente, on said date, place and hour inadmissible and the guilt of the accused was not proven by positive
above he just withdrew from the Far East Bank and Trust Co., evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
Katipunan branch a large amount of cash. On his way out of the bank,
said victim immediately attacked him to grab the money he has just The trial court issued an Order dismissing the case together with the
withdrew (sic). My said client pulled out his gun (duly licensed with civil aspect thereof for insufficiency of evidence.
Permit to Carry) and fired a warning shot upwards. Still the deceased
1
The prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied prosecution, this extrajudicial confession constitutes the strongest
on the ground, among others, that with the dismissal of the case evidence of guilt.[33]
double jeopardy had set in.
An admission is defined under Rule 130, Section 26 of the Rules of
The prosecution filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. Court as the act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant
The appellate court nullified the Order of the trial court. Petitioners fact. A confession, on the other hand, under Rule 130, Section 33 is
motion for reconsideration was likewise denied in a Resolution dated the declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense
January 2, 1998.Hence, the instant petition. charged or any offense necessarily included therein.

More particularly, a confession is a declaration made at any time by a

ISSUE: person, voluntarily and without compulsion or inducement stating or
WON the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in preventing acknowledging that he had committed or participated in the
the prosecution from establishing the due execution and authenticity of commission of a crime. The term admission, on the other hand, is
Exhibit LL which, it claimed, positively identified petitioner as the usually applied in criminal cases to statements of fact by the accused
perpetrator of the crime charged. which do not directly involve an acknowledgment of the guilt of the
accused or of criminal intent to commit the offense with which he is
HELD: charged.[34]
No.
In short, in a confession, an accused acknowledges his guilt; while
In the instant case, petitioner filed a demurrer to evidence after the there is no such acknowledgment of guilt in an admission.[35] Only
prosecution adduced its evidence and rested its case. The trial court recently in People v. Licayan,[36] the Court distinguished confession
subsequently dismissed the case after finding that the evidence and admission in this wise:
presented by the prosecution was insufficient to support the charge
against petitioner. The prosecution, which relied primarily on Exhibit LL A confession is an acknowledgment in express terms, by a party in a
as the basis for the indictment against petitioner, however, contested criminal case, of his guilt of the crime charged, while an admission is a
the dismissal of the case allegedly because the trial court prevented it statementby the accused, direct or implied, of facts pertinent to the
from further identifying the genuineness and due execution of said issue, and tending, in connection with proof of other facts, to prove his
document in the manner that it wanted.[31] guilt. In other words, an admission is something less than a
confession, and is but an acknowledgment of some fact or
The crux of the problem lies in the confusion between the due circumstance which in itself is insufficient to authorize a conviction, and
execution of a piece of documentary evidence vis--vis the truth of its which tends only to establish the ultimate fact of guilt. (Emphasis ours)
contents. Likewise at the core of the dilemma is the fundamental [37]
distinction between an admission and a confession. The prosecution
maintains that the letter, Exhibit LL, constituted a confession and There is no question that the letter dated June 14, 1995 is an
argues thus: What better evidence is there to positively identify the admission, not a confession, because of the unmistakable qualification
perpetrator of the crime than the confession of the petitioner himself, in its last paragraph that
freely and voluntarily given, assisted by counsel?[32] According to the

2
For all intense (sic) & purposes, this letter shall serve as a voluntary filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Tuguegarao, Cagayan.The
surrender, without admission of guilt on the part of my client. . . accusatory portion reads as follows:
(Emphasis and italics supplied). That on or about July 30, 1990, in the Municipality of Tuguegarao,
Province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
With the foregoing distinctions in mind, the trial court correctly rejected Court, the said accused, PO1 Dolores C. Lorenzo, armed with a bolo
the prosecutions motion to have Exhibit LL further identified in the and a fan knife, with intent to kill, with evident premeditation and with
manner that it wanted,[38] i.e., through the proposed testimony of treachery did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
petitioners counsel, Atty. Valmonte, who incidentally refused to assault, stab, hack and chop one, Agapito Lorenzo, her own husband,
testify.Aside from covering a subject which squarely falls within the inflicting upon him several injuries on the different parts of his body
scope of privileged communication, it would, more importantly, be which caused his death.
tantamount to converting the admission into a confession. That in the commission of the offense, the aggravating circumstance of
cruelty was present.
It can not be denied that the contents of Exhibit LL, particularly with
regard to the details of the shooting communicated by petitioner to On 24 February 1993, the trial court promulgated its judgment finding
Atty. Valmonte, is privileged because it is connected with the business the appellant guilty of the crime of parricide and sentencing her to
for which petitioner retained the services of the latter.[39] More suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the
specifically, said communication was relayed by petitioner to Atty. victim P50,000.00.
Valmonte in order to seek his professional advice or assistance in
relation to the subject matter of the employment, or to explain Meanwhile,at the trial, the prosecution presented barangay captain
something in connection with it, so as to enable him to better advice Isabelo Liban and SPO1 Jose Eclipse as its witnesses. The
his client or manage the litigation.[40] Hence, there is no grave abuse prosecution evidence tells the following story: Agapito Lorenzo and
on the part of the trial court in dismissing the charges against accused Dolores Lorenzo were spouses residing in Looban, Barangay
petitioner. The petition is GRANTED. 12, Balzain, Tuguegarao, Cagayan. Among their neighbors are
Barangay Captain Isabelo Liban, Romeo Racheta and Robert Santos.
In the evening of July 30, 1990, SPO1 Jose Eclipse of the Tuguegarao
[ABON] People v. Lorenzo y Corsino, G.R. No. 110107, January 26, PNP Station was in Balzain, Tuguegarao, Cagayan because that was
1995 his post for the night. At about a little past 10:00 o'clock that evening, a
tricycle driver went to Policeman Eclipse and reported to him a
stabbing incident in said Barangay 12;
DOCTRINE: An admissible confession or admission which has been Policeman Eclipse rushed to the reported crime scene. On his way, he
duly proved shifts to the accused the burden of evidence to disprove, met PO1 Dolores Lorenzo, a policewoman of his own Station who
by strong evidence, that he made the admission, or admitting it, that he immediately surrendered to him a blood-stained bolo and a fan knife
is not guilty of the crime. and told him, "I killed my husband".
The two proceeded to where the victim was. In front of the store of
FACTS: Barangay Captain Isabelo Liban, Policeman Eclipse saw Agapito
On March 30, 1992, accused-appellant Dolores Lorenzo y Corsino, a sprawled on the ground with blood all over his body.
policewoman, was charged with the crime of parricide, an information Policeman Eclipse called for Barangay Captain Liban to come out of
his house. In the presence and within the hearing of said barangay
3
official, Policewoman Lorenzo again said, "I'm surrendering because I The Court does not agree with the trial court's characterization of the
killed my husband". appellant's declaration that she killed her husband as an extrajudicial
Policeman Eclipse ordered somebody to get a tricycle to bring the confession. It is only an admission. It is clear from Sections 26 and 33,
lifeless body of Agapito Lorenzo to a funeral parlor while he and Rule 130 of the Rules of Court that there is a distinction between an
Policewoman Lorenzo went to the Tuguegarao PNP Station. admission and a confession. These sections reads as follows:
Policeman Eclipse turned over Policewoman Lorenzo together with the Sec. 26. Admission of a party. The act, declaration or admission of
bolo and knife to the Desk Officer, SPO3 Urbano Aquino. Eclipse then a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.
orally made his report to the Desk Officer which was noted down in the xxx xxx xxx
Police Blotter. Sec. 33. Confession. The declaration of an accused acknowledging
his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included
While the defense presented the appellant herself and Romeo therein, may be given in evidence against him.
Racheta. It painted another picture of the incident. It's theory is that it In a confession. there is an acknowledgment of guilt. Admission is
was not Policewoman Lorenzo but a certain Robert Santos who killed usually applied in criminal cases to statements of fact by the accused
Agapito. which do not directly involve an acknowledgment of guilt of the
accused or of the criminal intent to commit the offense with which he is
The trial court gave full faith and credit to the testimonies of the charged. 24
prosecution witnesses. It found nothing on record which showed that
their impartiality had been vitiated or compromised or that they had Wharton 25 defines confession as follows:
any motive to falsely impute upon the appellant the commission of the A confession is an acknowledgment in express terms, by a party in a
crime. It further declared that when the appellant surrendered the knife criminal case, of his guilt of the crime charged, while an admission is a
and bolo to SPO1 Eclipse and volunteered the information that she statement by the accused, direct or implied, of facts pertinent to the
killed her husband, she made an extrajudicial confession and nothing issue, and tending, in connection with proof of other facts, to prove his
more was needed to prove her culpability. The trial court held that the guilt. In other words, an admission is something less than a
confession was admissible for it was not made in violation of confession, and is but an acknowledgment of some fact or
paragraph 1, Section 12, Article III of the Constitution. The appellant circumstance which in itself is insufficient to authorize a conviction, and
was neither under police custody nor under investigation in connection which tends only to establish the ultimate fact of guilt.
with the killing of her husband.However, the trial court rejected the
story of the defense and characterized it as "palpably a put-up Underhill 26 distinguishes a confession from an admission as follows:
scenario . . . . [A] story which runs against the grain of ordinary reality A confession is defined as an acknowledgment of guilt of the crime
controverts logic and assails common sense." charged or of the facts which constitute the crime; but it is an
admission and not a confession if the facts acknowledged raise an
ISSUE: WON the appellants declaration that she killed her husband is inference of guilt only when considered with other facts.
an extrajudicial confession.
While Wigmore 27 says:
HELD: A confession is an acknowledgment in express words, by the accused
No. in a criminal case, of the truth of the guilty fact charged or of some
essential part of it. 28

4
Nevertheless, whether it was a confession or an admission, it was
admissible against the appellant and, having been duly proved, For resolution are petitioners Motion for Reconsideration in G.R. Nos.
together with the other facts and circumstances, the burden of the 146710-15 and Omnibus Motion in G.R. No. 146738 of the Courts
evidence was shifted to the appellant to disprove, by strong evidence, Decision of March 2, 2001.
that she made the admission or, admitting it, to prove that she was not
guilty of killing her husband. As earlier shown, the trial court On Evidentiary Issues
characterized her story as "palpably a put-up scenario.
. . . . [A] story which runs against the grain of ordinary reality, WHETHER OR NOT THE ANGARA DIARY IS INADMISSIBLE FOR
controverts logic and assails common sense." The five reasons BEING VIOLATIVE OF THE RULES ON EVIDENCE SPECIFICALLY,
enumerated by it to support this conclusion are founded on or are ADMISSIONS AND RES INTER ACTA RULE.
inferred from facts duly established by the prosecution or are otherwise
solidly based on common experience, logic, and common sense.
Petitioner devotes a large part of his arguments on the alleged
The trial court had stated that if indeed the appellant never confessed improper use by this Court of the Angara Diary. It is urged that the use
to Eclipse that she killed her husband, she should have protested of the Angara Diary to determine the state of mind of the petitioner on
when Eclipse reported to the desk officer that she had confessed to the issue of his resignation violates the rule against the admission of
the killing of her husband or she should have attempted to correct the hearsay evidence.
entry in the police blotter containing this inculpatory report. The
appellant demonstrated her penchant for falsehood when, in order to We are unpersuaded. To begin with, the Angara diary is not an out of
refute this statement, she asserted in her brief that nothing in the court statement. The Angara Diary is part of the pleadings in the cases
record clearly shows that she heard Eclipse making the report and that at bar. Petitioner cannot complain he was not furnished a copy of the
she read the entry in the police blotter. She conveniently forgot that on Angara Diary. Nor can he feign surprise on its use. To be sure, the
cross-examination she admitted having heard Eclipse making the said Diary was frequently referred to by the parties in their
report but claiming that she did not protest because she was not in her pleadings.[3] The three parts of the Diary published in the PDI from
right senses and was in a state of shock at the time. February 4-6, 2001 were attached as Annexes A-C, respectively, of
the Memorandum of private respondents Romeo T. Capulong, et al.,
The Court has held that the testimony of the accused is not credible dated February 20, 2001. The second and third parts of the Diary were
where he has adopted an attitude of indifference relative to the crime earlier also attached as Annexes 12 and 13 of the Comment of private
he is accused of and where he failed to inform the police authorities respondents Capulong, et al., dated February 12, 2001. In fact,
and the fiscal during the investigation that it was not he but somebody petitioner even cited in his Second Supplemental Reply Memorandum
else who committed the murder.APPEALED DECISION IS both the second part of the diary, published on February 5, 2001,[4]
AFFIRMED. and the third part, published on February 6, 2001.[5] It was also
extensively used by Secretary of Justice Hernando Perez in his oral
arguments. Thus, petitioner had all the opportunity to contest the use
of the Diary but unfortunately failed to do so.
[ABON] Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15, 146738 Meanwhile, the Angara Diary contains direct statements of petitioner
(Resolution), April 3, 2001 which can be categorized as admissions of a party: his proposal for a
snap presidential election where he would not be a candidate; his
5
statement that he only wanted the five-day period promised by Chief of Again, petitioner errs in his contention. The res inter alios acta rule
Staff Angelo Reyes; his statements that he would leave by Monday if has several exceptions. One of them is provided in section 29 of Rule
the second envelope would be opened by Monday and Pagod na 130 with respect to admissions by a co-partner or agent.
pagod na ako. Ayoko na, masyado nang masakit. Pagod na ako sa red
tape, bureaucracy, intriga. (I am very tired. I dont want any more of this Executive Secretary Angara as such was an alter ego of the petitioner.
its too painful. Im tired of the red tape, the bureaucracy, the intrigue). I He was the Little President. Indeed, he was authorized by the
just want to clear my name, then I will go. We noted that days before, petitioner to act for him in the critical hours and days before he
petitioner had repeatedly declared that he would not resign despite the abandoned Malacanang Palace. Thus, according to the Angara Diary,
growing clamor for his resignation. The reason for the meltdown is the petitioner told Secretary Angara: Mula umpisa pa lang ng
obvious - - - his will not to resign has wilted. kampanya, Ed, ikaw na lang pinakikinggan ko. At hanggang sa huli,
ikaw pa rin. (Since the start of the campaign, Ed, you have been the
It is, however, argued that the Angara Diary is not the diary of the only one Ive listened to. And now at the end, you still are.)[17] This
petitioner, hence, non-binding on him. The argument overlooks the statement of full trust was made by the petitioner after Secretary
doctrine of adoptive admission. An adoptive admission is a partys Angara briefed him about the progress of the first negotiation. True to
reaction to a statement or action by another person when it is this trust, the petitioner had to ask Secretary Angara if he would
reasonable to treat the partys reaction as an admission of something already leave Malacanang after taking their final lunch on January 20,
stated or implied by the other person.[13] Jones explains that the basis 2001 at about 1:00 p.m. The Angara Diary quotes the petitioner as
for admissibility of admissions made vicariously is that arising from the saying to Secretary Angara: ed, kailangan ko na bang umalis? (Do I
ratification or adoption by the party of the statements which the other have to leave now?)[18] Secretary Angara told him to go and he did.
person had made.[14] To use the blunt language of Mueller and Petitioner cannot deny that Secretary Angara headed his team of
Kirkpatrick, this process of attribution is not mumbo jumbo but common negotiators that met with the team of the respondent Arroyo to discuss
sense.[15] In the Angara Diary, the options of the petitioner started to the peaceful and orderly transfer of power after his relinquishment of
dwindle when the armed forces withdrew its support from him as the powers of the presidency. The Diary shows that petitioner was
President and commander-in-chief. Thus, Executive Secretary Angara always briefed by Secretary Angara on the progress of their
had to ask Senate President Pimentel to advise petitioner to consider negotiations. Secretary Angara acted for and in behalf of the petitioner
the option of dignified exit or resignation. Petitioner did not object to in the crucial days before respondent Arroyo took her oath as
the suggested option but simply said he could never leave the country. President. Consequently, petitioner is bound by the acts and
Petitioners silence on this and other related suggestions can be taken declarations of Secretary Angara.
as an admission by him.[16] Under our rules of evidence, admissions of an agent (Secretary
Angara) are binding on the principal (petitioner).[19] Jones very well
Petitioner further contends that the use of the Angara diary against him explains the reasons for the rule, viz: What is done, by agent, is done
violated the rule on res inter alios acta. The rule is expressed in by the principal through him, as through a mere instrument. So,
section 28 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, viz: The rights of a party whatever is said by an agent, either in making a contract for his
cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, principal, or at the time and accompanying the performance of any act
except as hereinafter provided. within the scope of his authority, having relation to, and connected
with, and in the course of the particular contract or transaction in which
he is then engaged, or in the language of the old writers, dum fervet

6
opus is, in legal effect, said by his principal and admissible in evidence withdrew (sic). My said client pulled out his gun (duly licensed with
against such principal.[20] Permit to Carry) and fired a warning shot upwards. Still the deceased
continued his attack and grabbed his gun.After a brief struggle, my
Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration in G.R. Nos. 146710-15 and his client was forced to shoot the deceased in the defense of his person
Omnibus Motion in G.R. No. 146738 are DENIED for lack of merit. and money. My client will submit a formal statement during the proper
preliminary investigation, if needed.
[ABON] Sanvicente v. People, G.R. No. 132081, November 26, 2002 On June 13, 1995, my clients car (Mercedes Benz with plate no. TFU
736) was taken by your operatives led by Capt. Alejandro Casanova
DOCTRINE: An admission is defined under Rule 130, Section 26 of and [is] now in your custody.
the Rules of Court as the act, declaration or omission of a party as In view of the untoward incident, my client suffered serious anxiety and
to a relevant fact. A confession, on the other hand, under Rule 130, depression and was advised to undergo medical treatment and
Section 33 is the declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of confinement at the Delos Santos Hospital in Rodriguez Ave., Q. C. My
the offense charged or any offense necessarily included therein. client would have no objection if you assigned police escort/guard
under your supervision pending his confinement.
FACTS: For all intense (sic) & purposes, this letter shall serve as a voluntary
Petitioner was charged with homicide for the killing of one Dennis surrender, without admission of guilt on the part of my client.
Wong y Chua.On June 11, 1995, at around 5:30 p.m., petitioner fatally
shot Dennis Wong y Chua outside the Far East Bank along Katipunan At his arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty.
Avenue, Loyola Heights, Quezon City after the latter allegedly
attempted to rob him of a large amount of cash which he had just During the trial, the prosecution presented Ballistics Report No. B-046-
withdrawn from the automatic teller machine. 95, stating that slugs recovered from the crime scene, on the one
hand, and cartridge cases fired from petitioners caliber .45 Mark IV
Meanwhile, recovered at the scene were five empty caliber .45 shells, pistol, on the other hand, were fired from the same firearm.The
two live caliber .45 bullets and an ATM card in the name of Violeta Medico-Legal Officer who conducted the autopsy on the deceased
Sanvicente. failed to appear at the trial. In order to dispense with her testimony,
petitioner admitted the due execution and genuineness of the medico-
On June 13, 1995, police authorities located petitioners car in Barrio legal report. After trial, the prosecution filed its Formal Offer of
Malapit, San Isidro, Nueva Ecija and took custody thereof. Exhibits,which included the above-quoted letter of petitioners counsel
to P/Maj. Antonio Diaz, marked as Exhibit LL.
Petitioners counsel, Atty. Leonardo A. Valmonte, turned over to Police
Station 9 petitioners .45 caliber Mark IV pistol bearing Serial No. On August 29, 1996, petitioner filed a Motion To Dismiss (On Demurrer
5504095. He also wrote a letter addressed to P/Major Antonio Diaz, to Evidence) based on the following grounds: (1) the lack of positive
Station Commander of PNP Station 9, CPDC, Anonas Road, Quezon identification of the accused is a fatal omission warranting dismissal;
City which reads as follows: (2) prosecutions evidence are totally hearsay/incompetent, hence,
According to my client, Joel Sanvicente, on said date, place and hour inadmissible and the guilt of the accused was not proven by positive
above he just withdrew from the Far East Bank and Trust Co., evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
Katipunan branch a large amount of cash. On his way out of the bank,
said victim immediately attacked him to grab the money he has just
7
The trial court issued an Order dismissing the case together with the freely and voluntarily given, assisted by counsel?[32] According to the
civil aspect thereof for insufficiency of evidence. prosecution, this extrajudicial confession constitutes the strongest
The prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied evidence of guilt.[33]
on the ground, among others, that with the dismissal of the case
double jeopardy had set in. An admission is defined under Rule 130, Section 26 of the Rules of
Court as the act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant
The prosecution filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. fact. A confession, on the other hand, under Rule 130, Section 33 is
The appellate court nullified the Order of the trial court. Petitioners the declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense
motion for reconsideration was likewise denied in a Resolution dated charged or any offense necessarily included therein.
January 2, 1998.Hence, the instant petition.
More particularly, a confession is a declaration made at any time by a
person, voluntarily and without compulsion or inducement stating or
ISSUE: acknowledging that he had committed or participated in the
WON the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in preventing commission of a crime. The term admission, on the other hand, is
the prosecution from establishing the due execution and authenticity of usually applied in criminal cases to statements of fact by the accused
Exhibit LL which, it claimed, positively identified petitioner as the which do not directly involve an acknowledgment of the guilt of the
perpetrator of the crime charged. accused or of criminal intent to commit the offense with which he is
charged.[34]
HELD:
No. In short, in a confession, an accused acknowledges his guilt; while
there is no such acknowledgment of guilt in an admission.[35] Only
In the instant case, petitioner filed a demurrer to evidence after the recently in People v. Licayan,[36] the Court distinguished confession
prosecution adduced its evidence and rested its case. The trial court and admission in this wise:
subsequently dismissed the case after finding that the evidence
presented by the prosecution was insufficient to support the charge A confession is an acknowledgment in express terms, by a party in a
against petitioner. The prosecution, which relied primarily on Exhibit LL criminal case, of his guilt of the crime charged, while an admission is a
as the basis for the indictment against petitioner, however, contested statementby the accused, direct or implied, of facts pertinent to the
the dismissal of the case allegedly because the trial court prevented it issue, and tending, in connection with proof of other facts, to prove his
from further identifying the genuineness and due execution of said guilt. In other words, an admission is something less than a
document in the manner that it wanted.[31] confession, and is but an acknowledgment of some fact or
circumstance which in itself is insufficient to authorize a conviction, and
The crux of the problem lies in the confusion between the due which tends only to establish the ultimate fact of guilt. (Emphasis ours)
execution of a piece of documentary evidence vis--vis the truth of its [37]
contents. Likewise at the core of the dilemma is the fundamental
distinction between an admission and a confession. The prosecution There is no question that the letter dated June 14, 1995 is an
maintains that the letter, Exhibit LL, constituted a confession and admission, not a confession, because of the unmistakable qualification
argues thus: What better evidence is there to positively identify the in its last paragraph that
perpetrator of the crime than the confession of the petitioner himself,
8
For all intense (sic) & purposes, this letter shall serve as a voluntary neighbors. Appellant's father, Peping Caritativo, and Catalino were
surrender, without admission of guilt on the part of my client. . . friends.
(Emphasis and italics supplied). Catalino asked the appellant who he was going to stab. The appellant
pointed to a certain person Catalino did not know, saying that that
With the foregoing distinctions in mind, the trial court correctly rejected person was the one who ran over and killed his mother ("siya ang
the prosecutions motion to have Exhibit LL further identified in the nakasagasa sa nanay ko"). The appellant then showed Catalino a
manner that it wanted,[38] i.e., through the proposed testimony of knife tucked in his waist. The knife was a double-bladed instrument
petitioners counsel, Atty. Valmonte, who incidentally refused to about 8 inches long.
testify.Aside from covering a subject which squarely falls within the Catalino did not know the person singled out by the appellant.
scope of privileged communication, it would, more importantly, be Nevertheless, he advised the intended victim to leave the dance hall.
tantamount to converting the admission into a confession. About five minutes later, a commotion arose. People inside the dance
hall were running in different directions. Most of them ran towards the
It can not be denied that the contents of Exhibit LL, particularly with jeep parked some ten meters away from the dance hall. Two
regard to the details of the shooting communicated by petitioner to personshad been stabbed. One was bleeding inside the jeep while the
Atty. Valmonte, is privileged because it is connected with the business other was sprawled on the ground, dying. One of the victims was
for which petitioner retained the services of the latter.[39] More Freddie Mariano (the victim in this case). Catalino knew Mariano but
specifically, said communication was relayed by petitioner to Atty. did not know the other victim.
Valmonte in order to seek his professional advice or assistance in At around 4:00 a.m., Catalino left the dance hall to go home. He met
relation to the subject matter of the employment, or to explain the appellant on the highway, about 150 meters from the dance hall.
something in connection with it, so as to enable him to better advice They went home together. While walking, the appellant put his arm on
his client or manage the litigation.[40] Hence, there is no grave abuse Catalino's shoulder and told him that he was the one who stabbed the
on the part of the trial court in dismissing the charges against victims. Pointing to his stomach, the appellant said, "Dito pare, sinagad
petitioner. The petition is GRANTED. ko hanggang lumagitik sa jeep."
Catalino did not believe the appellant at first but when a vehicle
[ANACTA] People v. Caritativo, G.R. Nos. 145452-53, June 10, 2003 passed by and its lights focused on the appellant's white shirt, Catalino
noticed blood on it. The appellant started to run away but Catalino held
FACTS: his arm. Catalino told him not to run lest the people suspect him. They
Larry Caritativo, was charged of the crime of murder for stabbing one then proceeded to their respective homes. Catalino's house was only
Expidito "Freddie" Mariano and Marlon Trambulo. one kilometer away from the dance hall. Before they parted, the
The prosecution presented four witnesses, namely: Catalino Gonzales, appellant told Catalino not to tell anybody about his revelation.17
Expedito Prado, Dr. Michael Jimenez and Rosalinda Mariano At around 7:00 a.m. of the same day (April 28, 1995), the father of the
(Here are two most important Testimonies related to our topic J ) appellant, Peping Caritativo (Peping), went to Catalino's house. Peping
Catalino Gonzales (Catalino) testified that around 3:30 a.m. on and Catalino were neighbors. Peping told Catalino, "Pare, ikaw lang
April 28, 1995, while he was attending a dance on the occasion of the ang nakakaalam na nakasaksak ang aking anak." Catalino replied,
wedding of Minesa Dalida and a certain Zamora in Sitio Bulangcog, "Pare, pag nalaman ng batas 'yan delikado ka." Peping then
Barangay Iriron, Calintaan, Occidental Mindoro, the appellant, Larry threatened him, "Pare, ikaw lang ang nakakaalam nito kaya delikado
Caritativo, whispered to him that he was going to stab somebody. ka!"
Catalino had known the appellant for a long time because they were
9
 The second prosecution witness was Expedito Prado (Expedito). the names of the persons on the dance floor, except Monching
He testified that he had known the appellant for six years.20 At around (Monchito) Angeles. Although he joined the drinking spree, he was not
3:30 a.m. on April 28, 1995, while a dance was going on during the drunk. He did not know the victims, Freddie Mariano and Marlon
wedding reception of his niece, Minesa Dalida, in Sitio Bulangcog, Trambulo. He was not aware of any commotion in the early morning of
Iriron, Occidental Mindoro, he was seated on a chair outside a parked April 28, 1995.
passenger jeep, waiting for a ride home to Calintaan. The parked He left the dance hall at 6:00 a.m. and went home by foot. His house
passenger jeep was about four arms length away from the dance hall. was two kilometers away from the hall. He did not meet anybody on
Without noticing Expedito, the appellant entered the jeep and the way. He proceeded to his father's house instead and rested there
immediately stabbed the two sleeping persons inside ("pag-akyat sa from 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. His father and mother were at home. His
jeep bigla na lang sinaksak 'yung dalawang natutulog"). parents' house was two kilometers away from his. His father told him
When the appellant alighted, he noticed Expedito. The appellant that Freddie Mariano and Marlon Trambulo were killed but he had no
chased him but Expedito was able to escape. The appellant ran reaction to the said information. After resting, he went to the place
towards the mango tree, about 20 meters from the parked jeep, while where the wedding was held and helped in the dismantling of the
Expedito ran home to Poblacion, Calintaan which was about three "damara." 44
kilometers away. He went to Manila on May 8, 1995 to look for a job. He landed a
stevedoring job at Pier 2 with the North Star Company. He worked
For its part, the defense presented four witnesses: Monchito Angeles, there for two years (from May 1995 to the latter part of 1997) but lost
Minesa Zamora, Santiago Caritativo and appellant himself, Larry his ID and other documents issued by North Star. He, however, had an
Caritativo. ID of Bantay Bayan, Manila. He was arrested on May 27, 1998 in
Monchito Angeles (Monchito) testified that he arrived at the Tondo, Manila while working as a vendor in Divisoria at that time. From
wedding party at around 7:00 p.m. on April 27, 1995. He helped in the time he left Bulangcog, he communicated with his wife and parents
serving the food. He noticed the presence of the appellant at around through letters.
9:00 p.m. He, his brother-in-law Herbert Montenegro, Obet Tanglaw
and the appellant held a drinking spree. After the drinking session (he In weighing the testimonies of the witnesses, the trial court gave more
could not remember the exact time it ended), he joined the dancing in credence to the prosecution witnesses and ruled that the defense of
the dance hall. At around 3:30 a.m., he was dancing the cha-cha with alibi by herein appellant must fail in the light of the following:
the appellant beside him. They suddenly heard shouting coming from 1. Expedito Prado could not have been mistaken in identifying the
where the "Jet-Ric" passenger jeep was parked. The jeep was about accused as the assailant of the victim. He was seated on a chair with
30 meters away from the dance hall.33 its back leaning at (sic) the parked passenger jeep, more or less four
People ran towards the jeep. Monchito did the same. There, he saw (4) arms length from the place where the dancing was taking place. He
Freddie Mariano dead inside the jeep and Marlon Trambulo bleeding saw the accused entered (sic) the jeep and stabbed Freddie Mariano
on the ground. He helped Marlon board the jeep with the help of and Marlon Trambulo. "Pag-akyat sa jeep bigla na lang sinaksak 'yung
Herbert Montenegro and one of Montenegros conductors. dalawang (2) natutulog." When the accused alighted from the jeep he
The fourth and last defense witness was the appellant himself, chased the witness but he was able to escape. (t.s.n. December 1,
Larry Caritativo 1998, pages 4-6).
He testified that he went to the wedding party at around 7:00 p.m. on 2. When the crime happened, the light coming from the dance hall
April 27, 1995. At around 3:00 a.m., he helped out in the kitchen. At reached the parked jeep and you can reached (sic) the jeep within four
4:00 a.m., he joined the dancing at the hall. He could not remember to five seconds by running (t.s.n. March 1, 1995, page 15). The
10
conditions for visibility were favorable, the ability of Prado as witness to Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. In Aballe vs. People, this Court held
recognize the accused should be upheld. that the declaration of an accused expressly acknowledging his guilt of
3. The possibility of mistaken identity was also ruled out by the fact the offense may be given in evidence against him and any person,
that Prado had known the accused even before the incident (t.s.n. otherwise competent to testify as a witness, who heard the confession,
December 1, 1998, page 3). is competent to testify as to the substance of what he heard if he heard
4. No ill motive was imputed by accused to Prado for having testified and understood it. The said witness need not repeat verbatim the oral
against him, thus Prado's testimony was no less than the untarnished confession; it suffices if he gives its substance." (emphasis ours)
truth. Prado's positive testimony that the accused was the perpetrator Clearly therefore, under Section 26, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court,
of the crime remained unchallenged (t.s.n. April 23, 1999, page 24).48 the admission by the appellant expressly acknowledging his guilt to
The trial court also ruled that the culpability of herein appellant was Catalino Gonzales, a private party, can very well be taken in evidence
further established by the fact that he fled Calintaan, Occidental against him.
Mindoro after the commission of the crime. The trial court did not Moreover, the appellant failed to show any improper motive why
believe his explanation that he left Calintaan to look for a job in Manila. Catalino Gonzales would testify falsely against him. The testimony of
Finding that treachery attended the commission of the crime, the trial appellant's father that the reason why Catalino testified falsely against
court convicted herein appellant of the crime of murder and sentenced the appellant was because he (appellant's father) hacked Catalino's
him to suffer the death penalty. dog was unworthy of belief, being uncorroborated and self-serving.
The allegation was hollow as nothing was offered to support it. When
ISSUES: there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive
1. Whether or not the testimony of Catalino Gonzales of the why a prosecution witness would testify falsely against an accused or
admission of appellant Carrativo to him of the commission of the crime, falsely implicate him in a heinous crime, the testimony is worthy of full
can be admitted as evidence against Carrativo. faith and credit.
Thus, the trial court correctly admitted in evidence the testimony of
2. Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in imposing the Catalino Gonzales regarding the admission of guilt by the appellant.
supreme penalty of death. But appellant's admission, standing alone, is not sufficient to convict
him. Being merely an inference, appellant's admission must be
HELD: supported by some other proof which shows his culpability for the
crime charged.
1. YES. We find no basis to doubt the testimony of Catalino
Gonzales. Catalino testified categorically and candidly that appellant 2. YES. In the present case, we can no longer consider treachery
confessed to him that he killed Freddie Mariano. And nowhere in the as an aggravating circumstance again, this time for the purpose of
records of the case did appellant ever categorically deny his admission imposing the death penalty, because it was already used to qualify the
of guilt to Catalino Gonzales. Section 26, Rule 130 of the Rules of killing to murder. Other than the qualifying circumstance of treachery,
Court provides: no proof of any other aggravating circumstance was presented during
Section 26. Admission of a party. - The act, declaration or omission of the trial or alleged before the court to justify the imposition of the death
a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. penalty. Thus, the proper penalty should only be reclusion perpetua.
And in People vs. Maqueda,57 we ruled that:
"Accordingly, Maqueda's admissions to Ray Dean Salvosa, a private
party, are admissible in evidence against the former under Section 26,
11
 The Estrellas and Arcalas, for their part, alleged in their answer that
they had no sufficient knowledge of facts and circumstances that might
[ANACTA] Estrella v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-44902, April 20, have caused the death of the victim, a nonagenarian deaf and/or
1989 physically incapacitated; Arcalas had never been a careless or
FACTS: reckless driver; and the defendant spouses had "always exercised due
An old woman was killed twenty-two years ago. Her killing has so far diligence in the selection and supervision of their employees, and
gone unpunished, her heirs' plea for redress so far unanswered. It is would never allow an employee to drive if he was reckless and
time that justice is done. careless."
The victim was Mauricia Baraceros. On January 21,1967, in Barrio San In due time, and on the plaintiffs heirs' motion, the case was set for
Bartolome, Rosales, Pangasinan, she was run over by a power wagon pre-trial on February 8,1968. Now began a long series of dilatory
being then driven by Rodolfo Arcalas. She suffered injuries resulting in maneuvers on the part of counsel for the Estrellas and Arcalas.
cerebral hemorrhage and died almost instantly. The Estrellas' counsel moved for postponement of the pre-trial for
The police conducted an investigation of the incident shortly after its several times. The pre-trial was finally held on May 16, 1968. The
occurrence in the course of which Arcalas declared in a sworn parties tried but failed to come to an amicable settlement. The case
statement that it was the power wagon he was operating which, while was set for trial on the merits on June 27, 1968. On June 27, 1968,
backing up, had run over Mauricia Baraceros; that the wagon belonged neither the Estrellas or Arcalas nor their counsel appeared for the trial.
to the spouses Conrado Estrella and Sergia Bautista Estrella; and that On February 4, 1970, judgment was finally handed down. The Trial
he was said spouses' driver. Court's verdict was in the heirs' favor.
A criminal case was filed in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan The Estrellas and Arcalas moved for reconsideration. The Court
against Rodolfo Arcalas, but was dismissed provisionally due to the denied the motion. The Estrellas and Arcalas appealed to the Court of
failure of the prosecution to present witnesses. Appeals. But it was denied.
Mauricia's heirs engaged the services of counsel who, on June 27, The petitioners submit that it was error for the Appellate Court to have
1967 made a written demand on the Estrella Spouses and their driver sanctioned the use of Arcalas' sworn statement (Exh. B) before the
for settlement of their claim for damages. The demand was ignored. It police as evidence, it being hearsay in character; to have adjudged
appears that an offer of the Estrellas of P500.00 as settlement had the Estrella Spouses liable despite absence of proof of their ownership
earlier been spurned by the heirs. of the vehicle and the employment relation between them and Arcalas;
Two months afterwards, the heirs of Mauricia Baraceros (the private and to have held that they had not been denied due process when
respondents herein named) brought suit in the Court of First Instance they "were not allowed continuance to present their defense nor to
of Manila against the Estrellas and Rodolfo Arcalas. In their complaint present a motion to dismiss."
they alleged that Arcalas had driven the power wagon in a "wanton,
reckless and imprudent manner and without regard to the safety of life ISSUE:
and property" and thus caused their mother's death; that the Estrellas Whether or not the sworn statement of Arcalas be admitted as
had "failed to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of evidence in order hold Estrella Spouses liable.
their employees, defendant driver having been reckless and careless;"
and that consequently the defendants should pay P15,000.00 as HELD:
actual and compensatory damages, P15,000.00 as moral damages, YES.
P10,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P3,000.00 as attorney's fees. Arcalas' statement to the police(Exh.B),in which he declared that while
he was driving a vehicle owned by the spouses Estrella, he had "run
12
over an old woman," constitutes competent proof it is an extra-judicial
admission, admissible pursuant to the well-known rule that the act,
declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be received
in evidence against him. [ANACTA] Cuison v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88539, October 26,
It is properly receivable as proof against the declarant, it being contrary 1993
to the position taken by him in the action. In the answer filed in behalf FACTS:
of the declarant, Arcalas and his co-defendants specifically denied, for Petitioner Kue Cuison is a sole proprietorship engaged in the purchase
lack of "sufficient knowledge," the allegation in the complaint that "on and sale of newsprint, bond paper and scrap, with places of business
January 21, 1967, at about 11:00 o'clock a.m., in Barrio San at Baesa, Quezon City, and Sto. Cristo, Binondo, Manila. Private
Bartolome, Resales, Pangasinan, the said motor vehicle, while being respondent Valiant Investment Associates, on the other hand, is a
driven by defendant Arcalas, ran over one Mauricia Baraceros partnership duly organized and existing under the laws of the
resulting in the latter's untimely death." That denial is obviously Philippines with business address at Kalookan City.
inconsistent with Arcalas' sworn written declaration that he had indeed From December 4, 1979 to February 15, 1980, private respondent
been operating the wagon in question on that date and time and had delivered various kinds of paper products amounting to P297,487.30 to
on that occasion "run over an old woman." It is precisely the factor of a certain Lilian Tan of LT Trading. The deliveries were made by
inconsistency between that declaration and the allegations in the respondent pursuant to orders allegedly placed by Tiu Huy Tiac who
pleading subsequently filed by him, concerning relevant facts, that was then employed in the Binondo office of petitioner. It was likewise
makes the former admissible in evidence against the declarant. pursuant to Tiac's instructions that the merchandise was delivered to
The hearsay rule has no application to the situation. The extra-judicial Lilian Tan. Upon delivery, Lilian Tan paid for the merchandise by
declaration is not excludible on the ground of hearsay- which issuing several checks payable to cash at the specific request of Tiu
proscribes evidence as to which opportunity to cross-examine is not Huy Tiac. In turn, Tiac issued nine (9) postdated checks to private
provided to the party against whom it is adduced at the time of respondent as payment for the paper products. Unfortunately, sad
presentation -since the declarant can hardly complain of not having the checks were later dishonored by the drawee bank.
opportunity to cross-examine himself at the time that his prior Thereafter, private respondent made several demands upon petitioner
statement is submitted as proof against him. to pay for the merchandise in question, claiming that Tiu Huy Tiac was
The petitioners' last submittal that they should have been accorded a duly authorized by petitioner as the manager of his Binondo office, to
postponement to present evidence in their behalf after the plaintiffs enter into the questioned transactions with private respondent and
had rested, or to file a demurrer to evidence, is also undeserving of Lilian Tan. Petitioner denied any involvement in the transaction
credit. It conveniently ignores the fact that they had already delayed entered into by Tiu Huy Tiac and refused to pay private respondent the
the disposition of the case by many motions for cancellation of, if not amount corresponding to the selling price of the subject merchandise.
indeed by failure to appear at hearings despite notice. It conveniently Left with no recourse, private respondent filed an action against
ignores the fact that they were granted by the Court a period of one petitioner for the collection of P297,487.30 representing the price of
month after the case had been declared submitted for decision, within the merchandise. After due hearing, the trial court dismissed the
which to make one last attempt to settle the case amicably- their complaint against petitioner for lack of merit. On appeal, however, the
constant representation to the Court being precisely that they were decision of the trial court was modified, but was in effect reversed by
negotiating for such a settlement, but the month passed with nothing at the Court of Appeals. Hence this petition.
all being heard from petitioners. It is evident from the records that by his own acts and admission,
petitioner held out Tiu Huy Tiac to the public as the manager of his
13
store in Sto. Cristo, Binondo, Manila. More particularly, petitioner Furthermore, consistent with and as an obvious indication of the fact
explicitly introduced Tiu Huy Tiac to Bernardino Villanueva, that Tiu Huy Tiac was the manager of the Sto. Cristo branch, three (3)
respondent's manager, as his (petitioner's) branch manager as testified months after Tiu Huy Tiac left petitioner's employ, petitioner even sent,
to by Bernardino Villanueva. communications to its customers notifying them that Tiu Huy Tiac is no
longer connected with petitioner's business. Such undertaking spoke
ISSUE: unmistakenly of Tiu Huy Tiac's valuable position as petitioner's
Whether or not Tiu Huy Tiac possessed the required authority from manager than any uttered disclaimer.
petitioner sufficient to hold the latter liable for the disputed transaction
More than anything else, this act taken together with the declaration of
HELD: petitioner in open court amount to admissions under Rule 130 Section
YES. It is a well-established rule that one who clothes another with 22 of the Rules of Court, to wit :
apparent authority as his agent and holds him out to the public as such "The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may
cannot be permitted to deny the authority of such person to act as his be given in evidence against him."
agent, to the prejudice of innocent third parties dealing with such For well-settled is the rule that "a man's acts, conduct, and declaration,
person in good faith and in the honest belief that he is what he appears wherever made, if voluntary, are admissible against him, for the reason
to be . From the facts and the evidence on record, there is no doubt that it is fair to presume that they correspond with the truth, and it is his
that this rule obtains. The petition must therefore fail. fault if they do not. If a man's extrajudicial admissions are admissible
against him, there seems to be no reason why his admissions made in
(Based on the Petitioners Testimony) open court, under oath, should not be accepted against him."
But of even greater weight than any of these testimonies, is petitioner's Moreover, petitioner's unexplained delay in disowning the transactions
categorical admission on the witness stand that Tiu Huy Tiac was the entered into by Tiu Huy Tiac despite several attempts made by
manager of his store in Sto. Cristo, Binondo, to wit: respondent to collect the amount from him, proved all the more that
Court: petitioner was aware of the questioned commission was tantamount to
xxx xxx xxx an admission by silence under Rule 130 Section 23 of the Rules of
Q: And who was managing the store in Sto. Cristo? Court, thus: "Any act or declaration made in the presence of and within
A: At first it was Mr. Ang, then later Mr. Tiu Huy Tiac but I cannot the observation of a party who does or says nothing when the act or
remember the exact year. declaration is such as naturally to call for action or comment if not true,
Q: So, Mr. Tiu Huy Tiac took over the management,. may be given in evidence against him."
A: Not that was because every afternoon, I was there, sir. All of these point to the fact that at the time of the transaction Tiu Huy
Q: But in the morning, who takes charge? Tiac was admittedly the manager of petitioner's store in Sto. Cristo,
A: Tiu Huy Tiac takes charge of management and if there (sic) orders Binondo. Consequently, the transaction in question as well as the
for newsprint or bond papers they are always referred to the concomitant obligation is valid and binding upon petitioner.
compound in Baesa, sir. (t.s.n., p. 16, Session of January 20, 1981,
CA decision, Rollo, p. 50, emphasis supplied). By his representations, petitioner is now estopped from disclaiming
liability for the transaction entered by Tiu Huy Tiac on his behalf.
Such admission, spontaneous no doubt, and standing alone, is More in point, we find that by the principle of estoppel, Manila
sufficient to negate all the denials made by petitioner regarding the Remnant is deemed to have allowed its agent to act as though it had
capacity of Tiu Huy Tiac to enter into the transaction in question. plenary powers. Article 1911 of the Civil Code provides:
14
"Even when the agent has exceeded his authority, the principal would look for Agcopra. When the boy reached Dorbits house, he saw
issolidarily liable with the agent if the former allowed the latter to act as appellant there with Rowena. Appellant told Rowena: "Day, come here
though he had full powers." (Emphasis supplied) because your father asked you to go home so you can eat your
Self-serving evidence is evidence made by a party out of court supper." Appellant then held the hand of Rowena and dragged her into
at one time; it does not include a party's testimony as a witness in a dark area. Rey Oriente, however, did not go with appellant and his
court. It is excluded on the same ground as any hearsay evidence, that sister, thinking that they were heading for the Bangcong house.
is the lack of opportunity for cross-examination by the adverse party, When Romeo got tired of waiting for Rowena, he went to the Dorbit
and on the consideration that its admission would open the door to house to inquire about her. Rey Oriente told him what happened,
fraud and to fabrication of testimony. On theother hand, a party's which caused him to cry. Neighbors were alerted and immediately
testimony in court is sworn and affords the other party the opportunity formed a posse to look for the girl. While searching for Rowena, they
for cross-examination. spotted appellant when they trained a flashlight to him. Appellant ran
towards the ricefield. The posse chased him, but failed to catch him
when he jumped into the deep Inobulan River. When appellant passed
[ANACTA] People v. Licayan y Sucano, G.R. No. 144422, February by a group of men who offered him a drink, his clothes were wet and
28, 2002 his body was muddy. He had no slippers. That same night, appellant
FACTS: was arrested by the police.
Appellant Aldrin Licayan and Bernard Agcopra were friends from way
back. On June 25, 1999, after years of absence, appellant went to The following morning, the dead and naked body of Rowena was
Agcopra who had a machine shop in Barangay Inobulan, Salay, found at the swamps, where appellant told Rogelio Dahilan, Jr., one of
Misamis Oriental, to apply for work as a grinder of engine valves. On the searchers, she would be. Photographs were taken of the girl. A
this occasion, they drank rum to celebrate their reunion. Romeo postmortem examination of the girl revealed that she had hematomas,
Bangcong, who was also Agcopras friend, joined them later in their lacerations, abrasions all over her body, as well as a deep incomplete
drinking bout. They finished drinking in Agcropas shop at 5:00 p.m. hymenal laceration at the 6:00 oclock position. The cause of death
The group continued drinking in the house of Wenny Rajal also in was asphyxia by submersion in water. Rowena died a painful death.
Barangay Inobulan, Salay, Misamis Oriental. After consuming two
bottles of Beer Grande, they bought a case of the same drink, which As stated earlier, after the prosecution had rested its case and formally
they brought to the house of Romeo. When they arrived, Romeos wife offered its evidence, accused-appellant escaped detention and has
Rosalinda and his children, Rey Oriente, Raymundo and five-year old remained at large despite efforts to apprehend him. Accused-
Rowena were there. Agcopra did not stay long and did not drink beer appellants escape should be considered a waiver of his right to be
anymore. He went with Romeo to the barangay captain leaving present at the trial and the inability of the court to notify him of the
appellant in Romeos house. When Romeo returned to his house, subsequent hearings will not prevent the court from continuing with the
appellant was embracing and kissing Rowena, justifying it by saying trial because the escapee is deemed to have received notice.
that he missed his daughter.
In the case at bar, accused-appellant was convicted on the basis of
Appellant kept on embracing Rowena. At 6:00 p.m., more or less, circumstantial evidence.
Rowena asked that she be allowed to watch television at neighbor
Dorbits house fifteen meters away. An hour later, Romeo told Rey Accused-appellant, however, insists that the foregoing circumstances
Oriente to fetch Rowena. Thereafter, appellant also left, saying that he are insufficient to prove his guilt. He argues that:
15
1.] the first three (3) circumstances do not point to accused-appellants culminate in a clear picture that will reveal a convincing scenario
guilt; pointing towards the accused as the author of the crime.
2.] prosecution witness Hernando Zambrano who was among those The credibility of prosecution witness Hernando Zambrano cannot be
who organized the search party, is not credible because he did not impeached by the mere fact that he failed to rouse other members of
shout upon finding accused-appellant; the search party when he found the accused-appellant. Suffice it to
3.] the witnesses could not have seen accused-appellant in the state that different people react differently to a given stimulus or type of
darkness; situation and there is no standard form of behavioral response when
4.] the witnesses could have seen somebody else; one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience.
5.] assuming that accused-appellant was the one seen by the posse, The contention that accused-appellant could not have been identified
he was not committing any wrong by running away; from a distance of about twenty (20) meters in the dark is untenable,
6.] the claim of prosecution witnesses that Jun-jun Dahilan told them considering that illumination produced by a flashlight or kerosene lamp
where Rowenas body could be found based on accused-appellants is sufficient to allow the identification of persons.
admission is hearsay; Accused-appellants argument that he did not commit any wrong in
7.] granting that accused-appellant revealed where Rowenas lifeless running away upon being espied by the search party likewise deserves
body could be found, he never admitted having raped and killed her; scant consideration. Courts go by the biblical truism that "the wicked
8.] the admission made by accused-appellant to Dahilan, Jr. is flee when no man pursueth but the righteous are as bold as a
inadmissible; 9.] the circumstance that accused-appellant was seen lion."Accused-appellant has not satisfactorily explained why he fled
with wet pants, muddy body and without slippers lacks probative value; upon being spotted by the posse.
and 10.] there were no tell-tale signs that accused-appellant was In People v. Templo, we held that "the act, declaration or omission of a
dragging Rowena to the swamp. party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. One
type of act that can be given in evidence against him is flight. In
criminal law, flight means an act of evading the course of justice by
ISSUE: voluntarily withdrawing oneself to avoid arrest or detention or the
Whether or not the circumstantial evidence against the accused- institution or continuance of criminal proceedings. The unexplained
appellant is sufficient enough to warrant his conviction. flight of the accused person may as a general rule be taken as
evidence having tendency to establish his guilt." In short, flight is an
HELD: indication of guilt. What makes flight particularly damaging for
YES. accused-appellant is that he fled twice, i.e. first, upon being spotted by
The series of events pointing to the commission of a felony is the search party and second, by scaling the perimeter fence of the
appreciated not singly but together. Like strands which create a pattern Provincial Jail while he was in the custody of the law and undergoing
when interwoven, a judgment of conviction based on circumstantial trial.
evidence can be upheld if the circumstances proved constitute an
unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion Accused-appellant cannot validly claim that the statement made by
pointing to the accused to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty Rogelio "Jun-jun" Dahilan, Jr. as to the location of the victims body is
person. hearsay. Any oral or documentary evidence is hearsay by nature if its
The peculiarity of circumstantial evidence is that the guilt of the probative value is not based on the personal knowledge of the
accused cannot be deduced from scrutinizing just one particular piece witnesses but on the knowledge of some other person who was never
of evidence. It is more like weaving a tapestry of events that will presented on the witness stand, because it is the opportunity to cross-
16
examine which negates the claim that the matters testified to by a In assaying the probative value of circumstantial evidence, four basic
witness are hearsay. In the instant case, Rogelio Dahilan, Jr. testified guidelines must be observed:
that accused-appellant indeed told him where the victims body can be 1) it should be acted upon with caution;
found. What is more, the victims body was actually recovered at the 2) all the essential facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt;
location pointed by accused-appellant. 3) the facts must exclude every other theory but that of guilt; and
Accused-appellants objection to the admissibility of his statement as 4) the facts must establish such a certainty of guilt of the accused as to
to where he dumped the body of the victim, which allegedly partakes of convince the judgment beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is
an extra-judicial confession, is just as tenuous. The foregoing is not an the one who committed the offense. The peculiarity of circumstantial
extra-judicial confession, but merely an extra-judicial admission. evidence is that the guilt of the accused cannot be deduced from
scrutinizing just one particular piece of evidence. It is more like a
**(Confession vs Admission)** puzzle which when put together reveals a convincing picture pointing
A confession is an acknowledgment in express terms, by a party in a towards the conclusion the accused is the author of the crime.
criminal case, of his guilt of the crime charged, while an admission is a
statement by the accused, direct or implied, of facts pertinent to issue,
and tending, in connection with proof of other facts, to prove his guilt.
In other words, an admission is something less than a confession and
is but an acknowledgment of some fact or circumstance which in itself
is insufficient to authorize a conviction, and which tends only to
establish the ultimate fact of guilt. [ANG] People v. Zuela y Morandarte, G.R. No. 112177, January 28,
Contrary to accused-appellants claim, he was in fact seen grabbing 2000
and dragging the struggling victim from the house where she was FACTS: The case involved the conviction of the three accused TITO
watching television by Rey Oriente, the victims elder brother. ZUELA y MORANDARTE, MAXIMO VELARDE y DE LOS REYES,
While accused-appellant indeed did not admit to anyone that he raped and NELSON GARCIA y TEMPORAS of the crime of robbery with
and killed Rowena, the prevailing circumstances overwhelmingly point homicide. In the evening of April 27, 1985 in Camagong, Cabusao,
to his guilt. As stated earlier, direct evidence is not always necessary Camarines Sur, Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring
to identify the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. A witness may and confederating together and mutually aiding each other, with intent
not have actually seen the very act of commission of a crime, hut he to gain, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with
may nevertheless identify the accused as the assailant as when the violence and intimidation against persons, that is by shooting and
latter is the person last seen with the victim immediately before and stabbing one Hegino Hernandez, Sr., Maria S. Abendao and John-
right after the commission of the crime, as in this case. John Abendao, thereby inflicting upon them mortal injuries that
caused their instantaneous death, take, rob and carry away the
In sum, the foregoing circumstances when viewed in their entirety are following personal properties belonging to the said Maria Abendao.
as convincing as direct evidence and, as such, negate the innocence Though there were no eyewitnesses, the prosecution established how
of the accused-appellant. In other words, the circumstantial evidence the crime was committed with the testimony of Romualda Algarin,
against accused-appellant fully justifies the finding of his guilt beyond which was in turn based on the extrajudicial admission given by
reasonable doubt of the felony committed. Maximo Velarde to Romualda when she visited the latter at the
Camaligan municipal jail. The three accused were arrested without an
arrest warrant and underwent custodial investigation without
17
assistance of counsel. They signed a statement of confession the date when she talked with accused-appellant Maximo while he was
allegedly under duress by the police. Maximo, Nelson and Tito signed detained considering the more than three-year gap between June
their individual statements before Judge Lore R. Valencia Bagalacsa, 1985 and September to October 1988 when Romualda testified.
Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Libmanan, Camarines Sur on three (3) However, it is not necessary that the witness should be able to fix
different dates. She followed the same procedure and line of accurately the date of the conversation in which the admission was
questioning, using the local dialect, in ascertaining the voluntariness of made. What is important is that the witness is able to state the
the three (3) accused's confessions. She ordered Lt. Idian and his substance of the conversation or declaration.
companions to leave her and the accused inside the chamber. Romualda's testimony on accused-appellant Maximo's admission
Satisfied that they were properly apprised of their rights and that they sealed not only the latter's fate but also that of appellants Tito and
voluntarily executed their statements, she had them sign their Nelson. The rule that an extrajudicial confession is binding only upon
individual extrajudicial statements. the confessant and is not admissible against his co-accused because
Maximo, Tito and Nelson interposed common defenses: (1) denial and the latter has no opportunity to cross-examine the confessant and
(2) that they were tortured and forced to make a confession. In therefore, as against him, the confession is hearsay, is not applicable
addition, Tito and Nelson claimed they were not assisted by counsel here. What is involved here is an admission, not a confession. A
when their confessions were taken. confession is an acknowledgment in express terms, by a party in a
Thereafter, the trial court promulgated its decision convicting the three criminal case, of his guilt of the crime charged, while an admission is a
(3) accused of robbery with homicide. statement by the accused, direct or implied, of facts pertinent to the
ISSUE: Whether or not there was a valid confession (NO) issue and tending, in connection with proof of other facts, to prove his
Wheter or not Romualda Algarins testimony regarding the accuseds guilt. In other words, an admission is something less than a
extrajudicia confession may be given weight (YES) confession, and is but an acknowledgment of some fact or
HELD: Contrary to the ruling of the trial court, the defect in the circumstance which in itself is insufficient to authorize a conviction and
confessions of Tito and Nelson was not cured by their signing the which tends only to establish the ultimate fact of guilt.
extra-judicial statements before Judge Bagalacsa. Appellants Tito and Nelson were afforded the opportunity to cross-
Nevertheless, the infirmity of accused-appellants' sworn statements did examine witness Romualda on accused-appellant Maximo's
not leave a void in the prosecution's case. Accused-appellant Maximo declaration. They could have questioned its veracity by presenting
repeated the contents of his sworn statement to Romualda Algarin evidence in support of their defenses of denial and alibi so they could
who, in turn, related these in court. Such declaration to a private put to test Romualda's credibility. Having failed to do so, Romualda's
person is admissible in evidence against accused-appellant Maximo testimony, which the trial court correctly considered as credible, stands
pursuant to Rule 130, Section 26 of the Rules of Court stating that the unscathed.
"act, declaration for omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be
given in evidence against him." The trial court, therefore, correctly [ANG] People v. Omictin y Singco, G.R. No. 188130, July 26, 2010
gave evidentiary value to Romualda's testimony. FACTS:
The defense failed to attribute any ill-motive on the part of Mary Lou Omictin was engaged in illegal recruitment and was
Romualda for testifying on accused-appellant Maximo's admission and able to take 40k php from 3 unsuspecting victims (Guevara,
therefore the presumption that in so testifying, she was impelled by no Caponpon, and Mago) and 16k php from another (Ambrosio). An
other reason than to tell the truth, stands. The fact that she is related to entrapment operation was set in motion. After receiving the marked
two of the victims did not render her testimony incredible. Relationship money, Omictin was arrested by the accompanying NBI agents.
per se is not proof of prejudice. She might have been mistaken as to Omictin was found guilty of violating Section 6, in relation to Sec. 7(b),
18
of Republic Act No. (RA) 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Petitioner filed a case before the RTC which they claim
Filipinos Act of 1995. Specifically, accused-appellant was charged with ownership over a land. Defendants was long before been terminated
and adjudged guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale and three (3) as administrator to the estate of Pedro Clemea y Conde who
counts of Estafa. deliberately continued to occupy and usurp possession and use of the
Aggrieved, Omictin appealed to the CA, raising in her Brief for disputed land and refused to relinquish possession of the same to the
the Accused-Appellant, the following issues: lawful owner thereof. But defendants claim that they are In exclusive
(1) Primo Guevarra was not the one who paid the accused, but Elisa possession over the disputed land and his claim of ownership was
Dotenes, who issued a check in favor of accused-appellant in behalf of based on sale by estate of late Pedro Clemea y Conde to his
Guevarra. Thus, without the supporting testimony of Dotenes who was predecessor-in-interest. RTC ruled declaring petitioners absolute
not presented by the prosecution, Guevarras testimony is owners of the land and directing respondents to respect petitioners
unsubstantiated and hearsay; and possession but later the RTC reconsidered its decision and found that
(2) As to private complainant Ambrosio, there was no receipt contending parties failed to prove their respective claims of ownership
presented to show payment to accused-appellant, rendering his and therefore the land in question still belongs to the original owner,
testimony uncorroborated and self-serving. the estate of the late Pedro Clemea y Conde. Respondents appealed
CA denied the appeal. to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the RTCs resolution of the
ISSUE: Whether or not without the supporting testimony of Dotenes issue relating to the two (2) parcel of land but reversed the ruling on
who was not presented by the prosecution, Guevarras testimony is ownership of land and proceeded to award respondents P118,000 as
unsubstantiated and hearsay. compensatory damages of their deprived shares of possession in the
HELD: No. The common objection known as "self-serving" is not harvest based on the testimony of Gregorio Clemea hence, this
correct because almost all testimonies are self-serving. The proper petition.
basis for objection is "hearsay". Petitioner fails to take into account the ISSUE:
distinction between self-serving statements and testimonies made in Is the evidence relied upon by the Court of Appeals to
court. Self-serving statements are those made by a party out of court determine award of damages self-serving and not proper basis for
advocating his own interest; they do not include a partys testimony as such award?
a witness in court. Self-serving statements are inadmissible because RULING:
the adverse party is not given the opportunity for cross-examination, Petitioners proposition that Gregorio Clemeas testimony was
and their admission would encourage fabrication of testimony. This self-serving and not proper basis for the award of damages is just
cannot be said of a partys testimony in court made under oath, with unworthy of the Courts consideration. Self-serving evidence is not a
full opportunity on the part of the opposing party for cross-examination. weapon to devalue and discredit a partys testimony favorable to his
Even assuming that the testimonies are selfserving, Omictin cause. Self-serving evidence is not to be taken literally to mean any
admitted and established the fact that she was paid by Guevarra the evidence that serves it proponents interest, the term refers only to acts
amount of PhP 40,000 and Ambrosio the amount of PhP 16,000 or declarations made by party in his own interest at some place and
through her testimony. time out of court, and it does not include testimony that he gives as a
witness in court, also refers to the lack of opportunity for cross-
[ANG] Heirs of Clemea y Zurbano v. Heirs of Bien, G.R. No. 155508, examination by the adverse party and on the consideration that it
September 11, 2006 admission would open the door to fraud and fabrication. At any rate,
FACTS: for all their protestations against the use of Gregorio Clemeas
testimony, petitioner never once alleged, much less tried to show, that
19
his testimony was inaccurate or untrue. Petitioners objection is 1988, p. 18). He was "wearing his coat, but no pants, he just wrapped
founded solely on the mere fact the he, being a plaintiff, was a witness himself in the lower portion of his body with a long sleeved sweater."
interested in the outcome of the case. The partys interest may to The witness asked him if he was Paulino Magdadaro and "why did you
some extent affect his credibility as witness. The court cannot do it?" but the latter did not answer (ibid., pp. 10-11). Appellant was
subscribe to the view, implicit to petitioners argument, that a partys then taken to the checkpoint of the PC detachment by Sgts. Lustre and
testimony favorable to himself must be disregarded on account solely Viras.
of his interest in the case. As held in National Development Company When the search party arrived at the scene of the incident, they found
v. Workmens Compensation Commission, that interest alone is not a the corn plants toppled down, a pair of long pants, a pair of briefs, a
ground for disregarding a partys testimony, the interest of witness hat and the underwear of a woman. Beverlinda was also still there,
cannot ipso facto deprive his testimony probative force or require it to seated, crying. The accused was convicted of three counts of rape and
be disregarded, and the trier of facts is entitled to accept as much of sentenced with three penalties of reclusion perpetua.
the witness testimony as he finds credible the reject the rest. The ISSUE: Whether or not an offer of compromise by the accused may be
award of damages stands. received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
HELD: YES. Appellant's offers to settle the case in exchange for
Sec. 27. Offer of compromise not admissible money or land, which were all rejected by Beverlinda's father, were
correctly appreciated by the Trial Court as evidential of his culpability.
[ANG] People v. Magdadaro y Gerona, G.R. Nos. 89370-72, May 15, An offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence
1991 as an implied admission of guilt.
FACTS:The Complainant, Beverlinda Abrasado, is a 16-year old Discrepancies there may be in Beverlinda's testimony and her affidavit
country girl, a Grade VI student, daughter of Leonardo Abrasado. The where she did not mention that Appellant had boxed her but instead
latter is a tenant of accused-appellant Magdadaro at the latter's farm at said that she had been pushed. Be it one or the other, however, the
Balubal, Cagayan de Oro City. Beverlinda helps her father till the farm. inconsistency will not affect the crucial fact that Beverlinda had
Appellant is a farmer, 54 years of age, married residing at Tin-ao, suffered disgrace at Appellant's hands. Moreover, as we have
Cagayan de Oro City. consistently held, an affidavit, being taken ex-parte, is almost always
Beverlinda was raped three times by the accused, with each time incomplete and often inaccurate, sometimes from partial suggestion,
boxing her in the stomach, and thereafter threatened the victim not to sometimes for want of suggestions and inquiries, without the aid of
tell anyone at risk of her life and her family. During the last rape, which the witness may be unable to recall the connected collateral
Leonardo Abrasado, Beverlinda's father, heard the shouts and circumstances necessary for the correction of the first suggestion of his
proceeded towards the direction where they came from. Leonardo memory and for his accurate recollection of all that belongs to the
testified that upon reaching there, he could hardly believe his eyes subject
when he saw Appellant, his own landlord, abusing his own daughter. Civil Cases
Engaged, he called "Gaw" and unsheathed his bolo. But Appellant was
quick on his feet, stood up, naked from waist down, and ran away, [BERNARDO] Smith Bell and Co. (Philippines), Inc. v. Court of
leaving his pants', his underwear and his hat in his haste. The father Appeals, G.R. No. 56294, May 20, 1991
chased Appellant but lost the latter lost in the bushes.
Appellant was found about two hours later by some members of the FACTS: In the early morning of 3 May 1970at exactly 0350 hours,
Bantay Bayan and the military, approximately 300 meters away from on the approaches to the port of Manila near Caballo Island, a collision
the place of the incident, still hiding in the bushes (Tsn., 29 September took place between the M/V "Don Carlos," an inter-island vessel
20
owned and operated by private respondent Carlos A. Go Thong and an adjustment which everyone of them prefers to the hope of gaining
Company ("Go Thong"), and the M/S "Yotai Maru," a merchant vessel more, balanced by the danger of losing more. 12 An offer to
of Japanese registry. The "Don Carlos" was then sailing south bound compromise does not, in legal contemplation, involve an admission on
leaving the port of Manila for Cebu, while the "Yotai Maru" was the part of a defendant that he is legally liable, nor on the part of a
approaching the port of Manila, coming in from Kobe, Japan. The bow plaintiff that his claim or demand is groundless or even doubtful, since
of the "Don Carlos" rammed the portside (left side) of the "Yotai Maru" the compromise is arrived at precisely with a view to avoiding further
inflicting a three (3) cm. gaping hole on her portside near Hatch No. 3, controversy and saving the expenses of litigation. 13 It is of the very
through which seawater rushed in and flooded that hatch and her nature of an offer of compromise that it is made tentatively,
bottom tanks, damaging all the cargo stowed therein. hypothetically and in contemplation of mutual concessions. 14 The
above rule on compromises is anchored on public policy of the most
The consignees of the damaged cargo got paid by their insurance insistent and basic kind; that the incidence of litigation should be
companies. The insurance companies in turn, having been subrogated reduced and its duration shortened to the maximum extent feasible.
to the interests of the consignees of the damaged cargo, commenced
actions against private respondent Go Thong for damages sustained
by the various shipments in the then Court of First Instance of Manila. [BERNARDO] Trans-Pacific Industrial Supplies, Inc. v. Court of
The Court of First Instance of Manila held that the he officers and crew Appeals, G.R. No. 109172,
of the "Don Carlos" had been negligent that such negligence was the August 19, 1994
proximate cause of the collision and accordingly held respondent Go
Thong liable for damages to the plaintiff insurance companies. FACTS: Sometime in 1979, petitioner applied for and was granted
several financial accommodations amounting to P1,300,000.00 by
ISSUE: Whether or not the offer of compromise is admissible in respondent Associated Bank. The loans were evidenced and secured
evidence against the person making the offer. by four (4) promissory notes, a real estate mortgage covering three
parcels of land and a chattel mortgage over petitioner's stock and
HELD: NO. Private respondent Go Thong also argues that a inventories. Unable to settle its obligation in full, petitioner requested
compromise agreement entered into between Sanyo Shipping for, and was granted by respondent bank, a restructuring of the
Company as owner of the "Yotai Maru" and Go Thong as owner of the remaining indebtedness which then amounted to P1,057,500.00, as all
"Don Carlos," under which the former paid P268,000.00 to the latter, the previous payments made were applied to penalties and interests.
effectively settled that the "Yotai Maru" had been at fault. This To secure the re-structured loan of P1,213,400.00, three new
argument is wanting in both factual basis and legal substance. True it promissory notes were executed by Trans-Pacific. The mortgaged
is that by virtue of the compromise agreement, the owner of the "Yotai parcels of land were substituted by another mortgage covering two
Maru" paid a sum of money to the owner of the "Don Carlos." other parcels of land and a chattel mortgage on petitioner's stock
Nowhere, however, in the compromise agreement did the owner of the inventory. The released parcels of land were then sold and the
"Yotai Maru " admit or concede that the "Yotai Maru" had been at fault proceeds amounting to P1,386,614.20, according to petitioner, were
in the collision. The familiar rule is that "an offer of compromise is not turned over to the bank and applied to Trans-Pacific's restructured
an admission that anything is due, and is not admissible in evidence loan. Subsequently, respondent bank returned the duplicate original
against the person making the offer." 11 A compromise is an copies of the three promissory notes to Trans-Pacific with the word
agreement between two (2) or more persons who, in order to forestall "PAID" stamped thereon. Despite the return of the notes, or on
or put an end to a law suit, adjust their differences by mutual consent, December 12, 1985, Associated Bank demanded from Trans-Pacific
21
payment of the amount of P492,100.00 representing accrued interest. the corner of M. de Santos and Folgueras Streets in Binondo, Manila,
According to the bank, the promissory notes were erroneously is owned by the Republic of the Philippines. On 18 May 1992, Rodil
released. Initially, Trans-Pacific expressed its willingness to pay the Enterprises and the Republic, through the Department of Environment
amount demanded by respondent bank. Later, it had a change of heart and Natural Resources (DENR), entered into a Renewal of a Contract
and instead initiated an action before the Regional Trial Court of of Lease over the Ides ORacca Building. A space thereof, known as
Makati for specific performance and damages. There it prayed that the Botica Divisoria was subleased to herein petitioner, Luciano Tan. In
mortgage over the two parcels of land be released and its stock Rodil Enterprises Complaint for Unlawful Detainer filed against
inventory be lifted and that its obligation to the bank be declared as Luciano Tan, the former alleged that Luciano Tan bound himself to pay
having been fully paid. under a Contract of Sublease. In his Answer, Luciano Tan insists that
he is a legitimate tenant of the government who owns the Ides
ISSUE: Whether or not the offer of compromise is admissible in ORacca Building and not of Rodil Enterprises. According to the MeTC,
evidence against the person making the offer. notwithstanding the evidentiary norm in civil cases that an offer of
compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is not admissible
HELD: Petitioner claims that the above offer of settlement or in evidence against the offeror, the court cannot overlook the frank
compromise is not an admission that anything is due and is representations by Luciano Tans counsel of the formers liability in the
inadmissible against the party making the offer (Sec. 24, Rule 130, form of rentals, coupled with a proposal to liquidate. The foregoing
Rules of Court). Unfortunately, this is not an iron-clad rule. To gestures, as appreciated by the MeTC, were akin to an admission of a
determine the admissibility or non-admissibility of an offer to fact, like the existence of a debt which can serve as proof of the loan,
compromise, the circumstances of the case and the intent of the party and was thus, admissible. The court pronounced that Luciano Tan had
making the offer should be considered. Thus, if a party denies the explicitly acknowledged his liability for the periodic consideration for
existence of a debt but offers to pay the same for the purpose of the use of the subleased property. Estoppel, thus, precludes him from
buying peace and avoiding litigation, the offer of settlement is disavowing the fact of lease implied from the tender of payment for the
inadmissible. If in the course thereof, the party making the offer admits rentals in arrears. Tan posits that the aforesaid admission, made in
the existence of an indebtedness combined with a proposal to settle open court, and then, reiterated in his Motion to Allow Defendant to
the claim amicably, then, the admission is admissible to prove such Deposit Rentals, cannot be taken as an admission of his liability, citing
indebtedness (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 5, p. 233 Section 27, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court,36 which states, inter alia,
[1980 ed.); Francisco, Rules of Court, Vol. VII, p. 325 [1973 ed.] citing that an offer of compromise in a civil case is not a tacit admission of
McNiel v. Holbrook, 12 Pac. (US) 84, 9 L.ed. 1009). Indeed, an offer of liability.
settlement is an effective admission of a borrower's loan balance (L.M.
Handicraft Manufacturing Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 186 SCRA 640 ISSUE:
[1990]). Exactly, this is what petitioner did in the case before us for
review. HELD: The general rule is an offer of compromise in a civil case is not
an admission of liability. It is not admissible in evidence against the
[BERNARDO] Tan v. Rodil Enterprises, G.R. No. 168071, December offeror. The rule, however, is not iron-clad. This much was elucidated
18, 2006 by this Court in Trans-Pacific Industrial Supplies, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals,37 to wit:
FACTS: Rodil Enterprises is a lessee of the subject premises, the Ides
ORacca Building since 1959. The Ides ORacca Building, located at
22
To determine the admissibility or non-admissibility of an offer to due on the premises in question from September 1997 up to the
compromise, the circumstances of the case and the intent of the party present amounted to P467,500.00, as of the date of filing the Motion.
making the offer should be considered. Thus, if a party denies the Petitioner cannot now be allowed to reject the same. An admission
existence of a debt but offers to pay the same for the purpose of made in the pleading cannot be controverted by the party making such
buying peace and avoiding litigation, the offer of settlement is admission and are conclusive as to him, and that all proofs submitted
inadmissible. If in the course thereof, the party making the offer admits by him contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith should be ignored
the existence of an indebtedness combined with a proposal to settle whether objection is interposed by a party or not. A judicial admission
the claim amicably, then, the admission is admissible to prove such is an admission made by a party in the course of the proceedings in
indebtedness (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 5, p. 233 the same case, for purposes of the truth of some alleged fact, which
[1980 ed.]); Francisco, Rules of Court, Vol. VII, p. 325 [1973 ed.] citing said party cannot thereafter disprove.
McNiel v. Holbrook, 12 Pac. (US) 84, 9 L. ed., 1009). Indeed, an offer
of settlement is an effective admission of a borrowers loan balance. In [BERNARDO] Servicewide Specialists, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
the case at bar, the MeTC and the Court of Appeals properly No. 117728, June 26, 1996
appreciated petitioners admission as an exception to the general rule
of inadmissibility. The MeTC found that petitioner did not contest the FACTS: Servicewide Specialists, Inc. (Servicewide) filed a complaint
existence of the sublease, and his counsel made frank representations for replevin and/or sum of money with damages before the then Court
anent the formers liability in the form of rentals. This expressed of First Instance Manila, Branch V against private respondents
admission was coupled with a proposal to liquidate. The Motion to Eduardo and Felisa Tolosa (Tolosa spouses) and one John Doe.
Allow Defendant to Deposit Rentals was deemed by the MeTC as an Servicewide alleged that on January 15, 1981, the Tolosa spouses
explicit acknowledgment of petitioners liability on the subleased purchased from Amante Motor Works one (1) Isuzu passenger-type
premises. The Court of Appeals agreed with the MeTC. Indeed, the jeepney and the spouses failed to pay the installments due on the
existence of the Contract of Lease, dated 18 October 1999 was not purchase price despite several demands. They claimed that they
denied by petitioner. The contracts that were assailed by petitioner are purchased one jeepney unit from Binan Motor Sales Corporation
the contracts dated 18 and 25 May 1992, the validity of which has (Binan Motors), not Amante Motor Works; that in January 1981, they
been upheld by this Court in the consolidated cases of G.R. No. ordered another unit from the same corporation through the proddings
129609 and G.R. No. 135537. of its President and General Manager, Eduardo Garcia; that Garcia
informed the spouses that the additional unit shall be "house financed"
Finally, we find a categorical admission on the part of petitioner, not by Binan Motors; that Eduardo Tolosa noticed that the vendor
only as to his liability, but also, as to the amount of indebtedness in the indicated in the deed of sale was not Binan Motors but Amante Motor
form of rentals due. The Order of the MeTC dated 27 June 2000 was Works; that Garcia explained to Tolosa that he (Garcia) was to make
clear that the petitioner agreed in open court to pay the amount of full payment on the jeepney to Amante Motor Works and that he
P440,000.00, representing petitioners unpaid rentals from September (Tolosa) was to pay Garcia the monthly installments thereon; that
1997 to June 2000; and that petitioner will pay the monthly rentals Tolosa never received any notice from Binan Motors about the jeepney
computed at P13,750.00 on or before the 5th day of each month after unit he ordered. On June 10, 1982, Servicewide amended its
30 June 2000. The petitioners judicial admission in open court, as complaint by adding Eduardo Garcia as the defendant in place of John
found by the MeTC, and affirmed by the Court of Appeals finds Doe. Servicewide alleged that the Tolosa spouses, without
particular significance when viewed together with his Motion to Allow Servicewide's knowledge and consent, executed and delivered to
Defendant to Deposit Rentals, wherein petitioner stated that the rentals Eduardo Garcia a "Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage" over
23
the jeepney sought to be recovered. Petitioner insists that there is and EL VARADERO gave INSULAR LUMBER the bill, the latter
enough evidence to prove Garcia's liability, viz.: (1) the pleadings filed (INSULAR LUMBER) refused to pay because it was of the opinion that
by Garcia and Binan Motors, specifically, the "Answer" to the complaint the price was grossly exorbitant. INSULAR LUMBER, hence, offered a
and the "Answer to Complaint in Intervention" where Garcia admitted compromise, but they disagreed. Hence, they went to court. In the CFI,
selling the mortgaged vehicle to the Tolosas which also show that he they entered a compromise again. Ultimately, they never settled on an
sold the same vehicle to Bartina during the effectivity of the mortgage; agreed figure, because CFI merely adopted INSULAR LUMBERs
(2) the testimony of Lourdes Bartina where she declared that the same proposal (CFI was so impressed with their testimony). Dissatisfied, EL
mortgaged vehicle was indeed sold to her by Garcia and Binan Motors; VARADERO appealed to SC (no appeal to CA was mentioned).
(3) Garcia's subsequent compromise with Bartina which proves his
liability for the obligation. ISSUE:
Whether the compromise must be excluded in arriving at a correct
ISSUE: Whether or not the offer of compromise between Bartina and figure of liability?
Garcia and Binan Motors can be taken as admission of Garcias
liability. HELD:
NO. The general rule is that an offer of compromise is inadmissible.
HELD: NO. The compromise between Bartina and Garcia and Binan Where, however, the amount named in the offer to accept a certain
Motors cannot be taken as an admission of Garcia's liability. In civil sum in settlement appears to have been arrived at as a fair estimate of
cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability. 39 value, it is relevant. The rule of exclusion of compromise negotiations
With more reason, a compromise agreement should not be treated as does not apply where there is no denial expressed or implied of
an admission of liability on the part of the parties vis-a-vis a third liability, and the only questions discussed relate to the amount to be
person. The compromise settlement of a claim or cause of action is not paid (as in this case).
an admission that the claim is valid, but merely admits that there is a SC considered 3 points which assisted them in rendering judgment:
dispute, and that an amount is paid to be rid of the controversy, 40 nor 1st point GR: Compromise is inadmissible. Where, however, the
is a compromise with one person an admission of any liability to amount named in the offer to accept a certain sum in settlement
someone else. 41 The policy of the law should be, and is, to appears to have been arrived at as a fair estimate of value, it is
encourage compromises. When they are made, the rights of third relevant. Here, there was no denial of liability and the only question
parties are not in any way affected thereby. discussed was the amount to be paid which EL VARADERO insisted
should not be less than P10,241.37, and which INSULAR LUMBER
[BULLECER] El Varadero de Manila v. Insular Lumber Co., G.R. No. L- insisted should not be more than P8,070.12. 2nd point testimony of
21911, September 15, 1924 one Mariano Yengko, a disinterested witness and is an inspector of
vessels, assessed the fair value of the repairs at P5,134.20, but which,
FACTS: on cross examination, he raised to between 7K and 8K. 3rd point the
INSULAR LUMBER had a lighter (a flat-bottomed barge used for tacit understanding between the parties was that the cost of the repairs
transporting cargo, esp in loading or unloading a ship) called Tatlo should be approximately the same as what other companies would
which was to be repaired by EL VARADERO de Manila. The work was charge. INSULAR LUMBER admits that El Varadero de Navotas
performed pursuant to no express agreement, but with the implicit (another branch of El Varadero) would have done the work for about
understanding that the price would be as low as, or lower than, could P8,000. Basing our findings, therefore, on the foregoing
be, secured from any other company. When repairs were completed considerations, we are of the opinion that the reasonable value of the
24
repairs performed by El Varadero de Manila on the Tatlo owned by circumstances, PESALA's computation showed that "(t)here will
INSULAR LUMBER Company, was something less than P8,000. We remain an uncollected amount of P38,400,000.00 monthly for which
fix the sum definitely at P7,700. plaintiff will suffer loss of interest income of around P3,840,000.00
monthly."
PESALA filed a Complaint for Specific Performance, Damages or
[BULLECER]Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. PAL Employees Savings & Declaratory Relief with a Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and
Loan Association, Inc., G.R. No. 201073, February 10, 2016 Injunction before the RTC of Pasay City, and which was docketed as
Civil Case No. 97-1026.
FACTS: After a finding that the alleged CBA provision on the maximum 40%
Respondent Philippine Airlines (PAL) Employees Savings and Loan deduction was applicable only to union dues, and as the PESALA
Association, Inc. (PESALA) is a private non-stock corporation, the deductions were duly authorized by the member-employees, the RTC
principal purposes of which are "(t)o promote and cultivate the habit of granted the injunctive writ prayed for by PESALA, enjoining PAL,
thrift and saving among its members; and to that end, to receive Blanco, and all other persons or officials acting under them from
moneys on deposits from said members; (t)o loan said deposits to implementing the maximum 40% limitation on salary deductions, and
members when in need." With the enactment of Republic Act (R.A.) ordering PAL to strictly enforce the payroll deductions in favor of
No. 3779 (Savings and Loan Association Law), PESALA submitted the PESALA until further orders from the court.
necessary requirements to the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) so In an Order dated March 11, 1998, the RTC ordered PAL to remit to
that PESALA will be authorized to operate as a savings and loan PESALA the amount of P44,488,716.41.
association to which the BSP issued to PESALA Certificate of Despite said assurances, PAL still failed to make good its word. On
Authority No. C-062. Since then and until the filing of the present case January 17, 2000, PESALA filed a Petition for Indirect Contempt
before the trial court, PAL religiously complied with its arrangement against Blanco, Mr. Avelino L. Zapanta (then PAL President), and Mr.
with PESALA to carry-out the payroll deductions of the loan Andrew L. Huang (then PAL Senior Vice President-Finance and Chief
repayments, capital contributions, and deposits of PESALA members. Financial Officer) before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City,
The controversy began on July 11, 1997, when PESALA received from docketed as Civil Case No. 00-0016, and consolidated with Civil Case
PAL, a Letter informing it that PAL shall implement a maximum 40% No. 97-1026.
salary deduction on all its Philippine-based employees effective August In the Decision dated November 6, 2002, the RTC made the writ of
1, 1997. The Letter stated that, as all present Philippine-based preliminary injunction earlier issued as permanent, thus ordering PAL
collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) contain this maximum 40% and its officials to strictly comply with and implement the arrangement
salary deduction provision and to prevent "zero net pay" situations, between the parties whereby PAL deducts from the salaries of
PAL was going to strictly enforce said provision. PESALA members through payroll deductions the loan repayments,
Foreseeing difficulties, PESALA estimated that if the 40% ceiling will capital contributions and deposits of said members, and to remit the
be implemented, "then only around 8% (P19,200,000.00) of the total same to PESALA.
monthly payroll of P240,000,000.00 due to PESALA will be collected It is also worth mentioning that PAL, through its then counsel Atty.
by PAL. The balance of around P48,000,000.00 will have to be Emmanuel Pena and then Labor Affairs OIC Atty. Jose C. Blanco,
collected directly by plaintiff PESALA from its members who number acknowledged its liability to PESALA in the amount of P44,488,716.41.
around 13,000 and who have different offices nationwide." PESALA In open court, during the hearing held on December 4, 1998, Atty.
claimed that this scenario is highly impossible as PESALA was only Pena and Atty. Blanco assured that: (1) PAL will regularly remit to
ninth in the priority order of payroll deductions. In the obtaining PESALA the full amount per pay period that is due to the latter; and (2)
25
PAL will likewise pay PESALA the balance of the previously a quo rendered a decision dated 16 May 1986 convicting De Joya of
undeducted amount of P44,488,716.41 by January 1999. the crime charged. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
ISSUE: "WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, finding the accused
Whether or not the PALs admission falls under one of the exceptions guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide,
to the rule of exclusion of compromise negotiations. committed with the aggravating circumstances of: abuse of superior
HELD: strength, old age, disregard of sex the victim a woman 88 years old,
Yes. Even if viewed as an offer of compromise, which is generally the crime was committed in the dwelling of the victim. The accused
inadmissible in evidence against the offeror in civil cases, PAL's being 72 years old death penalty cannot be imposed against him as
acknowledgment of its liability to PESALA in the amount of provided in Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code.The Court therefore,
P44,488,716.41 falls under one of the exceptions to the rule of sentences the accused to LIFE IMPRISONMENT; to indemnify the
exclusion of compromise negotiations. heirs of the victim in the amount of P20,000.00 and to pay damages in
In Tan v. Rodil, 41 the Court, citing the case of Varadero de Manila v. the amount of P550.00.
Insular Lumber Co., held that if there is neither an expressed nor Analyzing the above portion of the decision, the elements taken into
implied denial of liability, but during the course of negotiations the account by the court in convicting appellant De Joya of robbery with
defendant expressed a willingness to pay the plaintiff, then such offer homicide may be listed as follows:
of the defendant can be taken in evidence against him. 1. The dying statement made by the deceased victim to her grandson
In the case at bar, PAL admitted the amount of P44,488,716.41 Alvin Valencia a 10-year old boy: Si Paqui";
without an expressed nor implied denial of liability. This admission, 2. The quarrel, which, according to Herminia Valencia, daughter of the
coupled with an assurance of payment, binds PAL. deceased victim, took place two weeks before the robbery and
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present petition is hereby homicide, between the appellant and the deceased over the use of a
DENIED. Petitioner Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) is ordered to REMIT bicycle which appellant allegedly took from the Valencia's house
to PAL Employees Savings and Loan Association, Inc. (PESALA) the without the consent of the victim;
principal amount of P44,488,716.41, with interest at the rate of 6% per 3. The rubber slipper, one of a pair, ("step-in beach walk type") which
annum computed from March 11, 1998 until fully remitted, without according to Herminia, she found near a cabinet in their house one (1)
prejudice to the right of PAL to be reimbursed the principal amount by meter away from the body of the victim, and which Herminia identified
the concerned PESALA members. as one of the pair that she had given to the wife of the accused the
||| previous Christmas Season;
4. Accused was seen by one Gloria Capulong around 3:00 p.m. in the
Criminal Cases afternoon of 31 January 1978 in the yard of the Valencias, standing
and holding a bicycle and doing nothing;
[BULLECER]People v. De Joya y Cruz, G.R. No. 75028, November 8, 5. The statement of appellant that he did not visit the deceased during
1991 the four-day wake.
In the Solicitor-General's brief, it is casually contended that the
FACTS: circumstantial evidence against appellant included: "the attempt on the
part of appellant Pioquinto de Joya through his counsel to settle the
In an Information dated 5 May 1978, appellant Pioquinto de Joya y case amicably".
Cruz was charged with the crime of robbery with homicide. At ISSUE:
arraignment, appellant De Joya pleaded not guilty. After trial, the court
26
Whether or not the testimony given by the son-in-law of the deceased after considering the nature and speculative character of the evidence
as to the supposed attempt of appellant, through his counsel, to settle supporting the judgment of conviction.
the criminal charge amicably is conclusive. The Court must, accordingly, hold as it hereby holds that appellant's
HELD: guilt of the crime of robbery and homicide was not shown beyond
No. We find the above testimony quite impalpable and inconclusive so reasonable. The decision of the trial court is hereby REVERSED and
far as a supposed attempt of appellant, through his counsel, to offer a appellant Pioquinto de Joya is hereby ACQUITTED on grounds of
compromise on the criminal charge is concerned. We are aware of the reasonable doubt.
provision of Section 24 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court which [BULLECER]People v. Mejia y Villafania, G.R. Nos. 118940-41 &
provides that: 119407, July 7, 1997
"SECTION 24. Offer to compromise not admission. An offer of
compromise is not an admission that anything is due, and is not FACTS:
admissible in evidence against the person making the offer. However, In the evening of 10 March 1994, along the expressway at Barangay
in criminal cases which are not allowed by law to be compromised, an Ventinilla, Sta. Barbara, Pangasinan, several persons on board a
offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as passenger jeepney driven by Teofilo Landingin attacked the latter and
an implied admission of guilt." (Emphasis supplied) a passenger, Virgilio Catugas, thereby inflicting upon them multiple
We do not, however, feel justified in concluding from the above stab wounds. Landingin was pulled out from his seat and dumped on
testimony from a member of the (extended) family of the deceased the shoulder of the road. One of the attackers took the wheel of the
victim that "an offer of compromise" had been made "by the accused" jeepney and drove away. Catugas was thrown out to the middle of the
nor that "an implied admission of guilt" on the part of the appellant may road when the jeepney started to move away. Landingin died as a
be reasonably inferred in the instant case. The trial court itself made consequence of the injuries he sustained. Catugas survived.
no mention of any attempt on the part of appellant to settle the criminal Held to account for the above acts were Gregorio Mejia, Edwin Benito,
case amicably through the defense counsel; we must assume that the Pedro Paraan, Joseph Fabito, Romulo Calimquim, one alias Dennis,
trial court either did not believe that appellant had tried to compromise Alex Mamaril, one alias Mondragon, and another unidentified person.
the criminal case or considered that appellant could not fairly be Mejia and Benito were taken into police custody a few hours after the
deemed to have impliedly admitted that he had indeed robbed and incident; Paraan, the following day; and Fabito, five days after.
killed Eulalia Diamse. A much higher level of explicitness and specific Calimquim was found dead three days after the incident in question,
detail is necessary to justify a conclusion that an accused had while the others have remained at large.|||
impliedly admitted his guilt of a crime as serious as robbery with Three (3) separate criminal complaints for murder, frustrated murder
homicide. and violation of R.A. No. 6539 (Anti Carnapping Act of 1992, as
The totality of the case made out against appellant De Joya thus amended) were filed against the accused. The first two cases were
consists of an incomplete, aborted, dying declaration and a number of assigned to the RTC of Dagupan City, Branch 44, presided by Judge
circumstances which, singly or collectively, do not necessarily give rise Crispin Laron, while the third case was assigned to Judge Silverio
to a compelling inference that appellant had indeed robbed and slain Castillo of Branch 43 of the same court.
Eulalia Diamse. We consider, after prolonged scrutiny, that the sum At the arraignment, the four accused entered a plea of innocence in
total of the evidence in the instant case is insufficient to induce that each case.
moral certainty of guilt which characterizes proof beyond reasonable After trial, the Laron court convicted the accused of murder and
doubt. The conscience of the Court remains uneasy and unsettled frustrated murder, while the Castillo court convicted them of violation of
the Anti-Carnapping Act.
27
The trial court gave full credit to the version of the prosecution and FACTS: As culled from the records, it appears that respondent Kalalo
relied heavily on the identification of the accused by Catugas, the had been a dealer of beer products since 1998. She had a credit
absence of ulterior motive on the part of the latter, and the offer of the overdraft arrangement with petitioner SMC whereby, prior to the
parents of the accused to compromise the cases.||| delivery of beer products, she would be required to issue two checks to
ISSUE: petitioner: a blank check and a check to be filled up with an amount
Whether or not the trial court properly applied Section 27 of Rule 130 corresponding to the gross value of the goods delivered. At the end of
of the ROC. the week, Kalalo and an agent of SMC would compute the actual
HELD: amount due to the latter by deducting the value of the returned empty
No. Said court misapplied Section 27 of Rule 130 of the Rules of beer bottles and cases from the gross value of the goods delivered.
Court. There is no evidence whatsoever that any of the appellants Once they succeeded in determining the actual amount owed to SMC,
authorized his parents to approach Catugas or knew the matter of that amount would be written on the blank check, and respondent
payment of P80,000. Moreover, if one were to believe the explanation would fund her account accordingly.
of Catugas that the amount of P80,000 represented the expenses he In time, respondent's business grew and the number of beer products
incurred for his hospitalization and medical bills, then the offer to delivered to her by SMC increased from 200 to 4,000 cases a week.
reimburse it is not admissible in evidence as proof of criminal liability Because of the increased volume of deliveries, it became very difficult
pursuant to the last paragraph of Section 27 of Rule 130.|||Catugas for her to follow and keep track of the transactions. Thus, she
had ulterior motive in implicating the appellants. He demanded requested regular statements of account from petitioner, but it failed to
P80,000.00 from the parents of the appellants in consideration of his comply.
exculpatory testimony. But the parents could not deliver the money as In 2000, SMC's agent required Kalalo to issue several postdated
they cannot afford it. There is no evidence that any of the appellants checks to cope with the probable increase in orders during the busy
authorized his parents to approach Catugas or knew the matter of the Christmas season, without informing her of the breakdown of the
payment of the P80,000.00. balance. She complied with the request; but after making several cash
The Supreme Court ruled that while the prosecution evidence has payments and returning a number of empty beer bottles and cases,
established beyond doubt the carnapping of the passenger jeepney, it she noticed that she still owed petitioner a substantial amount. She
is not convinced with moral certainty that the appellants committed the then insisted that it provide her with a detailed statement of account,
crimes charged. The nine persons happened to be passengers of the but it failed to do so. In order to protect her rights and to compel SMC
jeepney by accident, not by design. Witness Catugas admitted that he to update her account, she ordered her bank to stop payment on the
recognized only three of the nine persons. In the Castillo court, last seven checks she had issued to petitioner. On 19 October 2000,
Catugas declared that he was stabbed by the nine persons, but on instead of updating the account of respondent Kalalo, petitioner SMC
cross-examination he candidly admitted that only one person stabbed sent her a demand letter for the value of the seven dishonored checks.
him but he could not remember anymore the person. He also admitted AHDaET
that none of the appellants participated in the stabbing of the jeepney On 5 December 2000, and in the face of constant threats made by the
driver. agents of SMC, respondent's counsel wrote a letter (the "Offer of
Decision reversed and appellants are acquitted. Compromise") wherein Kalalo "acknowledge[d] the receipt of the
| statement of account demanding the payment of the sum of
[CANA] San Miguel Corp. v775. Kalalo, G.R. No. 185522, June 13, P816,689.00" and "submitt[ed] a proposal by way of 'Compromise
2012 Agreement' to settle the said obligation."

28
It appears, however, that SMC did not accept the proposal. On 9 a plaintiff, that his or her claim is groundless or even doubtful, since it
March 2001, it filed a Complaint against respondent for violating the is made with a view to avoid controversy and save the expense of
Bouncing Checks Law. litigation. It is the distinguishing mark of an offer of compromise that it
In the meantime, Kalalo kept reiterating her demands that SMC update is made tentatively, hypothetically, and in contemplation of mutual
her account. During trial, and after the prosecution had rested its case, concessions. (citations omitted)
petitioner finally complied. After tallying all cash payments and funded Petitioner further argues that respondent's Offer of Compromise may
checks and crediting all returned empty bottles and cases, the be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. It quotes Rule
Statement of Account showed that the net balance of the amount owed 130, Section 27 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, which states:
to petitioner was P71,009. Respondent thereafter recanted her Offer of Sec. 27. Offer of compromise not admissible. In civil cases, an offer
Compromise and stated that, at the time she had the letter prepared, of compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is not
she was being threatened by SMC agents with imprisonment, and that admissible in evidence against the offeror.
she did not know how much she actually owed petitioner. In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal
negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of
ISSUE: whether or not the offer of compromise by the petitioner is an compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an
admission of his liability. implied admission of guilt.
We do not agree. As correctly pointed out by respondent, the Offer of
HELD: NO. Contrary to petitioner's contention, the aforequoted letter Compromise dated 5 December 2000 was made prior to the filing of
does not contain an express acknowledgment of liability. At most, what the criminal complaint against her on 9 March 2001 for a violation of
respondent acknowledged was thereceipt of the statement of account, the Bouncing Checks Law. The Offer of Compromise was clearly not
not the existence of her liability to petitioner. made in the context of a criminal proceeding and, therefore, cannot be
Furthermore, the fact that respondent made a compromise offer to considered as an implied admission of guilt. SHCaEA
petitioner SMC cannot be considered as an admission of liability. In Finally, during the testimony of respondent and after her receipt of the
Pentagon Steel Corporation v. Court of Appeals, we examined the Statement of Account from SMC, she recanted the contents of the
reasons why compromise offers must not be considered as evidence Offer of Compromise. She explained that, at the time she had the letter
against the offeror: CHDAaS prepared, the final amount owed to petitioner SMC was yet
First, since the law favors the settlement of controversies out of court, undetermined; and that she was constantly facing threats of
a person is entitled to "buy his or her peace" without danger of being imprisonment from petitioner's agents. The trial courts and the CA
prejudiced in case his or her efforts fail; hence, any communication gave weight to her justification, and we find no cogent reason to
made toward that end will be regarded as privileged. Indeed, if every disturb their findings. We rule, therefore, that the Offer of Compromise
offer to buy peace could be used as evidence against a person who may not be considered as evidence against respondent Kalalo, nor
presents it, many settlements would be prevented and unnecessary can it be the basis of her liability to petitioner in the amount of
litigation would result, since no prudent person would dare offer or P921,215.
entertain a compromise if his or her compromise position could be
exploited as a confession of weakness.
Second, offers for compromise are irrelevant because they are not [CANA] People v. Manuel, G.R. No. 92503, July 8, 1991
intended as admissions by the parties making them. A true offer of
compromise does not, in legal contemplation, involve an admission on
the part of a defendant that he or she is legally liable, or on the part of
29
FACTS: At the early dawn of November 28, 1987, complainant Dolores propositions or insinuations of marriage were all rejected by
Biag, a 15-year old and single college student, along with seven (7) complainant, which acts reinforce her credibility and resolute desire to
other persons, were hiking home to Pinaripad, Aglipay, Quirino. They bring to the bar of justice the man who had ruined her life and
came from sitio Dalemdem, Pinaripad, Aglipay, Quirino where they shattered her future. In People vs. Manzano, we held that the attempt
attended a birthday party of one of their friends. of the parents of the accused to settle the case with the complainant
"After their other companions were already in their respective houses, was considered an implied admission of guilt. We have further ruled
appellant Camilo Manuel, who was behind the complainant and Benita that an offer of marriage by the accused, during the investigation of the
Cabigat, suddenly grabbed complainant's hand, twisted it at her back, rape case, is also an admission of guilt.
covered her mouth with his hand and dragged her to a waiting shed. At On the other hand, while appellant claims that he and the complainant
this juncture, Benita Cabigat ran away. were sweethearts, he miserably failed to substantiate this allegation.
"At the waiting shed, appellant made his sexual advances. Initially, He had never even actually visited the victim in her home prior to the
complainant resisted. But appellant boxed her twice which rendered rape, nor could he come up with any other proof of his alleged past
her unconscious. Thus, appellant succeeded in ravishing and romantic relations with the complainant. In People vs. Valdez, supra,
deflowering her. the Court definitely found a similar story of the appellant therein to be
"After she regained consciousness, appellant was no longer there and untrue on the ground that if the said appellant and complainant were
she was writhing in pain. Her clothes were torn. Then she cried. really sweethearts, the latter would have readily accepted the former's
"Hearing her cries, Benita Cabigat came to her succor. Cabigat proposal of marriage. Had there been love between the two, the girl
brought complainant to the house of Cabigat's sister. When asked why would not have jeopardized their relationship by exposing everything to
complainant was crying, she did not answer. Cabigat then her mother and to the authorities, much less by filing a complaint for
accompanied her home. rape against him and publicly testifying therein. On the foregoing
"Upon reaching their house, complainant revealed everything to her premises and our own calibration of the evidence, we are convinced
parents, that her honor and reputation could no longer be redeemed. that the pretensions of appellant must be rejected and the case of the
Her mother immediately reported the incident to their Barangay people should be sustained.
Captain who happens to be the uncle of appellant. Appellant's parents,
their daughter-in-law and brother went to complainant's house to settle [CANA] People v. Mangat y Palomata, G.R. No. 131618, July 6, 1999
amicably the case. Appellant would marry complainant.
"Complainant, however, refused to marry appellant. On November 30,
1989, she together with her mother and brother went to the Integrated FACTS: Thirteen-year-old Kristal F. Manasan lived with her family in
National Police of Aglipay, Quirino and formally filed her complaint Barangay Lusong, San Agustin, Tablas Island, Romblon. On July 10,
against appellant 1995, Kristal went out of their house to go to the shore, about 2 1/2
kilometers away. To reach it, she has to pass by Saguilpit creek.
ISSUE: won the offer of compromise here is an admission of guilt. Kristal failed to return home and could not be found for three days.
HELD: YES. It pointed out that the offer of the appellant's family to Alarmed, Herminio Manasan, father of Kristal, reported the matter to
simply settle the case constitutes an implied admission of guilt, the rule their barangay council.
being that "(i)n criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses At four in the afternoon of July 13, 1995, SPO1 Fajutag received
(criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised, an information from Brgy. Kagawad Ronnie Manao of Brgy. Lusong that a
offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as decomposing body was found along Lusong River. SPO1 Fajutag
an implied admission of guilt." As it also aptly observed, the proceeded to Brgy. Lusong to verify the report. Upon reaching the
30
place, he saw the dead body of a girl lying on her belly. The victim was reported to the police what he had witnessed in the afternoon of July
nude and the upper part of her body was placed inside an opening of a 10, 1995.
stone hole. The panties and shorts of the victim were also found on the While at the police station, the accused and his father offered to settle
riverside, along with a plastic bag containing a pitcher and a the case amicably. SPO1 Fajutag executed an affidavit.
headband. The place where the body was found was a cave-like The accused offered an alibi. He claimed that on July 10, 1995, he was
structure on top of which was a foot-trail used by local residents, and working with his wife at a farm located in the mountain of Lusong from
underneath water flowed to the lowlands. da morning until lunch time, after which they went home to their house,
The body was later identified to be that of Kristal F. Manasan. Dr. located just 50 meters away, to eat lunch and rest. At 1:00 p.m., they
Cynthia Baradon-Mayor examined the cadaver and certified that Kristal returned to the farm and continued their weeding until 4:30 p.m. This
died of multiple hemorrhage due to multiple fracture on the head. The was corroborated by his wife, Alice Mangat. The accused admitted,
victim also suffered multiple hymenal and anal lacerations. Her bladder though, that he had a dog which fit the description given by
went out of the vaginal canal and her intestines went out of the rectal prosecution witness Pacifico Magramo. Corollarily, the accused
vault. From all indications, Dr. Mayor concluded that the victim was asserted that the prosecution witnesses have an ill-motive in testifying
brutally raped and murdered. against him as he did not vote for their candidate in the last May 8,
Pacifico Magramo, a farmer and resident of Brgy. Lusong, was 1995 elections.
presented as prosecution witness. He testified that at 2:30 p.m. of July
10, 1995, he was walking downhill along Saguilpit creek in Brgy. ISSUE: WON the offer of the accused to settle amicably is an
Lusong, carrying a sack of copra which he was bringing to the shore. admission of guilt.
He chanced upon accused Dominador Mangat pushing the naked and
lifeless body of thirteen-year-old Kristal into a rock hole. Seeing him HELD: YES. The most damaging piece of evidence which points to the
too, accused warned him not to divulge to anyone what he saw or he appellant's culpability is the affidavit executed by SPO1 Fajutag to the
would be next. Scared, Magramo continued downhill while accused effect that the appellant and his father, Benedicto Mangat, offered to
walked away followed by his dog. He also testified that the accused settle the case amicably. It is most telling for the defense not to have
was wearing a gray sando and white pair of shorts, and was carrying a made any effort whatsoever to dispute this. Said gesture can only be
bolo in a sheath hanging on his left shoulder by a string. taken to mean an admission of guilt. In criminal cases, except those
Jaime Magramo and his wife traversed the same pathway at two involving quasi-offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law
o'clock in the afternoon of July 10, 1995. They were going downhill to be amicably settled or compromised, an offer of compromise by the
with Jaime carrying a sack of copra on his shoulder. While passing accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.|
along Saguilpit creek, Jaime saw the accused conversing with his It is true, as contended by the defense, that there is no direct evidence
father Benedicto Mangat. Jaime though could not hear what they were linking the accused to the crime charged. There is to Our mind,
talking about. On July 14, 1995, Jaime was informed by his son who however, ample circumstantial evidence which tend to prove beyond a
was in Grade V that the dead body of Kristal was found along Lusong reasonable doubt that the accused was the author of the offense.
River. It was found exactly in the same spot where the accused was Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) there is more
seen talking with his father in the afternoon of July 10, 1995. than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are
With the recovery of the body of Kristal on July 14, 1995, there was derived are proven; (c) the combination of all the circumstances is
widespread speculation that the accused was the culprit. On July 15, such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. No greater
1995, the police authorities arrested the accused. Bothered by his degree of certainty is required when the evidence is circumstantial
conscience, Pacifico Magramo eventually came out in the open and than when it is direct. In either case, what is required is that there be
31
proof beyond reasonable doubt that the crime was committed and that Rivera at the Jaime's Fastfood Restaurant. But they were later
the accused committed the crime. In this case, not only was the informed that Rivera had died.
accused-appellant's presence at the crime scene established, there is At approximately 10:30 a.m. on March 13, 1992, Singson, Concepcion,
also clear and convincing testimony that he was seen pushing the Servidad, petitioner and Noe Sapguian, an employee of Jaime's
body of the victim into a cave-like hole in the rock. Fastfood Restaurant, were questioned by the police. Concepcion
identified petitioner as the person who killed Rivera. Petitioner was
[CANA] Bricenio v. People, G.R. No. 157804, June 20, 2006 arrested and indicted for homicide.
ISSUE: won the petitioner admitted his guilt.
FACTS: At around 10:00 p.m. on March 12, 1992, Renato Concepcion, HELD: YES. The records show that the petitioner offered the
Marcelo Ringor, Marino Servidad, Danny Singson and their supervisor, prosecution witnesses a compromise involving a separate case that he
Engr. Roy Rivera left the Baguio Colleges Foundation after overtime filed against them. In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-
work. Rivera requested Marino Servidad to buy two bottles of gin and offenses or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of
invited his companions to the Heike Jade Restaurant where they had a compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an
drinking spree. They ordered two bottles of beer each. After two implied admission of guilt.
bottles, Concepcion noticed that Rivera appeared dizzy, so he Petitioner's claim that an indication of his innocence was his bringing
instructed Singson to help bring Rivera home. Singson went out to hail the victim to the hospital. We reiterate one pronouncement in People v.
a taxicab along Session Road. He was followed at a distance by Loto, where we held that the accused, in helping bring the victim to the
Ringor, Servidad, Concepcion and Rivera. As Rivera could hardly hospital, does not by itself prove his innocence, for it could have been
walk, Concepcion braced Rivera's arms around him. They were by the motivated by feelings other than a genuine desire for the victim to
Jaime's Fastfood Restaurant when suddenly, Rivera lost his balance recover.
and accidentally bumped petitioner Bricenio. Concepcion immediately
apologized, "Boss, please bear with us because our engineer is tipsy." [CASTILLEJO] People v. De Guzman y Sico, G.R. No. 117217,
Petitioner suddenly pulled Rivera inside the restaurant, picked a December 2, 1996
wooden stool, and hit Rivera's head twice. As a result, Rivera fell on FACTS: Gilda Ambray filed a case of rape against Gener De Guzman
the floor. Ringor and Servidad quickly ran away. CDAHIT Y Sico. Homeward bound from her work as a sales clerk, complainant
Singson, while waiting for a taxicab noticed the commotion inside the Gilda Ambray was at the gate of Meadow Wood Subdivision, waiting
restaurant. He saw Concepcion by the entrance of the restaurant for a tricycle ride toward her residence. She waited for about ten
hurling empty bottles into the restaurant. He rushed to help his minutes. When she noticed the accused, then wearing army pants,
companions. Singson saw Rivera lying on the floor. Singson tried to sitting at the guardhouse, she approached him and asked him some
get Rivera out but petitioner's companions who were throwing empty questions. The complainant recognized the accused very well because
bottles right back at them stopped Singson. Singson also started to it was summertime and the gate of the subdivision was well-lit.
throw bottles at the petitioner. Concepcion was hit on the face when he After Gilda started to walk, the accused mounted his tricycle, followed
tried to get Rivera. After about fifteen minutes of bottle-throwing, two her and offered her a ride, to which she agreed. While on board the
men arrived at the scene. Thinking that these men were petitioner's tricycle, Gilda noticed that the accused took a different route. She got
companions, Singson told Concepcion to flee. They ran but the two scared but managed not to show it. The accused would once in a while
men, who turned out to be police officers, caught up with them. They stop the tricycle and tell her that it was not in good condition. When
were arrested and brought to the Baguio City Police Station. At the they reached Phase II of the same subdivision near an unfinished
police station, Singson asked the police officers to go back and get house, the accused stopped and told Gilda to push the tricycle. She
32
alighted from the tricycle and paid him P5.00, which he did not accept. analogous to an attempt to compromise. In criminal cases, except
Gilda then walked away, but after she had taken about ten steps, the those involving quasi-offense (criminal negligence) or those allowed by
accused embraced her from behind, covered her mouth and held her law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may
neck tightly. be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. No one would
(rape followed) (2 attempts were made prior to the act that ask for forgiveness unless he had committed some wrong, for to
consummated the rape. The accused did not succeed on the first 2 forgive means to absolve, to pardon, to cease to feel resentment
attempts because of the complainants resistance) against on account of wrong committed; give up claim to requital from
When Gilda arrived home, she told her mother and her husband, or retribution upon (an offender). In People vs. Calimquim, we stated:
Aquilino Flores Ambray, that she was raped by the accused. They then The fact that appellants mother sought forgiveness for her son from
went to report the incident to the owner of the homeowners Corazons father is an indication of guilt.
association and NBI. Complainant also submitted to physical
examinations, the results of which affirmed that there was a sexual [CASTILLEJO] People v. Abadies y Claveria, G.R. Nos. 139346-50,
intercourse with force. July 11, 2002
Then, Bebey and Linda de Guzman, the parents of the accused, asked FACTS: Accused-appellant stands charged with violation of Republic
the help of Resurreccion Talub Quiocho, the accuseds kumadre, to Act No. 7610 or The Special Protection of Children Against Child
beg for Gildas forgiveness for the accuseds sake. The following day, Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act
Resurreccion accompanied the accuseds parents, wife, children and Accused JOSE ABADIES y CLAVERIA commit acts of lasciviousness
sister-in-law to Gildas house. Gilda met them, but to their plea for upon the person of his 17-year old daughter ROSALIE ABADIES Y
forgiveness, she told them that should not be tolerated. MANUNGHAYA by kissing, mashing her breast and touching her
private parts against her will and consent.
ISSUE: w/n the plea of forgiveness done by the relatives of the The facts show that accused-appellant has been living for the past
accused amounts to an implied admission of his guilt? twenty years with his common-law wife, Catalina Manunghaya,
RULING: YES. together with their two children, Jonathan and complainant Rosalie.
The Court said, . . . any scintilla of doubt both as to the identification The family sleeps together in one room and usually Catalina wakes up
of the accused and as to his guilt was dissolved by the overtures of his early in the morning to buy bread. It was during these short periods of
parents, wife, children and sister-in-law on pleading for forgiveness time while Catalina was out of the house that the abuses took place.
from Gilda. The accused did not disown their acts, which were testified On the dates material to these cases, complainant was 17 years old.
to by his kumadre, Resurreccion Talub Quiocho, and Gilda herself. He Accused-appellant proffered the defense of denial and alibi. He denies
chose not to deny their testimony. Finally, despite the unequivocal having committed acts of lasciviousness against complainant. He
pronouncement by the trial court that his guilt was strongly established testified that on the dates of the alleged incidents, he woke up between
by the acts of his parents, wife and relatives, who had gone to the 7:00 to 7:30 a.m.; that complainant and her mother were already
house of the victim to ask her forgiveness and to seek a compromise, preparing breakfast; and after eating breakfast, he would leave for
the accused dared not assign that finding and conclusion as an error work. He also testified on the reason why the charges at bar were filed
and his Appellants Brief is conspicuously silent thereon. Indubitably against him. Allegedly, on July 26, 1997, he asked complainant what
then, the accused was a party to the decision to seek for forgiveness, was happening to their lives as his children were aloof with him.
or had prior knowledge of the plan to seek for it and consented to Complainant threatened to end her life because she felt she was to be
pursue it, or confirmed and ratified the act of his parents, wife, children blamed for their problems. Accused-appellant also declared he was
and sister-in-law. A plea for forgiveness may be considered as
33
too strict with his children, and even inflicts physical harm on them clad only in his underwear, lay on top of her. She was about to shout
when they disobey him. when he poked a gun at her neck and warned her not to create any
In the present appeal, accused-appellant asserts that the court a quo noise or he would kill her.
erred in finding the prosecution's version more credible and in Although the house lights were off, moonlight streamed through the
convicting him despite the implied pardon given by complainant. sawali door of the room, enabling complainant to see the intruder. She
Accused-appellant likewise contends that there exists no factual basis recognized him as appellant Senen Prades, her barriomate. It appears
for the trial court to consider his plea of forgiveness in his letter to that he gained entry into the house through a passageway in the
complainant as an implied admission of guilt. kitchen.
ISSUE: w/n the plea of forgiveness may be admitted as an implied Then the accused succeeded in raping the victim.
admission of guilt Several days later, complainant received two letters from appellant.
RULING: She saw appellant hand the first letter to her grandmother who later
YES. gave it to her. The other letter was given by appellant to complainant
A cursory reading of the relevant parts of the letter will readily show through the latters sister. Aggrieved by all these circumstances,
that accused-appellant was indeed seeking pardon for his misdeeds. complainant decided to disclose to her grandfather the sexual assault.
Some of the pertinent portions read as follows: "I made this letter to appellant escaped from confinement before the prosecution had
ask your 'forgiveness. x x x Alam mo bang sobra-sobra na ang completed the presentation of its evidence. A general warrant of arrest
pagsisisi ko sa ginawa kong iyon. x x x Parang awa mo na Ne hirap na was issued for his apprehension and it was ordered that he be
hirap na ako at ang lahat ay buong puso ko ng pinagsisisihan. included in the list of wanted criminals. Appellant, however, has not
Patawarin mo na ako anak. x x x." There is no iota of doubt that been recaptured up to now
accused-appellant was asking forgiveness for having committed the
acts with which he now stands charged. Settled is the rule that in ISSUE: w/n the letters sent by the accused to the victim served as an
criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses or those allowed admission of his guilt
by law to be settled through mutual concessions, an offer of
compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an RULING:
implied admission of guilt. Evidently, no one would ask for forgiveness YES.
unless he had committed some wrong and a plea for forgiveness may it is conceded that after the rape, he sent complainant two letters in
be considered as analogous to an attempt to compromise. Under the which he implored her forgiveness and offered to leave his wife so that
circumstances, accused-appellants plea of forgiveness should be he could be with her. In fine, appellant sealed his own fate by admitting
received as an implied admission of guilt. his crime under the seal of a virtual confession in fact, if not in law.
In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses or those
[CASTILLEJO] People v. Prades, G.R. No. 127569, July 30, 1998 allowed by law to be settled through mutual concessions, an offer of
FACTS: Private complainant Emmie R. Rosales was seventeen years compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an
old when the dastardly outrage befell her. She testified that she and implied admission of guilt. For this rule to apply, it is not necessary that
her younger sister, Melissa, were asleep in a room in their house and a complaint be first filed by the victim because all that is required is
were then the only persons at home because their grandfather, who that after committing the crime, appellant or his representative makes
lived with them, was in the hospital at that time. an offer to compromise and such offer is proved
At around midnight, complainant suddenly awoke as she felt a heavy Evidently, no one would ask for forgiveness unless he had committed
weight pressing down upon her. She thereupon realized that a man, some wrong and a plea for forgiveness may be considered as
34
analogous to an attempt to compromise. The letters of appellant something sticky in her private part after Larry made the push and pull
containing an appeal for condonation of his acts cannot but be movements.
construed as an implied admission of his guilt. Victim got pregnant.
The Court is persuaded that appellant sent complainant the letters CCC (AAA's father), testified that the family of accused-appellant went
introduced in evidence by the prosecution and that said letters to their house and initially offered P50,000 and later P150,000; that in
contained an admission of his guilt, thus confirming his culpability. If January 5, 2000, while they were repairing his house for the wedding
appellant did not forcibly rape complainant on the night of March 24, reception. Larry left at around 4:00 o'clock p.m.
1994, complainant may possibly have accepted appellants offer to live Defense however claimed that accused could never be on the crime
with her. At the very least, she would not have revealed her misfortune scene since he was with his wife while giving birth and that he never
so as not to expose the despoliation of her virtue. That complainant left her side.
chose to divulge the incident and subject herself to the disgrace of This was corroborated by the hilot and the victims friend who testified
public scrutiny and scandal buttresses the charge that she had been that she never left the victim when her shorts got hooked; that they
criminally ravished by appellant. went together to the store of Auntie Beth where they parted.
Further, because no evidence was presented by the defense to Family of the accused also claimed that it was because the other sister
discredit this affirmation of guilt derived from the contents of the letters, of the rape victim was supposed to marry their other son, brother of
the authenticity of said letters is no longer open to question. The letters accused, but they had an altercation regarding the bills for the
thus bolster and corroborate complainants testimony on the identity wedding. So the victims family tries to falsely accuse his other son of
and guilty of appellant. the rape for revenge.
Another factor supporting appellants conviction is his flight. By Moreover, the testimonies of the witnesses for both the prosecution
escaping from confinement during trial and failing to turn himself in and the defense conflict on certain points, more notably the claim by
despite his subsequent conviction by the trial court, and despite the BBB and CCC that the family of appellant offered to settle the case.
standing warrant of arrest, appellant has become a fugitive from This, however, was denied by Albina, who claimed that it was BBB and
justice. CCC who demanded P1,000,000.00.
The offer of compromise allegedly made by Albina is critical to the
case at bar in light of law and jurisprudence that an offer of
[CASTILLEJO] People v. Erguiza, G.R. No. 171348, November 26, compromise in a criminal case may be received in evidence as an
2008 implied admission of guilt.
FACTS: The accused testified that he had not asked his parents to plead the
While AAA was trying to unhook her short pants, Larry suddenly victims family for compromise, instead they went there on their own.
grabbed and pulled her. Poking a knife at her neck, Larry threatened to
hurt her if she would make a noise. ISSUE: w/n the act of the parents of the accused to compromise on
Accused-appellant dragged AAA towards a place where a tamarind their own will amounts to an implied admission of guilt
tree and other thorny plants grow. Then Larry removed his maong
pants and forced AAA to lie down on the grassy ground. Thereafter, he RULING:
removed her short pants and panty, mounted himself on top of her and NO.
inserted his penis into her private parts and made push and pull The alleged offer of the parents of appellant to settle the case cannot
movements. He likewise raised AAAs sandoand mashed her breast. be used against appellant as evidence of his guilt. Appellant testified
AAA felt pain when accused-appellant entered her and she felt
35
that he did not ask his parents to settle the case. Moreover, appellant overseas contract workers. On July 19, 1989, Maria Elena together
was not present when the offer to settle was allegedly made. with her siblings moved to Barangay Manayon, Bangui, Ilocos Norte, to
live with her paternal grandmother Rosalina B. Nieto, her uncle
An offer of compromise from an unauthorized person cannot amount to Eugenio Nieto and his family. There, she met appellant. Appellant was
an admission of the party himself. Although the Court has held in some a neighbor. He was close to her paternal uncles, Eugenio and Rudy
cases that an attempt of the parents of the accused to settle the case Nieto. Appellant often went to her grandmother's house. She was
is an implied admission of guilt, we believe that the better rule is that considered a relative. At about 6:00 in the morning of June 28, 1992,
for a compromise to amount to an implied admission of guilt, the appellant went to their residence. He asked her if she could
accused should have been present or at least authorized the proposed accompany him to visit a friend in Laoag City. She told appellant to ask
compromise. Moreover, it has been held that where the accused was permission from her grandmother who consented. At 9:30 of that same
not present at the time the offer for monetary consideration was made, morning, appellant fetched her. At about 11:30 a.m., they reached
such offer of compromise would not save the day for the prosecution. Laoag City. They proceeded to a boarding house near the Northern
Christian College. There appellant visited a woman. After about 30
In addition, the Court, in weighing the evidence presented, may give minutes, appellant called for her and they left. Appellant brought her to
less weight to the testimonies of Albina, on the one hand, and BBB a restaurant. At that time, Maria Elena did not know the name of the
and CCC, on the other, as they are related to the appellant and the restaurant. Neither did she know then that the second floor of the
victim, respectively. Their testimonies relating to the offer of settlement restaurant was a hotel. It was her first time to be in such place.
simply contradict each other. As a matter of fact, even the lower courts Appellant invited her for lunch there. She declined as she was still full
did not consider the alleged offer of settlement in resolving the case. and suggested that they go home. Appellant, however, called for a
ACCUSED WAS ACQUITTED. tricycle and told her "[w]e will first go to a friend of mine before going
The friend of the victim, Joy, testified against the family of the victim home. He brought her to the "third floor of a certain building". While
and claimed that the victims mother insist that she change her there, Maria Elena was made to wait outside and "he went to talk with
statement to further impugn the accused. somebody". Upon returning, appellant told her that "it was in the
second floor where the person he wanted to talk with was". They
[DLC] People v. Bayani, G.R. No. 120894, October 3, 1996 proceeded to the second floor. Upon reaching the door of a room at
the second floor of the building, appellant took hold of her wrist. She
FACTS: tried to free herself, but all the more appellant took hold of her wrist
On or about June 28, 1992, in the City of Laoag, the said and he "opened the door" with a key.
accused, Moreno Bayani, by means of force and intimidation with the After opening the door, appellant pushed Maria Elena inside. She
point of a gun, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously wanted to run away but was prevented by appellant, who pulled her
have carnal knowledge of the complainant Maria Elena Nieto, against hair. Appellant then locked the door. Appellant pushed her hard
her will. making her kneel down on the floor beside the bed. All that time,
appellant was holding her hair, pressing her head against the bed.
The complainant's testimony was faithfully summarized below: Maria Elena struggled to free herself. This prompted appellant to
tighten his hold on her hair and he poked a gun against her right
In 1992, Maria Elena Nieto was a fourth-year high school student of St. temple. Appellant then told her "[y]ou remove your pants, otherwise, I
Lawrence Academy, a Catholic School of Bangui, Ilocos Norte. She will shoot you." Out of fear, she complied with appellant's order. While
was then 15 years old. At that time both her parents were abroad as Maria Elena was removing her pants, appellant removed his pants,
36
too. Thereafter, appellant pushed Maria Elena to the bed and forced resided bringing gifts (powder, soap, cotton, and milk) for the
her to lie down. He ordered her to open her thighs and then he went on complainant and offered to amicably settle the case. In all, the accused
top of her. She struggled but felt weak. Appellant successfully had came thrice for the purpose.
sexual intercourse with her. While doing this, appellant was holding his The Court is convinced that the accused tried to amicably settle the
gun in his right hand. Thereafter, Maria Elena wanted to leave. case with the private complainants mother as testified to by Romeo
However, appellant pointed his gun at her and threatened to kill her if Nieto. It is inconceivable that Romeo Nieto, an ordinary citizen could
she revealed the rape incident to anybody. After a while, appellant have the courage to drop the names of highly-placed and influential
repeated the sexual intercourse for two more times. All the while, officials in the province Despite the protestations of the accused and
appellant was uttering indecent words at her, among them, "This is Major Alio the Court has no doubt that the accused was present in all
something very delicious. You will be longing for this". Appellant the three (3) occasions related by Romeo Nieto wherein they were
repeated his threat to kill her as well as members of her family, if she looking for the private complainants mother.
related the rape incident to anybody. They left the room at about 3:00 At any rate, his non-presence during these occasions cannot erase the
in the afternoon. She went home alone. fact that the highly-placed and influential provincial officials went there
In view of the threats of appellant, Maria Elena did not immediately on his behalf -- that was to ask for a compromise deal. It would be
relate the incident to her family. She was forced to divulge the rape absurd to assume that these highly-placed and influential officials went
committed by appellant against her, when her family noticed her to the residence of Romeo Nieto on their own without the knowledge of
tummy was bloating. At that time, Maria Elena and Ambrosio Malapit, the accused.
Jr., were sweethearts. The incident was reported by Ambrosio to the Verily, the attempt of the accused to amicably settle the case is an
principal of St. Lawrence Academy, who went to Maria Elena's house admission of guilt of the crime charged against him
in order to verify. She related to the principal what appellant did to her
including his threats to kill her and her family. The school took the After the parties submitted their memoranda, the trial court
initiative of hiding her. She stayed for 1 week in the house of a teacher. promulgated the decision appealed from. It gave full faith and credit to
Thereafter, she was transferred to Madre Nazarena in Laoag City, an the evidence of the prosecution. The accused seasonably appealed
institution run by nuns. from the decision.

The rape incident was reported to the NBI. The defense presented the ISSUE:
accused and Bernard Javier, the information officer of the Dragon Inn. W/N the trial court erred in finding that the appellant offered to
The accused not only admitted having sexual intercourse with the compromise the case
complainant; he asserted, in the main, that the complainant was his
mistress and that the further acts of sexual intercourse after the said HELD:
date were with her consent. Defense witness Bernard Javier NO. Oddly, the accused takes inconsistent positions on this
corroborated the accused's testimony as to the couple's checking-in at matter. On one hand, he claims that he sought forgiveness, but on the
the Dragon Inn and further declared that upon checking-out he noticed other hand, while testifying as regards a meeting with the
that the complainant "was happy and even laughing." complainant's mother during the conduct of the trial, the accused
claimed that he "did not ask for forgiveness because what they
The prosecution presented as rebuttal witnesses Romeo Nieto and charged against him is not true." At any rate, the accused's attempt to
Rosario Nieto, the complainant's uncle and father, respectively. Romeo split hairs between forgiveness and compromise is unavailing. While
testified that the accused came to his house where the complainant compromise "is an agreement made between two or more parties as a
37
settlement of matters in dispute," the term "forgiveness" necessarily Amado Ponce revealed to P/Sgt. Andal S. Pangato that appellants
implies a consciousness of wrongdoing or guilt. Sabas and Valeriano Raquel were the perpetrators of the crime and
The weight both of authority and of reason sustains the rule which that they may be found in their residence. However, the police failed to
admits evidence of offers to compromise, but permits the accused to find them there since appellants fled immediately after the shooting
show that such offers were not made under a consciousness of guilt, incident. Appellants were later on apprehended on different
but merely to avoid the inconvenience of imprisonment or for some occasions. Appellants relied on alibi as their defense.
other reason which would justify a claim by the accused that the offer Accused Valeriano Raquel testified that on July 2, 1986 he left Paatan,
to compromise was not in truth an admission of his guilt and an Kabacan, Cotabato and went to Tunggol Pagalungan, Maguindanao.
attempt to avoid the legal consequences which would ordinarily ensure He stayed in the house of his sister-in-law. Together with Boy
therefrom. Madriaga and Corazon Corpuz, he harvested palay on July 3 and 4.
As such, we adopt the pertinent portions of the lower court's ruling on On July 5, while he was still asle(ep), police authorities accompanied
this subject and declare that no reversible error was committed in by his father arrested him and brought him to the municipal jail of
appreciating the accused's plea for forgiveness as an implied Kabacan, Cotabato. He already heard the name of accused Amado
admission of guilt, in accordance with Section 27(2), Rule 130 of the Ponce, to be an owner of a parcel of land in Paatan.
Rules of Court. This can only be buttressed by the persistence of the Antonio Raquel, 64 years old, testified that on July 2, 1986 he was at
accused's intercessors in attempting to see the complainant at least home when his son Valeriano Raquel told him that he was going to
thrice. Tungol, Pagalungan, Maguindanao to harvest palay. On (the) same
date, his other son, Sabas Raquel, also asked his permission to leave
since the latter, a soldier, was going to his place of assignment at
Sec. 28. Admission by third-party/ Res inter alios acta, Part One Pagadian. On July 5, 1986, several policemen came over to his house,
looking for his two (2) sons. He gave them pictures of his sons and
[DLC] People v. Raquel, G.R. No. 119005, December 2, 1996 even accompanied them to Tungol where they arrested his son
Valeriano.
FACTS: The trial court rendered judgment finding all of the accused guilty
At midnight of July 4, 1986, Agapito attended to the person knocking at beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and sentenced them
the backdoor of their kitchen. Much to his surprise, heavily armed men accordingly. Herein appellants filed a notice of appeal wherein they
emerged at the door, declared a hold-up and fired their guns at him. manifested that they were appealing the decision to the CA .In view of
Juliet went out of their room after hearing gunshots and saw her the penalty imposed, the CA properly forwarded the same to us.
husband lifeless while a man took her husband's gun and left hurriedly.
She shouted for help at their window and saw a man fall beside their ISSUE:
water pump while 2 other men ran away. W/N trial court erred in convicting accused Sabas Raquel and
George Jovillano responded to Juliet's plea for help. He reported the Valeriano Raquel despite absence of evidence positively implicating
incident to the police. The police came and found one of the them as the perpetrators of the crime
perpetrators of the crime wounded and lying at about 8 meters from
the victim's house. He was identified as Amado Ponce. HELD;
Amado Ponce was first treated at a clinic before he was brought to the YES. The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable
police station. doubt the real identities of the perpetrators of, much less the
participation of herein appellants in, the crime charged.
38
The lone eyewitness, Juliet Gambalan, was not able to identify the waived, such waiver must be made with the assistance of counsel.
assailants of her husband. Even the corroborating witness, George These rights, both constitutional and statutory in source and
Jovillano, in his testimony made no mention of who shot Agapito foundation, were never observed.
Gambalan. A conviction in a criminal case must rest on nothing less than a moral
A thorough review of the records of this case readily revealed that the certainty of guilt. Without the positive identification of appellants, the
identification of herein appellants as the culprits was based chiefly on evidence of the prosecution is not sufficient to overcome the
the extrajudicial statement of accused Amado Ponce pointing to them presumption of innocence guaranteed by the Bill of Rights to them.
as his co-perpetrators of the crime. As earlier stated, the said accused While admittedly the alibi of appellants may be assailable, the
escaped from jail before he could testify in court and he has been at evidence of the prosecution is probatively low in substance and
large since then. evidentiarily barred in part. The prosecution cannot use the weakness
The extrajudicial statements of an accused implicating a co-accused of the defense to enhance its case; it must rely on the strength of its
may not be utilized against the latter, unless these are repeated in own evidence. In fact, alibi need not be inquired into where the
open court. If the accused never had the opportunity to cross-examine prosecution's evidence is weak.
his co-accused on the latter's extrajudicial statements, it is elementary It would not even have been necessary to stress that every reasonable
that the same are hearsay as against said accused. doubt in criminal cases must be resolved in favor of the accused. The
Extreme caution should be exercised by the courts in dealing with the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt calls for moral certainty
confession of an accused which implicates his co-accused. A of guilt. In the instant case, the test of moral certainty was neither met
distinction, obviously, should be made between extrajudicial and nor were the standards therefor fulfilled.
judicial confessions. The former deprives the other accused of the
opportunity to cross-examine the confessant, while in the latter his [DLC] Tamargo v. Awingan, G.R. No. 177727, January 19, 2010
confession is thrown wide open for cross-examination and rebuttal.
The res inter alios rule ordains that the rights of a party cannot be
prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another. An FACTS:
extrajudicial confession is binding only upon the confessant and is not Atty. Franklin V. Tamargo and his eight-year-old daughter, Gail
admissible against his co-accused. The reason for the rule is that, on a Franzielle, were shot and killed at around 5:15 p.m. of August 15, 2003
principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a man's own acts are along Nueva Street corner Escolta Street, Binondo, Manila. The police
binding upon himself, and are evidence against him. So are his had no leads on the perpetrators of the crime until a certain Reynaldo
conduct and declarations. Yet it would not only be rightly inconvenient, Geron surfaced and executed an affidavit dated September 12, 2003.
but also manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts of He stated that a certain Lucio Columna told him during a drinking
mere unauthorized strangers; and if a party ought not to be bound by spree that Atty. Tamargo was ordered killed by respondent Lloyd
the acts of strangers, neither ought their acts or conduct be used as Antiporda and that he (Columna) was one of those who killed Atty.
evidence against him. Tamargo. He added that he told the Tamargo family what he knew and
Although the above-stated rule admits of certain jurisprudential that the sketch of the suspect closely resembled Columna.
exceptions, those exceptions do not however apply to the present After conducting a preliminary investigation and on the strength of
case. Gerons affidavit, the investigating prosecutor issued a resolution
Extrajudicial statements made during custodial investigation without finding probable cause against Columna and three John Does.On
the assistance of counsel are inadmissible and cannot be considered February 2, 2004, the corresponding Informations for murder were filed
in the adjudication of the case. While the right to counsel may be against them in the RTC of Manila. Columna was arrested in the
39
province of Cagayan on February 17, 2004 and brought to Manila for the hearing held on October 22, 2004, Columna categorically admitted
detention and trial the authorship and voluntariness of the unsolicited letter. He affirmed
On March 8, 2004, Columna (whose real name was Manuel, Jr.) the May 25, 2004 affidavit and denied that any violence had been
executed an affidavit wherein he admitted his participation as look out employed to obtain or extract the affidavit from him.
during the shooting and implicated respondent Romulo Awingan (alias Thus, the investigating prosecutor recommended the dismissal
Mumoy) as the gunman and one Richard Mecate. He also tagged as of the charges. This was approved by the city prosecutor. Meanwhile,
masterminds respondent Licerio Antiporda, Jr. and his son, respondent in another handwritten letter addressed to City Prosecutor Ramon
Lloyd Antiporda.The former was the ex-mayor and the latter the mayor Garcia dated October 29, 2004, Columna said that he was only forced
of Buguey, Cagayan at that time. When the killing took place, Licerio to withdraw all his statements against respondents during the October
Antiporda was in detention for a kidnapping case in which Atty. 22, 2004 clarificatory hearing because of the threats to his life inside
Tamargo was acting as private prosecutor. the jail. He requested that he be transferred to another detention
Pursuant to this affidavit, petitioner Harold V. Tamargo (brother center.
of Atty. Tamargo) filed a complaint against those implicated by Aggrieved by the dismissal of the charges, petitioner filed an appeal to
Columna. On April 19, 2004, Columna affirmed his affidavit before the the DOJ. DOJ reversed the dismissal and ordered the filing of the
investigating prosecutor who subjected him to clarificatory questions. Informations for murder. Accordingly, the Informations were filed and
Respondents denied any involvement in the killings. They the cases were consolidated and assigned to the RTC. However, on
alleged that Licerio was a candidate for mayor in Buguey, Cagayan August 12, 2005, Secretary Gonzales granted the Antipordas motion
during the May 2004 elections and that the case was instituted by his for reconsideration and directed the withdrawal of the
political opponents in order to derail his candidacy. The Antipordas Informations.This time, he declared that the extrajudicial confession of
admitted that Atty. Tamargo was their political rival for the mayoralty Columna was inadmissible against respondents and that, even if it was
post of Buguey. Atty. Tamargo had been defeated twice by Lloyd and admissible, it was not corroborated by other evidence. As a result, the
once by Licerio. Before the killing, Atty. Tamargo filed an election case trial prosecutor filed a motion to withdraw the Informations. RTC
against Lloyd and a kidnapping case in the Sandiganbayan against granted the motion to withdraw the Informations. Petitioner filed an MR
Licerio. However, they claimed that both cases were dismissed as but the judge voluntarily inhibited herself without resolving the same.
Lloyd emerged as the winner in the elections and Licerio was acquitted The cases were re-raffled to Branch 19, presided by Judge Zenaida R.
by the Sandiganbayan. Daguna. Judge Daguna granted the MR of petitioner. She denied the
During the preliminary investigation, respondent Licerio MR of the Antipordas. Consequently, respondent Awingan filed a
presented Columnas unsolicited handwritten letter to respondent special civil action for certiorari and prohibition in the CA. The
Lloyd, sent from Columnas jail cell in Manila. In the letter, Columna Antipordas separately filed another certiorari case.
disowned the contents of his March 8, 2004 affidavit and narrated how CA ruled that the RTC judge gravely abused her discretion
he had been tortured until he signed the extrajudicial confession. He because she arbitrarily left out of her assessment and evaluation the
stated that those he implicated had no participation in the killings. substantial matters that the DOJ Secretary had fully taken into account
Respondent Licerio also submitted an affidavit of Columna dated May in concluding that there was no probable cause against all the
25, 2004 wherein the latter essentially repeated the statements in his accused. It also held that Columnas extrajudicial confession was not
handwritten letter. admissible against the respondents because, aside from the recanted
Due to the submission of Columnas letter and affidavit, the confession, there was no other piece of evidence presented to
investigating prosecutor set a clarificatory hearing, to enable Columna establish the existence of the conspiracy. Additionally, the confession
to clarify his contradictory affidavits and his unsolicited letter. During
40
was made only after Columna was arrested and not while the but also manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts of
conspirators were engaged in carrying out the conspiracy. mere unauthorized strangers; and if a party ought not to be bound by
The CA denied reconsideration, CA likewise granted the the acts of strangers, neither ought their acts or conduct be used as
petition for certiorari of respondents Antiporda. Hence, the present evidence against him. An exception to the res inter alios acta rule is an
petition. admission made by a conspirator under Section 30, Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court:
ISSUE:
W/N CA erred in finding that Judge Daguna had committed Admission by conspirator. The act or declaration of a conspirator
grave abuse of discretion in denying the withdrawal of the Informations relating to the conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in
for murder against respondents evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by
evidence other than such act or declaration.
HELD:
NO. The selectivity of respondent RTC Judge for purposes of This rule prescribes that the act or declaration of the conspirator
resolving the motion to withdraw the informations effectively relating to the conspiracy and during its existence may be given in
sidetracked the guidelines for an independent assessment and evidence against co-conspirators provided that the conspiracy is
evaluation of the merits of the case. Respondent RTC Judge thus shown by independent evidence aside from the extrajudicial
impaired the substantial rights of the accused. Instead, she should confession. Thus, in order that the admission of a conspirator may be
have made a circumspect evaluation by looking at everything made received against his or her co-conspirators, it is necessary that (a) the
available to her at that point of the cases. No less than that was conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission itself
expected and required of her as a judicial officer. According to Santos (b) the admission relates to the common object and (c) it has been
v. Orda, Jr., the trial judge may make an independent assessment of made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy.
the merits of the case based on the affidavits and counter-affidavits, Otherwise, it cannot be used against the alleged co-conspirators
documents, or evidence appended to the Information; the records of without violating their constitutional right to be confronted with the
the public prosecutor which the court may order the latter to produce witnesses against them and to cross-examine them.
before the court; or any evidence already adduced before the court by Here, aside from the extrajudicial confession, which was later on
the accused at the time the motion is filed by the public prosecutor. recanted, no other piece of evidence was presented to prove the
Moreover, Judge Daguna failed to consider that Columnas extrajudicial alleged conspiracy. There was no other prosecution evidence, direct or
confession in his March 8, 2004 affidavit was not admissible as circumstantial, which the extrajudicial confession could corroborate.
evidence against respondents in view of the rule on res inter alios acta. Therefore, the recanted confession of Columna, which was the sole
Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet. The rule on res inter alios evidence against respondents, had no probative value and was
acta provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, inadmissible as evidence against them.
declaration, or omission of another. Consequently, an extrajudicial
confession is binding only on the confessant, is not admissible against [GUTIERREZ] FGU Insurance Corp. v. G.P. Sarmiento Trucking Corp.,
his or her co-accused and is considered as hearsay against them.The G.R. No. 141910,
reason for this rule is that: August 6, 2002
on a principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a mans own acts
are binding upon himself, and are evidence against him. So are his FACTS:
conduct and declarations. Yet it would not only be rightly inconvenient,
41
G.P. Sarmiento Trucking Corporation (GPS) undertook to deliver 215880-94 & 213475-76, March 15, 2016
thirty (30) units of Condura S.D. white refrigerators aboard one of its FACTS: Petitioners are all charged as co-conspirators for their
Isuzu truck, driven by Lambert Eroles (Respondent Driver Eroles), respective participations in the PDAF scam, involving, as reported by
from the plant site of Concepcion Industries, Inc., along South whistleblowers Benhur Luy et al., the illegal utilization and pillaging of
Superhighway in Alabang, Metro Manila, to the Central Luzon public funds sourced from the PDAF of Senator Enrile for the years
Appliances in Dagupan City. While the truck was traversing the north 2004 to 2010, in the total amount of P172,834,500.00.16 Tersely put,
diversion road along McArthur highway in Barangay Anupol, Bamban, petitioners were charged for the following acts:
Tarlac, it collided with an unidentified truck, causing it to fall into a
deep canal, resulting in damage to the cargoes. (a) Reyes, as Chief of Staff of Senator Enrile during the times material
FGU Insurance Corporation (FGU), an insurer of the shipment, paid to this case, for fraudulently processing the release of Senator Enrile's
to Concepcion Industries, Inc., the value of the covered cargoes in the illegal PDAF disbursements
sum of P204,450.00. FGU, in turn, being the subrogee of the rights
and interests of Concepcion Industries, Inc., sought reimbursement of (b) Janet Napoles, as the alleged mastermind of the entire PDAF
the amount it had paid to the latter from GPS. scam, for facilitating the illegal utilization, diversion, and disbursement
Since the GPS failed to heed the claim, FGU filed a complaint for of Senator Enrile's PDAF
damages and breach of contract of carriage against GPS and
Respondent Driver Eroles with the Regional Trial Court,. (c) the Napoles siblings, as high ranking officers of the JLN
ISSUE: Corporation, for continuously diverting the sums sourced from Senator
WON Respondent Driver Eroles can be held liable even if it was not Enrile's PDAF to Janet Napoles's control
party to the contract of carriage?
RULING: (d) De Asis, as Janet Napoles's driver, body guard, or messenger, for
No, Respondent Driver Eroles without concrete proof of his negligence assisting in the fraudulent releases of the PDAF funds to the JLN-
or fault, may not himself be ordered to pay petitioner. The driver, not controlled NGOs and eventually remitting the funds to Janet Napoles's
being a party to the contract of carriage between petitioners principal control
and defendant, may not be held liable under the agreement. A contract
can only bind the parties who have entered into it or their successors As alleged, the systemic pillaging of Senator Enrile's PDAF
who have assumed their personality or their juridical position. commences with Janet Napoles meeting with Senator Enrile himself or
Consonantly with the axiom res inter alios acta aliis neque nocet through his Chief of Staff, Reyes, or Ruby Tuason - with the former
prodest, such contract can neither favor nor prejudice a third person. rendering an offer to "acquire" his PDAF allocation in exchange for a
Petitioners civil action against the driver can only be based on culpa "kickback" amounting to a certain percentage of the PDAF.
aquiliana, which, unlike culpa contractual, would require the claimant
for damages to prove negligence or fault on the part of the defendant. In her defense, Reyes filed her Consolidated Counter-Affidavit,
contending that the letters and documents which she purportedly
signed in connection with the allocation of the PDAF of Senator Enrile
were all forged, and that none of the three (3) witnesses - Luy, Suas,
[EVIDENTE] and Nova Kay B. Macalintal - who mentioned her name in their
Reyes v. Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 212593-94, 213163-78, 213540-41, respective affidavits, directly and positively declared that she received
213542-43, money from the PDAF in question. For their part, the Napoles siblings
42
filed their Joint Counter-Affidavit opposing their inclusion as arrest against "all the accused," opining therein that the filing of a
respondents in the complaint. They argued that the affidavits and motion for judicial determination of probable cause was a mere
statements of the whistleblowers contain nothing more than mere superfluity given that it was its bounden duty to personally evaluate the
hearsay and self-serving declarations, which are, therefore, resolution of the Ombudsman and the supporting evidence before it
inadmissible evidence unworthy of credence. On the other hand, while determines the existence or non-existence of probable cause for the
De Asis admitted that he was an employee of the JLN Corporation arrest of the accused.
from 2006-2010 in various capacities as driver, bodyguard or
messenger; that he had no knowledge in setting up or managing the On September 29, 2014, the Special Third Division of the
corporations which he supposedly helped incorporate; and that he did Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution126 in Criminal Case Nos. SB-14-
not personally benefit from the alleged misuse of the PDAF. CRM- 0241 to 0255, finding the existence of probable cause against
Meanwhile, despite due notice, Janet Napoles failed to file her counter- them, and several others, and consequently, setting their arraignment.
affidavits to the foregoing Complaints. Thus, the Ombudsman The Napoles siblings urgently moved for the reconsideration of the
considered her to have waived her right to file the same. judicial finding of probable cause against them and requested that their
arraignment be held in abeyance pending the resolution of their
While preliminary investigation proceedings were ongoing before the motion. However, the Napoles siblings alleged that the Sandiganbayan
Ombudsman, Tuason, who was likewise charged under OMB-C-C-13- acted on their motion for reconsideration through the latter's Resolution
0318 and OMB-C-C-13-0396, surfaced as an additional witness and dated November 14, 2014, declaring that the presence of probable
offered her affidavit implicating Reyes in the PDAF scam. The cause against them had already been settled in its previous
Ombudsman issued the assailed 144-page Joint Resolution dated resolutions. Hence, the Napoles siblings caused the filing of the
March 28, 2014 finding probable cause against, inter alia, Reyes, petition, docketed as G.R. Nos. 215880-94, assailing the September
Janet Napoles, and De Asis of one (1) count of Plunder, and against 29, 2014 and November 14, 2014 Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan.
Reyes, Janet Napoles, De Asis, and the Napoles siblings for fifteen
(15) counts of violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019. Accordingly, ISSUE: Whether or not the Ombudsman and/or the Sandiganbayan
separate motions for reconsideration were timely filed by Reyes, Janet committed any grave abuse of discretion in rendering the assailed
Napoles, the Napoles siblings, and De Asis. resolutions ultimately finding probable cause against petitioners for the
charges against them.
Consequently, a total of sixteen (16) Informations were filed by the the
Ombudsman before the Sandiganbayan, charging, inter alia, Reyes, HELD: The petitions are bereft of merit. At the outset, it must be
Janet Napoles, and De Asis with one (1) count of Plunder, docketed as stressed that the Court has consistently refrained from interfering with
Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0238; and Reyes, Janet Napoles, the the discretion of the Ombudsman to determine the existence of
Napoles siblings, and De Asis with fifteen (15) counts of violation of probable cause and to decide whether or not an Information should be
Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. SB-14- filed. Nonetheless, this Court is not precluded from reviewing the
CRM-0241 to 0255, which were raffled to the Sandiganbayan's Third Ombudsman's action when there is a charge of grave abuse of
Division. discretion. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and
whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. The
On July 3, 2014, resolving Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0238, Ombudsman's exercise of power must have been done in an arbitrary
"along with several other related cases," the Sandiganbayan issued a or despotic manner which must be so patent and gross as to amount
Resolution finding probable cause for the issuance of warrants of
43
to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty investigation "as long as there is substantial basis for crediting the
enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. hearsay." This is because "such investigation is merely preliminary,
and does not finally adjudicate rights and obligations of parties."
In assessing if the Ombudsman had committed grave abuse of Applying the same logic, and with the similar observation that there lies
discretion, attention must be drawn to the context of its ruling - that, is: substantial basis for crediting the testimonies of the whistleblowers
preliminary investigation is merely an inquisitorial mode of discovering herein, the objection interposed by the Napoles siblings under the
whether or not there is reasonable basis to believe that a crime has evidentiary res inter alios acta rule should falter. Ultimately, as case
been committed and that the person charged should be held law edifies, "[t]he technical rules on evidence are not binding on the
responsible for it. Being merely based on opinion and belief, "a finding fiscal who has jurisdiction and control over the conduct of a preliminary
of probable cause does not require an inquiry as to whether there is investigation," as in this case.
sufficient evidence to secure a conviction." In Fenequito v. Vergara,
Jr., "[p]robable cause, for the purpose of filing a criminal information,
has been defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-
founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondent is
probably guilty thereof. The term does not mean 'actual or positive [EVIDENTE] Salapuddin v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 184681
cause nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on (Resolution), February 25,
opinion and reasonable belief. Probable cause does riot require an 2013
inquiry x x x whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a FACTS: The instant petition assails the Decision and Resolution dated
conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission August 6, 2008 and October 16, 2008, respectively, of the Court of
complained of constitutes the offense charged." Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 103461, which affirmed the inclusion
of petitioner Gerry A. Salapuddin in the amended information for
Thus, in determining the elements of the crime charged for purposes of multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder filed in Criminal Case
arriving at a finding of probable cause, "only facts sufficient to support No. Q-07-149982 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), -Branch 83 in
a prima facie case against the [accused] are required, not absolute Quezon City.
certainty." In this case, petitioners were charged with the crimes of
Plunder and violations of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019. The present controversy started on November 13, 2007 when, shortly
after the adjournment of the day's session in Congress, a bomb
The Napoles siblings cannot discount the testimonies of the exploded near the entrance of the South Wing lobby of the House of
whistleblowers based on their invocation of the res inter alios acta rule Representatives (HOR) in the Batasan Complex, Quezon City. The
under Section 28, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence, which states blast led to the death of Representative Wahab Akbar (Congressman
that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or Akbar) et al. and the inflicting of serious injuries on other victims.
omission of another, unless the admission is by a conspirator under
the parameters of Section 30 of the same Rule. To be sure, the Based on the affidavits of arrested suspects Jamiri, Ikram, and Aunal,
foregoing rule constitutes a technical rule on evidence which should Police Superintendent Asher Dolina indorsed a letter to then Chief
not be rigidly applied in the course of preliminary investigation State Prosecutor Zuo requesting the inclusion of Salapuddin,
proceedings. In Estrada, the Court sanctioned the Ombudsman's Congressman Hataman, Jim Hataman and Police Officer 1 (PO1)
appreciation of hearsay evidence, which would otherwise be Bayan Judda in the complaints for murder and multiple frustrated
inadmissible under technical rules on evidence, during the preliminary murder. After conducting preliminary investigation, the Chief State
44
Prosecutor approved a Resolution dated December 6, 2007 where he: On April 23, 2008, the Secretary of Justice issued a Resolution
(1) found probable cause to indict Aunal, Ikram, and Kusain for excluding Salapuddin from the Information for the complex crime of
multiple murder and violation of Presidential Decree No. 1829; (2) murder and frustrated murder, thus modifying the Supplemental
recommended the conduct of further investigation for their indictment Resolution of the Investigating Panel. The Secretary of Justice
for multiple frustrated murder; and (3) recommended the conduct of predicated his modificatory action on the interplay of the following
preliminary investigation as to the other respondents who were not premises: the only material evidence against Salapuddin is the
under detention. statements of Ikram. However, Ikrams statements are laden with
irreconcilable inconsistencies and contradictions that they cannot be
On February 22, 2008, Prosecutor Zuo approved the Department of considered worthy of belief. What is more, the Secretary added, "there
Justice (DOJ) Investigating Panels Supplemental Resolution is nothing on record that will indicate that x x x Salapuddin performed
recommending the amendment of the Information in Criminal Case No. the overt acts of the offense charged." The Secretary of Justice
Q-07-149982, pending before Quezon City RTC, Branch 83, to include observed that the statements of the other accused cannot be given
respondents Ikram, Aunal, Kusain, Jamiri, PO1 Bayan Judda, Jang weight as they were obtained through force and intimidation contrary to
Hataman and Salapuddin. Referring to Salapuddin in particular, the the Constitution and were in fact later recanted.
DOJ Investigating Panel stated the observation that: "Salapuddins
participation in the [crime] cannot be downplayed just because he did In a Petition for Certiorari dated May 13, 2008, herein respondents
not actively take part in the planning. Rather, despite this, it has his Jum Akbar and Nor-Rhama Indanan questioned the Secretary of
hands written all over it. The circumstances, the people and place Justices Resolution before the CA, the recourse docketed as CA-G.R.
used are all, [in] one way or another, associated with him. It cannot be SP No. 103461. They argued in the main that matters relating to the
mere coincidence." On the other hand, the resolution dismissed the admissibility of evidence and credibility of witnesses are best
charge as against Julham Kunam, Congressman Hataman, and Jim determined by the courts during trial, and not at the stage of
Hataman. So the DOJ Investigating Panel found, "their participation as determining probable cause. There is, so respondents claimed,
conspirators in the grand scheme is unstable x x x apart from the overwhelming evidence to link Salapuddin in the conspiracy to kill
statements implicating respondents Mujiv Hataman and Hadjiman Congressman Akbar.
Hataman-Salliman, no other evidence was presented to sufficiently
establish their involvement in the crime." The appellate court, by its Decision dated August 6, 2008, set aside
the Resolution of the Secretary of Justice. As held, the totality of the
On March 7, 2008, Salapuddin filed a Petition for Review of the evidence "sufficiently indicates the probability that Salapuddin lent
Supplemental Resolution with the Office of the Secretary of Justice. moral and material support or assistance to the perpetrators in the
The Investigating Panel, Salapuddin rued, refused to give probative commission of the crime," the CA adding in this regard that "the
weight to the incriminating statements of Ikram with respect to the absence (or presence) of any conspiracy among the accused is
Hataman brothers, but relied on the very same statements in finding evidentiary in nature after a full-blown trial on the merits." And to the
probable cause to indict him. Moreover, he maintained that there is no CA, the recantation made by Jamiri, Aunal, and Kusain and their claim
evidence independent of Ikrams statements that will support the of torture were of little probative value inasmuch as these were
finding of probable cause to indict him for murder and multiple "unsupported by competent proof."
frustrated murder.
Salapuddin moved for, but was denied, reconsideration per the CAs
Resolution dated October 16, 2008.
45
 Court to reverse the Decision of the appellate court; and that
In the meantime, Ikram filed a Sinumpaang Salaysay ng Pagbabawi, Salapuddins evasion from arrest is evidence of his guilt.
Pagwalang Bisa ng Naunang Mga Salaysay at Pagpapatotoo dated
October 6, 2008 with the Quezon City RTC-Branch 83 claiming that he ISSUE: Whether or not there is probable cause to indict Salapuddin in
was forced to sign the affidavits he previously executed and was this criminal case.
merely forced to implicate Salapuddin and the Hataman brothers in the
alleged conspiracy by respondent Gov. Jum Akbar and several mayors HELD: The discrepancies in Ikrams affidavits and the variations in the
from Basilan because of their political rivalry in the province.On statements of the other accused do not persuade this Court to find
November 11, 2008, Ikram submitted another affidavit of recantation probable cause that Salapuddin, who was indicted primarily because
supplying details of his ordeal while under custodial investigation and of Ikrams confession, was part of the conspiracy that led to the
alleging that he was physically and mentally tortured so that he was Batasan bombing. Instead, while We are not pre-empting the findings
forced to write and sign statements regarding the Batasan bombing of the trial court with regard to Ikram, Aunal, Jamiri and Kusain, the
that were in fact supplied by the police officers themselves. variations and the inconsistencies contained in their affidavits lend
credence to their allegations of torture and coercion, especially as
On November 24, 2008, Salapuddin filed a Petition for Review before these allegations are supported by medical reports prepared by an
this Court, ascribing on the appellate court the commission of grave independent medical practitioner who was assisted by the personnel of
error in admitting the extrajudicial admissions of Jamiri, Kusain, and the Human Rights Commission.
Aunal obtained as they were through torture and physical abuse,
without the effective assistance of a competent independent counsel of It must not be neglected that strict adherence to the Constitution and
their choice, and were in fact recanted. The appellate court also full respect of the rights of the accused are essential in the pursuit of
grievously erred, so Salapuddin argued, in according full probative justice even in criminal cases. The presumption of innocence, and all
value to Ikrams extrajudicial confession implicating Salapuddin even if rights associated with it, remains even at the stage of preliminary
it was riddled with serious contradictions and inconsistencies. investigation. It is, thus, necessary that in finding probable cause to
indict a person for the commission of a felony, only those matters
The Court, in a minute resolution, denied the petition on September which are constitutionally acceptable, competent, consistent and
29, 2010. Hence, on December 1, 2010, Salapuddin filed a Motion for material are considered. No such evidence was presented to
Reconsideration106 specifically inviting attention to the prosecutions sufficiently establish the probable cause to indict Salapuddin for the
admission no less that there is no other direct evidence linking him to non-bailable offenses he is accused of. It, thus, behooves this Court to
the crime charged except Ikrams testimony.107 Since, as urged, relieve petitioner from the unnecessary rigors, anxiety, and expenses
Ikram has recanted his testimony on account of the violations of his of trial, and to prevent the needless waste of the courts' time and the
constitutionally protected rights, there is no longer any reason or government's resources.
probable cause to maintain the criminal case filed against Salapuddin.
Extrajudicial confession; binding only on the confessant; exceptions. A
To the motion, respondents interposed an Opposition dated December review of the records show that the only direct material evidence
17, 2010108 stating that Salapuddin has not provided this Court any against Salapuddin is the confession made by Ikram. While the
new and substantial matter that would show the serious error attributed confession is arguably relevant, this is not the evidence competent to
to the CA; that the allegations of torture and recantation have already establish the probability that Salapuddin participated in the commission
been denied by the investigating prosecutors and should not sway this of the crime. On the contrary, as pointed out by the Secretary of
46
Justice, this cannot be considered against Salapuddin on account of specifically his right to confront and cross-examine his co-accused. A
the principle of res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet. Clearly different rule applies with respect to testimonies given during the trial.
thus, an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant. It In a number of instances, we have held that the testimonies of
cannot be admitted against his or her co-accused and is considered as particeps criminis may be admissible against the person incriminated.
hearsay against them. The exception provided under section 30, Rule But such rule is not without qualification. We always advise caution in
130 of the Rules of Court to the rule allowing the admission of a according probative value to the testimony of an alleged co-
conspirator requires the prior establishment of the conspiracy by conspirator, as the latter is deemed a polluted source. His or her
evidence other than the confession. In this case, there is a dearth of declaration must scrutinized with care and subjected to grave
proof demonstrating the participation of Salapuddin in a conspiracy to suspicion. True, such testimony, even if uncorroborated, may be
set off a bomb in the Batasan grounds and thereby kill Congressman sufficient to convict a co-accused, provided it is shown to be sincere,
Akbar. Not one of the other persons arrested and subjected to unhesitating, straightforward and detailed that it could not have been
custodial investigation professed that Salapuddin was involved in the the result of deliberate afterthought. Otherwise, his testimony would
plan to set off a bomb in the Batasan grounds. Instead, the require corroborative evidence which, if strong and convincing, may be
investigating prosecutors did no more than to rely on Salapuddins given its due weight and force. Being of human nature, culprits are
association with these persons to conclude that he was a participant in likely to pin the blame on others rather than on themselves. There is
the conspiracy. The Supreme Court, however, has previously stressed therefore no guarantee that petitioner's co-accused had testified
that mere association with the principals by direct participation, without truthfully. There are no other pieces of evidence that support their
more, does not suffice. Relationship, association and companionship testimonies and that tend to show or establish the guilt of the
do not prove conspiracy. Salapuddins complicity to the crime, if this be petitioner.
the case, cannot be anchored on his relationship, if any, with the
arrested persons or his ownership of the place where they allegedly FACTS: The petition seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision and
stayed while in Manila. It must be shown that the person concerned Resolution of the Court of Appeals affirming petitioner's conviction for
has performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the cattle rustling. According to the prosecution, on the early morning of
complicity. In fact, mere knowledge, acquiescence or approval of the March 18, 1991, police officers Pfc. Felizardo and Pfc. dela Cruz with
act, without the cooperation or approval to cooperate, is not sufficient Pat. Victoriano were on foot patrol inside the town proper of Sapian,
to prove conspiracy. Capiz, because of rampant cattle rustling in the area. They tried to flag
down a suspected passenger jeepney owned by Waquez, but instead
of stopping, the driver stepped on the gas pedal where Pfc. dela Cruz
was almost hit. At the Ivisan Police Station, the passenger jeepney
[EVIDENTE] Santiago v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128517, was intercepted and Lozada, the driver, was apprehended. The
September 10, 1998 jeepney was transporting one male carabao which was found out later
to be stolen. When investigated, Lozada told the police that his
Doctrine: TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE; RULE ON ADMISSIONS BY companions were Waquez, Dagohoy and Santiago. Later that same
THIRD PARTY; CASE AT BAR. Declarations, that are extrajudicial morning, Veloria reported to the Sapian Police Station that his male
are inadmissible in evidence. The rights of a party cannot be carabao was stolen. He identified his male carabao and showed his
prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as proof of ownership. On the other hand, Lozada and Waquez both
may be allowed by the Rules of Court. The admission of such claimed that on the early morning of March 18, 1991, while on board
declarations will violate the right of the petitioner to due process, the subject jeepney, they were stopped by Santiago, who, together
47
with Ledonio offered P1,500.00 for them to transport a carabao to Third, the identification of the petitioner as the malefactor was not
Roxas City. Santiago however testified that at around 8:00 o'clock in sufficiently established. Lozada did not identify the petitioner in open
the morning of March 17, 1991 while he was at Poblacion, Sapian, court, but merely mentioned his name. True, Waquez pointed to
Capiz, Ledonio approached him and asked him if he was going to Santiago, but the probative weight of his identification of the latter as
Roxas City and requested him to tell Lozada that he (Ledonio) would the culprit is attenuated by his admission that, on the night of the
load something in the latter's jeepney. He did as requested and incident, he "could not really determine that he is Joebert" and that he
thereafter, he went home to Sapian and had an accounting with his "did not recognize him."
employer because he was going to Mindanao to work there.
Afterwards, he went home, packed his clothes, then played domino. Lastly, the testimonies of Waquez and Lozada were not corroborated.
Thereafter petitioner went to sleep. His wife woke him up at about 4:00 There are no other pieces of evidence that support their testimonies
a.m. the following morning, March 18, 1991, and thereafter rode a and that tend to show or establish the guilt of the petitioner. Of the four
vehicle going to Sitio Talaba, Sapian, Capiz, and eventually rode a bus original accused, only Waquez was positively identified by Prosecution
to Iloilo City. They arrived in Iloilo City at about 7:30 a.m., and then Witness Felizardo as the one who was "hanging at the back of the
proceeded to Marbel, South Cotabato. jeep." Urdelas, who apprehended Lozada, did not see anybody except
the latter. Only Lozada and Waquez testified that Santiago rented the
ISSUE: Whether or not there is sufficient evidence to convict Santiago jeep they were plying and was with them while they were transporting
of cattle rustling the carabao.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that the evidence is insufficient to We agree with the solicitor general's recommendation to acquit
convict petitioner Santiago of cattle rustling. The identification of the Santiago:
petitioner as the malefactor was not sufficiently established. There is ". . . the facts obtaining in the case engender reasonable doubt on
no clear, convincing and corroborative evidence that shows the petitioner's complicity which, should, therefore, tilt the scale of justice
complicity of the petitioner in the commission of the offense. in his favor. . . . 'where the people's evidence fails to meet the quantum
required to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence, the
First, the trial court did not find the testimonies of said witnesses accused is entitled to acquittal regardless of the weakness of his
"frank, candid and straightforward," or their testimonies worthy of any defense of denial and uncorroborated alibi."'
credit. And our own reading of the transcripts does not lead us to For insufficiency of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, this
conclude otherwise. In fact, the solicitor general himself submits that Court is constrained to acquit the petitioner. It is axiomatic that the
"the testimonies of co-accused Lozada and Waquez are insufficient to accused is entitled to acquittal, unless his guilt is proven beyond
justify petitioner's conviction." reasonable doubt. The prosecution evidence must stand or fall on its
own merit; it cannot draw strength from the weakness of the defense.
Second, both Lozada and Waquez deny any participation in cattle
rustling. In fact, they claim to have no knowledge that the carabao was To summarize, the prosecution's evidence is insufficient to convict
indeed stolen. Being of human nature, culprits are likely to pin the Santiago. First, the testimonies of the policemen, being hearsay, are
blame on others rather than on themselves. There is therefore no inadmissible in evidence. Second, the declarations of Lozada and
guarantee that petitioner's co-accused had testified truthfully. Waquez during the investigation are inadmissible under Section 28,
Rule 130 of the Rules of Court and for being violative of petitioner's
right to due process. Third, the testimonies of Lozada and Waquez, as
48
borne out by the stenographic notes, are not worthy of credence. Again, petitioner errs in his contention. The res inter alios acta rule has
Lastly, there is no other clear, convincing and corroborative evidence several exceptions. One of them is provided in section 29 of Rule 130
that shows the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of the with respect to admissions by a co-partner or agent.
offense. Executive Secretary Angara as such was an alter ego of the petitioner.
He was the Little President. Indeed, he was authorized by the
petitioner to act for him in the critical hours and days before he
abandoned Malacaang Palace. Thus, according to the Angara Diary,
the petitioner told Secretary Angara: Mula umpisa pa lang ng
Sec. 29. Admission by co-partner or agent kampanya, Ed, ikaw na lang pinakikinggan ko. At hanggang sa huli,
ikaw pa rin. (Since the start of the campaign, Ed, you have been the
[GUTIERREZ] Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15, 146738 only one Ive listened to. And now at the end, you still are.) This
(Resolution), April 3, 2001 statement of full trust was made by the petitioner after Secretary
Angara briefed him about the progress of the first negotiation. True to
FACTS: this trust, the petitioner had to ask Secretary Angara if he would
On February 5, President Joseph Estrada (President Estrada) filed already leave Malacaang after taking their final lunch on January 20,
with this Court GR No. 146710-15, a petition for prohibition with a 2001 at about 1:00 p.m. The Angara Diary quotes the petitioner as
prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. It sought to enjoin the saying to Secretary Angara: ed, kailangan ko na bang umalis? (Do I
respondent Ombudsman from conducting any further proceedings in have to leave now?)[18] Secretary Angara told him to go and he did.
Case Nos. OMB 0-00-1629, 1754, 1755, 1756, 1757 and 1758 or in Petitioner cannot deny that Secretary Angara headed his team of
any other criminal complaint that may be filed in his office, until after negotiators that met with the team of the respondent Arroyo to discuss
the term of petitioner as President is over and only if legally warranted. the peaceful and orderly transfer of power after his relinquishment of
Thru another counsel, President Estrada, on February 6, filed GR No. the powers of the presidency. The Diary shows that petitioner was
146738 for Quo Warranto. He prayed for judgment confirming always briefed by Secretary Angara on the progress of their
President Estrada to be the lawful and incumbent President of the negotiations. Secretary Angara acted for and in behalf of the petitioner
Republic of the Philippines temporarily unable to discharge the duties in the crucial days before respondent Arroyo took her oath as
of his office, and declaring respondent to have taken her oath as and President. Consequently, petitioner is bound by the acts and
to be holding the Office of the President, only in an acting capacity declarations of Secretary Angara.
pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution. Under our rules of evidence, admissions of an agent (Secretary
ISSUE: WON allowing the Angara Diary into the evidence violates the Angara) are binding on the principal (President Estrada). Jones very
res inter alia doctrine? well explains the reasons for the rule, viz: What is done, by agent, is
done by the principal through him, as through a mere instrument. So,
HELD: whatever is said by an agent, either in making a contract for his
No. Petitioner further contends that the use of the Angara diary against principal, or at the time and accompanying the performance of any act
him violated the rule on res inter alios acta. The rule is expressed in within the scope of his authority, having relation to, and connected
section 28 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, viz: The rights of a party with, and in the course of the particular contract or transaction in which
cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, he is then engaged, or in the language of the old writers, dum fervet
except as hereinafter provided. opus is, in legal effect, said by his principal and admissible in evidence
against such principal.
49
 proscribed by Section 2, Rule 19[10] of the 1997 Rules on Civil
[GUTIERREZ] Learning Child, Inc. v. Ayala Alabang Village Procedure.
Association, G.R. No. 134269, 134440, 144518, July 7, 2010 TLC and the spouses Alfonso on one hand, and Aquino, et al., on the
other, filed separate Petitions for Review with this Court challenging
FACTS: the July 2, 1998 Resolution of the Court of Appeals.
Sometime in 1984, subdivision developer Ayala Land, Inc. (ALI) sold a TLC and the spouses Alfonsos main argument against the
parcel of land to the spouses Jose and Cristina Yuson. In 1987, the enforcement of the Deed of Restrictions on their property is the AAVA
spouses Yuson sold the same to the spouses Felipe and Mary Anne had allegedly abrogated said restrictions by its own acts. TLC and the
Alfonso. A Deed of Restrictions was annotated in TCT No. 149166 spouses Alfonso proceeded to enumerate acts allegedly constituting a
issued to the spouses Alfonso, as had been required by ALI. The Deed setting aside of said restrictions:
of Restrictions indicated that the property shall be used exclusively for 1. AAVA Village Manager Frank Roa admitted before the trial court
the establishment and maintenance thereon of a preparatory (nursery that AAVA had previously approved the proposed construction of a
and kindergarten) school, which may include such installations as an school building with 24 classrooms, which approval is further
office for school administration, playground and garage for school evidenced by a stamp mark of AAVA on the Site Development Plan
vehicles. with the signature of Frank Roa himself.[44]
ALI turned over the right and power to enforce the restrictions on the 2. While the case was submitted for resolution with the Court of
properties in the Ayala Alabang Village, including the above Appeals, AAVA, through its president Jesus M. Taedo, authorized
restrictions on TCT No. 149166, to the association of homeowners through a letter the construction of a new school building
therein, the Ayala Alabang Village Association (AAVA). extension.[45]
In 1989, the spouses Alfonso opened on the same lot The Learning 3. ALI itself requested the reclassification of the subject property as
Child Center Pre-school (TLC), a preparatory school which initially institutional, as allegedly proven by the testimony of then Municipal
consisted of nursery and kindergarten classes. In 1991, TLC was Planning and Development Officer Engineer Hector S. Baltazar, who
expanded to include a grade school program, the School of the Holy said:
Cross, which provided additional grade levels as the pupils who initially Engineer Baltazar:
enrolled advanced. There was a publication, your Honor, the developer of the Ayala
AAVA wrote several letters to TLC and the spouses Alfonso, Alabang Village, in fact, was the one who submitted this map of theirs.
essentially (1) protesting the TLCs and the spouses Alfonsos violation In deference to the Ayala Land, Inc. which is the developer of the
of the Deed of Restrictions, (2) requesting them to comply with the Ayala Alabang Village whom we know na maayos naman ang kanilang
same, and (3) ordering them to desist from operating the grade school zoning, we just adopted what they submitted to us. Whereas, the other
and from operating the nursery and kindergarten classes in excess of areas are talagang pinag-aralan pa namin.
the two classrooms allowed by the ordinance.
On October 13, 1992, AAVA filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) TLC and the spouses Alfonso point out that the subject property was
of Makati City an action for injunction against TLC and the spouses considered institutional in the Official Zoning Map, thereby implying
Alfonso. that the submission of the latter constitutes an intent to have the
On July 2, 1998, the Court of Appeals promulgated the assailed subject property reclassified as institutional.
Resolution denying the Motion for Reconsideration filed by TLC and
the spouses Alfonso. In the same Resolution, the Court of Appeals
denied the Motion to Intervene filed by Aquino, et al., for being
50
4. ALI assented to the reclassification of the subject property to Sec. 29. Admission by copartner or agent. The act or declaration of a
institutional, as shown by its letter dated July 24, 1991, wherein it partner or agent of the party within the scope of his authority and
stated: during the existence of the partnership or agency, may be given in
evidence against such party after the partnership or agency is shown
This refers to the 26 June 1991 letter of Mr. Manuel Luis C. Gonzales by evidence other than such act or declaration. The same rule applies
concerning the proposed expansion of the school curriculum to grade to the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person
school of the Learning Child Pre-school owned by Mrs. Mary Anne jointly interested with the party.
Alfonso.
Insofar as an evaluation of such proposed expansion of the school is However, the acts of ALI are not at all damaging to the position of
concerned, we believe that it is a worthy undertaking that will definitely AAVA. The act in number 1 concerns the alleged assent of ALI to the
benefit the community, and thus interpose no objection to such reclassification of the subject property as institutional which, as we
proposal as long as the conditions mentioned below are met. have already ruled, does not amount to a nullification of the Deed of
Restrictions. As regards the act in number 2, the statement in ALIs July
ISSUE: WON the actions of ALI in Nos. 3 and 4 bind AAVA and if so 24, 1991 letter that it believes the expansion of TLC is a worthy
are these actions damaging to AAVAs cause? undertaking, it should be pointed out that ALIs purported assent came
with conditions:
HELD: Insofar as an evaluation of such proposed expansion of the school is
Yes, ALIs statements if damaging to AAVA would be binding on the concerned, we believe that it is a worthy undertaking that will definitely
latter but the acts of ALI are not damaging to AAVA. benefit the community, and thus interpose no objection to such
Numbers 3 and 4 are acts allegedly performed by ALI. AAVA claims proposal as long as the conditions mentioned below are met.
that these acts cannot be considered in the case at bar under the res It is true that the AAVA Board does not have the authority on its own to
inter alios acta rule, as ALI is not a party to the case. Section 28, Rule alter the Deed of Restrictions for Ayala Alabang Village, and the
130 of the Rules of Court embodies said rule: approval of Ayala is an indispensable condition precedent to any
change in the restrictions. However, we feel that any change in the
Sec. 28. Admission by third party. The rights of a party cannot be restrictions for Ayala Alabang should be concurred to by the AAVA
prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as Board on the premise that any change in the restrictions affects the
hereinafter provided. general welfare of the community which is the primary concern of the
We have to clarify that ALIs statements, if damaging to AAVA, would AAVA Board. On this same premise, we have imposed as an
be binding on the latter. The general Ayala Alabang Village Deed additional condition to our approval of the change in restrictions, that
Restrictions, which was attached to the Deed of Restrictions on the such change should be approved by the residents of the Village or by
title of the subject property, expressly state that: 2. Compliance with the residents of the particular district where the school is situated, at
the said restrictions, reservation, easements and conditions maybe the option of the Board. We feel that the concurrence of not only the
enjoined and/or enforced by Court action by Ayala Corporation and/or AAVA Board but also of the residents of the Village or of the affected
the Ayala Alabang Village Association, their respective successors and district (as the case may be) is fair and reasonable under the
assigns, or by any member of the Ayala Alabang Village Association. circumstances.
As such, it appears that Ayala Corporation is jointly interested with As previously stated, a majority of AAVAs members, on April 5, 1992,
AAVA in an action to enforce the Deed of Restrictions, and is therefore voted to ratify the Board of Governors resolutions that the Deed of
covered under the following exception to the res inter alios acta rule: Restrictions should be implemented. Therefore, the conditions for ALIs
51
approval of the alteration of the Deed of Restrictions, namely the temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction.
concurrence of the AAVA Board and the approval of the affected Belatedly, the RTC issued an Order granting Redmonts application for
residents of the village, were clearly not met. a TRO and setting the case for hearing the prayer for the issuance of a
writ of preliminary injunction. Redmont filed a Motion for
Reconsideration Order of the MAB. Subsequently, it filed a
[FULLANTE] Narra Nickel Mining & Development Corp. v. Redmont Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration.
Consolidated Mines Corp., G.R. No. 195580, April 21, 2014
RTC issued an Order granting the issuance of a writ of preliminary
Facts: Redmont, after inquiring with DENR, it learned that the areas injunction enjoining the MAB from finally disposing of the appeals of
where it wanted to undertake exploration and mining activities where petitioners and from resolving Redmonts Motion for Reconsideration
already covered by Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) and Supplement Motion for Reconsideration of the MABs Resolution.
applications of petitioners Narra, Tesoro and McArthur. Petitioner However, the MAB issued a second Order denying Redmonts Motion
McArthur, through its predecessor-in-interest Sara Marie Mining, Inc. for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration and
(SMMI), filed an application for an MPSA and Exploration Permit (EP) resolving the appeals filed by petitioners. Hence, the petition for review
with the Mines and Geo-Sciences Bureau (MGB), Office of the filed by Redmont before the CA. CA rendered a Decision. With respect
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). SMMI to the applications of respondents McArthur, Tesoro and Narra for
was issued MPSA-AMA-IVB-153 and EPA-IVB-44. The MPSA and EP Financial or Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) or conversion of
were then transferred to Madridejos Mining Corporation (MMC) and their MPSA applications to FTAA, the matter for its rejection or
assigned to petitioner McArthur. approval is left for determination by the Secretary of the DENR and the
President of the Republic of the Philippines.
Petitioner Narra acquired its MPSA from Alpha Resources and
Development Corporation and Patricia Louise Mining & Development The CA denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioners. CA
Corporation (PLMDC) which previously filed an application for an upheld the findings of the POA in its Resolution which considered
MPSA with the MGB. Another MPSA application of SMMI was filed petitioners McArthur, Tesoro and Narra as foreign corporations. While
with the DENR. SMMI subsequently conveyed, transferred and pending with the CA, Redmont filed with the Office of the President
assigned its rights and interest over the said MPSA application to (OP) a petition seeking the cancellation of petitioners FTAAs. The OP
Tesoro. Redmont filed before the Panel of Arbitrators (POA) of the rendered a Decision, wherein it canceled and revoked petitioners
DENR three (3) separate petitions for the denial of petitioners FTAAs. The Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision was further
applications for MPSA. In their Answers, petitioners averred that they denied. Petitioners then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the
were qualified persons under Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. (RA) OPs Decision and Resolution with the CA. In the CA Decision, the CA
7942 or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995. POA issued a Resolution affirmed the Decision and Resolution of the OP. Thereafter, petitioners
disqualifying petitioners from gaining MPSAs. appealed the same CA decision to this Court which is now pending
with a different division.
Aggrieved by the Resolution and Order of the POA, McArthur and
Tesoro filed a joint Notice of Appeal and Memorandum of Appeal with Issue: Whether or not CA erred in the use of the exception of the res
the Mines Adjudication Board (MAB) while Narra separately filed its inter alios acta or the "admission by co-partner or agent" rule and
Notice of Appeal and Memorandum of Appeal. Redmont filed before "admission by privies" by pointing out that statements made by MBMI
the (RTC) a Complaint for injunction with application for issuance of a
52
should not be admitted in this case since it is not a party to the case rule, corporations are prohibited from entering into partnership
and that it is not a "partner" of petitioners. agreements; consequently, corporations enter into joint venture
agreements with other corporations or partnerships for certain
Held: NO. transactions in order to form "pseudo partnerships."

Application of the res inter alios acta rule Obviously, as the intricate web of "ventures" entered into by and
Secs. 29 and 31, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court provide: among petitioners and MBMI was executed to circumvent the legal
prohibition against corporations entering into partnerships, then the
Sec. 29. Admission by co-partner or agent.- The act or declaration of relationship created should be deemed as "partnerships," and the laws
a partner or agent of the party within the scope of his authority and on partnership should be applied. Thus, a joint venture agreement
during the existence of the partnership or agency, may be given in between and among corporations may be seen as similar to
evidence against such party after the partnership or agency is shown partnerships since the elements of partnership are present.
by evidence other than such act or declaration itself. The same rule
applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other Considering that the relationships found between petitioners and MBMI
person jointly interested with the party. are considered to be partnerships, then the CA is justified in applying
Sec. 29, Rule 130 of the Rules by stating that "by entering into a joint
Sec. 31. Admission by privies.- Where one derives title to property venture, MBMI have a joint interest" with Narra, Tesoro and McArthur.
from another, the act, declaration, or omission of the latter, while
holding the title, in relation to the property, is evidence against the
former. Sec. 30. Admission by conspirator

Petitioners claim that before the above-mentioned Rule can be applied [FULLANTE] People v. Bokingo, G.R. No. 187536, August 10, 2011
to a case, "the partnership relation must be shown, and that proof of
the fact must be made by evidence other than the admission itself." Facts: For review is the Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals in
Thus, petitioners assert that the CA erred in finding that a partnership Bokingo and Col guilty as conspirators beyond reasonable doubt of the
relationship exists between them and MBMI because, in fact, no such crime of Murder and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion
partnership exists. perpetua. An Information was filed against Michael Bokingo and
Reynante Col, charging them of the crime of murder wherein they
Partnerships vs. joint venture agreements conspired together armed with a claw hammer and with intent to kill by
A partnership is defined as two or more persons who bind themselves means of treachery, evident premeditation, abuse of confidence, and
to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund with the nighttime, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
intention of dividing the profits among themselves. On the other hand, assault and maul Noli Pasion, by hitting and beating his head and
joint ventures have been deemed to be "akin" to partnerships since it is other parts of his body with said hammer, thereby inflicting upon said
difficult to distinguish between joint ventures and partnerships. Noli Pasion fatal wounds on his head and body which caused his
death. During the preliminary investigation. Bokingco admitted that he
Accordingly, culled from the incidents and records of this case, it can conspired with Col to kill Pasion and that they planned the killing
be assumed that the relationships entered between and among several days before because they got "fed up" with Pasion. On
petitioners and MBMI are no simple "joint venture agreements." As a arraignment, Bokingco entered a guilty plea while Col pleaded not
53
guilty. During the pre-trial, Bokingco confessed to the crime charged. considered as hearsay against them. An exception to the res inter alios
The trial court rendered judgment finding appellants guilty beyond acta rule is an admission made by a conspirator.
reasonable doubt of murder, there being the two aggravating
circumstances of nighttime and abuse of confidence to be considered Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that the act or
against both accused and the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea declaration of the conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its
of guilty in favor of accused Bokingo only, sentencing them to Death. existence may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator
The Court of appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court however provided that the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than by such
lowering the penalty to reclusion perpetua pursuant to RA 7659. act or declaration. In order that the admission of a conspirator may be
received against his or her co-conspirators, it is necessary that first,
Issue: Whether Reynante Col is guilty beyond reasonable doubt as a the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission
co-conspirator based on Michael Bakingos admission that Col is a co- itself; second, the admission relates to the common object; and third, it
consiprator? has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the
conspiracy. As we have previously discussed, we did not find any
Held: NO. In order to convict Col as a principal by direct participation in sufficient evidence to establish the existence of conspiracy. Therefore,
the case before us, it is necessary that conspiracy between him and the extrajudicial confession has no probative value and is inadmissible
Bokingco be proved. As a rule, conspiracy must be established with in evidence against Col.
the same quantum of proof as the crime itself and must be shown as
clearly as the commission of the crime.
[FULLANTE] People v. Palijon, G.R. No. 123545, October 18, 2000
The finding of conspiracy was premised on Elsas testimony that
appellants fled together after killing her husband and the extrajudicial Facts: Rodelo Palijon, Carlos Decena, and Jim Mercene, both were
confession of Bokingco. Nobody witnessed the commencement of the elderly returnees (balikbayans), recently arrived from the United
attack. Col was not seen at the apartment where Pasion was being States. Entered the yard of the residence in San Pablo City of the
attacked by Bokingco. In fact, he was at Elsas house and allegedly spouses Gonzalo and Mellorequina Reyes. Entered the house and
ordering her to open the pawnshop vault. positioned themselves near the couples bedroom door and waited for
someone to open it so they could take cash and jewelry from the
Their acts did not reveal a unity of purpose that is to kill Pasion. bedroom. Palijon remained outside the house, as look-out.
Bokingco had already killed Pasion even before he sought Col. Their Mrs. Reyes came out the bedroom to go to the bathroom. Decena then
moves were not coordinated because while Bokingco was killing followed her to the toilet where he kicked and boxed her. Mrs. Reyes
Pasion because of his pent-up anger, Col was attempting to rob the managed to shout for help before she fainted. Mr. Reyes rushed to
pawnshop. assist his wife. Decena met him, with a steel-edged stool and struck
In as much as Bokingcos extrajudicial confession is inadmissible him hard several times. Mr. Reyes fell prostrate on the floor. The
against him, it is likewise inadmissible against Col, specifically where robbers ransacked the house then escaped.
he implicated the latter as a cohort. Under Section 28, Rule 130 of the Prosecution witness Merly Reyes Alvero, a daughter of the Reyes
Rules of Court, the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, couple, who lived some distance away, was roused from her sleep by
declaration or omission of another. Res inter alios acta alteri nocere a phone call from her cousin, Edith Bicomong. A hysterical Bicomong
non debet. Consequently, an extrajudicial confession is binding only on told Alvero that the latters parents were hospitalized and in critical
the confessant, is not admissible against his or her co-accused, and is condition. Alvero then proceeded to the house of her parents. An
54
inspection of the bedroom of the spouses Reyes revealed that cash Decena, admits that Pria was present when they plotted the robbery,
amounting to P17,000.00 and various pieces of jewelry belonging to but vehemently insists that she had no participation in its planning.
her mother, worth P100,000.00 were missing. Decena claims that Pria was there only to attend to their child, and she
Mr. Gonzales died from his injuries. The immediate cause of death was was sleeping when he and Mercene broke into the house of the
cardio-respiratory failure caused by severe contusion hematoma of victims. To buttress Decenas testimony, the defense presented three
head. of his letters to Pria, written in prison, clearing her of any knowledge or
In an Information, the Office of the City Prosecutor of San Pablo City participation in the crime.
charged Rodelo Palijon, Jim Mercene, Carlos Decena, Myra Pria, and
several John Does, with robbery and homicide. In our view, notwithstanding her absence from the actual crime scene,
The accused were arraigned before the RTC of San Pablo City and Pria, as a conspirator, is as liable for robbery with homicide just as if
pleaded Not Guilty to the offense in the charge sheet. Both parties she had participated in the actual robbing and killing. At the instant that
waived pre-trial. Trial on the merits then ensued. the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the crime and
Counsel for accused Decena and Mercene moved that the two be pursue it, each and every member of the conspiracy is criminally liable
allowed to withdraw their earlier plea of Not Guilty and be re-arraigned for the felony committed by anyone of them.
to allow them to enter a plea of Guilty to the lesser offense of
homicide. The prosecution raised no opposition and the motion was Appellant Palijon denies he conspired with the others. He says the trial
granted. Decena and Mercene were then re-indicted for homicide and, court erred in convicting him on the basis of the testimonies of his
with assistance of counsel, pleaded Guilty to the charge. Both were alleged conspirators. Their testimonies could not be taken against him
then sentenced as guilty beyond reasonable doubt. under the principle of res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet as
Trial then proceeded against the remaining co-accused Rodelo Palijon formulated in Sections 28 and 30, Rule 130, of the Rules of Court.
and Myra Pria. The prosecutions case was propelled in the main by Palijon and Pria submit that the prosecution failed to establish the
the testimony of Mercene, who gave evidence against said co- existence of a conspiracy and, did not overcome the presumption of
accused. The trial court found the prosecutions evidence convincing. innocence in their favor.
Palijon filed his notice of appeal to this Court, while Pria moved for
reconsideration of the trial courts decision. The court denied Prias There is conspiracy to commit a crime, where at the time the
motion for reconsideration. Pria filed her notice of appeal. malefactors of the crime, their actions impliedly showed a unity of
Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting Palijon on the purpose to attain their illicit ends. One who joins a criminal conspiracy
basis of the testimonies of his alleged conspirators? adopts in effect the criminal design of his co-conspirators and can no
Held: NO. In the instant case, both prosecution witness Mercene and longer repudiate the conspiracy once it has materialized.
defense witness Decena admitted the existence of a conspiracy to rob
the victims. However, their versions as to the participation of appellant In ruling upon Palijons arguments, we must make a distinction
Pria differ. Mercene testified that he and his co-accused agreed to between extrajudicial and judicial confessions. An extrajudicial
enter and rob the house of the Reyes couple. According to Mercene it confession may be given in evidence against the confessant but not
was appellant Pria who: (1) informed them of the arrival of the Reyes against his co-accused as they are deprived of the opportunity to
spouses from abroad; (2) told them that the balikbayans had a lot of cross-examine him. A judicial confession is admissible against the
money being; and (3) told them how to enter the house. declarants co-accused since the latter are afforded opportunity to
cross-examine the former. Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
applies only to extrajudicial acts or admissions and not to testimony at
55
trial where the party adversely affected has the opportunity to cross- Special Investigator Allan Lino, Supervising Agent Jerry Abiera and the
examine the declarant. asset went to the agreed place. Cachuela came and talked to them,
and brought them inside his house where Cachuela showed them
Mercenes admission implicating his co-accused was given on the several firearms. When the agents inquired from Cachuela whether the
witness stand. It is admissible in evidence against appellant Palijon. firearms had legal documentation, the latter sensed that the meeting
Moreover, where several accused are tried together for the same was a set-up. The NBI agents arrested Cachuela before he could
offense, the testimony of a co-accused implicating his co-accused is make any move. The agents recovered four (4) firearms from
competent evidence against the latter. Nor can we give credence to Cachuelas house.
Palijons defense of alibi. Mercenes identification of Palijon as one of The NBI conducted a follow-up operation on Ibaez whom the asset
the conspirators and participants in the crime was positive and also contacted. The NBI agents went to Imus and there met Ibaez
categorical. His alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification whom they saw inside a Nissan California car. Lino, Abiera and the
made by the prosecutions eyewitness. asset entered the car, and asked Ibaez where the firearms were.
Ibaez brought out two (2) firearms, and showed them to the agents.
[FULLANTE] People v. Cachuela, G.R. No. 191752, June 10, 2013 The agents asked whether the guns had legal documentation; they
then arrested Ibaez when they sensed that he was already becoming
Facts: Ibaez went to Weapons System Corporation (WSC), and told suspicious. The agents recovered two guns from Ibaez.
Henessy Auron that he was the one who bought a gun barrel at the At the NBI Main Office, Zaldy pointed to the appellants, during a police
companys gun show in SM Megamall. Henessy arrived at WSC and line-up, as the persons responsible for the robbery at WSC and for the
rang the doorbell, but no one opened the door. She went to the back of killing of Rex. Nabilgas also executed a handwritten confession
the office and called Zaldy Gabao. Zaldy answered from inside the implicating the appellants and Zaldy in the crime.
store but Henessy did not understand what he said. Henessy called The prosecution filed an Information for robbery with homicide before
Raymundo Sian, and informed him that Zaldys hands had been tied. the RTC against the appellants, Nabilgas and Zaldy.
After one hour, the police arrived. When Henessy and the police RTC found the appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
entered the premises, they saw that Zaldy had been handcuffed to the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, and sentenced them
vault. Zaldy informed the police that the companys gunsmith, Rex to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Excepted from the
Dorimon, was inside the firing range. The police entered the firing conviction was Nabilgas whom the RTC acquitted on ground of
range, and saw the lifeless body of Rex. reasonable doubt.
(NBI) received an information from an asset that the group of Cachuela The appellants filed an appeal with the CA. CA affirmed the RTC
was involved in the robbery of WSC and in the killing of one of its decision.
employees. The NBI formed an entrapment team. Upon their arrival, The CA held that the following pieces of circumstantial evidence
Melvin Nabilgas approached them and told them that he had been sent showed that the appellants robbed WSC and killed Rex during the
by Cachuela and Ibaez to look for buyers of firearms. The police course of this robbery:
introduced themselves and told Nabilgas that they were conducting an (1) Ibaez visited WSC two days before the robbery and asked several
entrapment operation against the suspects of the robbery at WSC. questions from Henessy;
Nabilgas surrendered to the police, and gave the names of the other (2) a robbery occurred at WSC where 53 firearms and several
persons involved in the crime. ammunitions worth P1,563,300.00 had been stolen;
Cachuela and informed him that Nabilgas had already talked to the
buyers, and that they would like to see the firearms being sold. NBI
56
(3) among the firearms stolen were a .9 mm Bernardelli with serial witness at the identification; the length of time between the crime and
number T1102-03E000151 and a .45 Glock 30 with serial number FML the identification; and the suggestiveness of the identification
245; procedure. The absence of an independent in-court identification by
(4) Rex, a gunsmith working in WSC, was found dead at the firing Zaldy additionally justifies our strict treatment and assessment of
range; Linos testimony.
(5) Rex sustained gunshot wounds on different parts of his body; Issue(2): Whether or not Nabilgas extrajudicial confession is
(6) Cachuela and Ibaez were caught trying to sell the .9 mm admissible in evidence?
Bernardelli, with serial number T1102-03E000151, and the .45 Glock Held(2): NO. Nabilgas extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in
30, with serial number FML 245, respectively, in separate entrapment evidence against the appellants in view of the res inter alios acta rule.
operations; and This rule provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an
(7) Cachuela and Ibanez were unable to explain how they came into act, declaration, or omission of another. Consequently, an extrajudicial
possession of the stolen firearms. confession is binding only on the confessant and is not admissible
The CA ruled that the totality of these circumstances point to the against his or her co-accused because it is considered as hearsay
appellants as the perpetrators of the special complex crime of robbery against them.
with homicide. The CA likewise found unmeritorious the appellants An exception to the res inter alios acta rule is an admission made by a
argument that the firearms confiscated from them were inadmissible in conspirator under Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. This
evidence, pointing out that the seizures were the result of lawful provision states that the act or declaration of a conspirator relating to
entrapment operations. It further held that the appellants failed to the conspiracy, and during its existence, may be given in evidence
impute any ill or improper motive against the police officers who against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence
conducted the entrapment operations. other than such act or declaration. Thus, in order that the admission of
Issue(1): Whether or not the out of court identification by Zaldy was a conspirator may be received against his or her co-conspirators, it is
admissible? necessary that: (a) the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other
Held(1): NO. In People v. Algarme, explains the procedure for out-of- than the admission itself; (b) the admission relates to the common
court identification and the test to determine its admissibility, as object; and (c) it has been made while the declarant was engaged in
follows: In resolving the admissibility of and relying on out-of-court carrying out the conspiracy.
identification of suspects, courts have adopted the totality of This exception, however, does not apply in the present case since
circumstances test where they consider the following factors, viz.: (1) there was no other piece of evidence presented, aside from the
the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) extrajudicial confession, to prove that Nabilgas conspired with the
the witness' degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any appellants in committing the crime charged. Conspiracy cannot be
prior description, given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty presumed and must be shown as distinctly and conclusively as the
demonstrated by the witness at the identification; (5) the length of time crime itself. Nabilgas, in fact, was acquitted by the trial court due to
between the crime and the identification; and, (6) the suggestiveness insufficiency of evidence to prove his participation in the crime.
of the identification procedure.
Linos failure to state relevant details surrounding the police line-up is a
glaring omission that renders unreliable Zaldys out-ofcourt [GO] People v. Constancio y Bacungay, G.R. No. 206226, April 4,
identification. No way exists for the courts to evaluate the factors used 2016
in determining the admissibility and reliability of out-of-court
identifications, such as the level of certainty demonstrated by the Facts:
57
"AAA" went to Alabang Town Center with her friends Dacanay and RTC found Constancio and Berry guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
Golez. After parting ways with them, "AAA" was about to board her car the crime of Rape with Homicide
when she found herself confronted by Berry then armed with a knife, CA affirmed the RTC decision
who was then in the company of Constancio, Pagkalinawan, Darden Also, the CA gave credence to Berry's extrajudicial confession as
and alias "Burog." These five forcibly seized "AAA's" car and drove her contained in the Sinumpaang Salaysay which he executed with the
to Constancio' house where she was raped and killed. assistance of Atty. Suarez. Berry's extrajudicial confession was
In the course of an interview with ABS-CBN Reporter Amparo, Berry admitted as corroborative evidence of facts that likewise tend to
revealed that while "AAA's" car was parked in Constancio' garage, the establish the guilt of his co-accused and cousin, Constancio as shown
said car was moving and shaking with "AAA" inside. 6 This led him to by the circumstantial evidence extant in the records
suspect that something was already happening; that when the door of
the car was opened, he (Berry) saw that "AAA" was without her Issue:
underwear; and that Constancio then uttered the words, "wala na," Whether the CA erred in declaring Berry's extrajudicial confession
indicating that "AAA" was already dead. 7 admissible in evidence and in considering it against his co-accused
"AAA's" body was then placed inside the trunk of her car. Adarna, a Constancio
tricycle driver, saw Berry, Constancio, and their other companions,
throw something over a bridge which turned out to be "AAA's" body Ruling:
upon investigation by the authorities. On the other hand, Constancio argues that Berry's confession is
On the evening of March 12, 2001, Bales almost became the next inadmissible in evidence against him under the principle of res inter
victim when Berry and his companions who were still using "AAA's" alios acta found in Section 28, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which
car, attempted to abduct her. Fortunately for Bales, a barangay tanod provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
was present at the scene and was able to foil the abduction when he declaration, or omission of another. Our ruling in Tamargo v. Awingan
shouted at the malefactors and startled them. Nonetheless, Bales' bag 21 pertinently explains the reason for this rule:
was taken during this incident. [O]n a principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a man's own
Eventually, Berry and Constancio were arrested after an informant acts are binding upon himself, and are evidence against him. So are
surfaced and identified them as "AAA's" assailants. The informant his conduct and declarations. Yet it would not only be rightly
came out after Mayor Marquez offered a reward for information leading inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound
to the identity of persons responsible for "AAA's" rape-slay. by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers; and if a party ought not to
During the custodial investigation, where Atty. Suarez advised him of be bound by the acts of strangers, neither ought their acts or conduct
his constitutional rights and the consequences of his statements, Berry be used as evidence against him.
executed an extrajudicial confession which was embodied in a The general rule is that an extra-judicial confession is binding only on
Sinumpaang Salaysay. Berry also confessed to Amparo during an the confessant and is inadmissible in evidence against his co-accused
interview that he did take part in the execution of the crime. since it is considered hearsay against them. 22 However, as an
At the trial, however, Berry denounced the Sinumpaang Salaysay as exception to this rule, the Court has held that an extra-judicial
false, and claimed that he was coerced into signing the same. confession is admissible against a co-accused when it is used as
For his part, Constancio contended that he was in Baguio at the time circumstantial evidence to show the probability of participation of said
of the commission of the crime. Both appellants denied the charges co-accused in the crime. 23
against them. These two also asserted that Berry's extrajudicial In People v. Aquino, 24 this Court held that in order that an extra-
confession was inadmissible in evidence. judicial confession may be used against a co-accused of the
58
confessant, "there must be a finding of other circumstantial evidence On the basis of the evidence the prosecution has adduced, which in
which when taken together with the confession would establish the the Courts perception satisfies the requisite proof beyond reasonable
guilt of a co-accused beyond reasonable doubt." Applying the rule to doubt as mandated by Section 2, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, the
Constancio's case, the Court finds that the prosecution was able to Court hereby renders a judgment, as to the accused MAJ. EMILIO
show circumstantial evidence to implicate him in the crime. COMILING, GERALDO GALINGAN and RICKY MENDOZA finding
Significantly, Constancio was positively identified as among those who them GUILTY of the special complex crime of ROBBERY WITH
threw the body of "AAA" over a bridge. It is significant to note that HOMICIDE
eyewitness Adarna also attests that Constancio was riding in the very
same car where "AAA" was raped and killed. This fact leaves this ISSUE:
Court without a doubt that Constancio is guilty of the crime charged as Whether or not the testimony of Naty Panimbaan a co-conspirator is
the same qualifies as circumstantial evidence showing his participation admissible as evidence.
in the execution of the crime.
Ruling:
[GO] People v. Comiling, G.R. No. 140405, March 4, 2004 Yes, Appellant Comiling contends that Natys testimony was
inadmissible against him to prove conspiracy because of the res inter
Facts: alios acta rule under Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court which
Accused including certain JOE, REY and PAUL, whose family names provides:
have not yet been known, armed with firearms and handgrenade, Admission by conspirator. The act or declaration of a conspirator
aboard an owner-type stainless jeep and motorized tricycle enter the relating to the conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in
Masterline Grocery pretending to be customers and once inside, poked evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by
their guns and intimidated the owner of said grocery, MR. INCIONG evidence other than such act or declaration
CO, and his worker carried away P81,000.00 and three (3) pieces of This rule prescribes that any declaration made by a conspirator
Chinese gold necklace and afterwhich the above-named accused on relating to the conspiracy is admissible against him alone but not
their way out to escape with their loot, shot and hit a responding Tayug against his co-conspirators unless the conspiracy is first shown by
Policeman, PO3 ERWIL V. PASTOR, mortally wounding him on his other independent evidence.
face that subsequently led to his untimely death, and when said According to Comiling, Natys testimony showed that she was also a
accused were cornered by other responding policemen, ran and conspirator, thus, the existence of conspiracy must be shown by
passed to an adjacent store (Good Taste Bakery) and used it as their evidence other than Natys admission. As there was no independent
exit and while there also shot, hit and mortally wounded MRS. proof of conspiracy except the testimony of Naty, the latters testimony
CONCHING CO, the owner of said bakery causing her injuries. concerning appellants participation in the conspiracy was inadmissible
The remaining accused (Comiling, Galingan, Mendoza, Salagubang against him. This contention is misplaced. The res inter alios acta rule
and Clotario) pleaded not guilty during their arraignment. Trial on the refers only to extrajudicial declarations or admissions and not to
merits ensued thereafter. testimony given on the witness stand where the party adversely
On September 26, 1995, bothered by her conscience, prosecution affected has the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.[8] In the
witness Naty Panimbaan decided to reveal to police authorities what present case, Natys admission implicating appellant Comiling was
she knew about the case. During the trial, she testified that she was made in open court and therefore may be taken in evidence against
present in all the four meetings in which the plan to rob the Masterline him
Grocery was hatched.
59
[GO] People v. Baydo y Arcamo, G.R. No. 113799, June 17, 1997 the narration of George Navarro that the commission of the offense
was planned and that, until its consummation, there was an inexorable
Facts: resolve to kill Leonardo Punongbayan. It cannot be ignored, however,
Accused, conspiring with GEORGE NAVARRO Y PADILLA @ BOY that Navarro was referring to Lino Salandanan as his accomplice.
HAPON shot Leonardo Punongbayan, Jr. y Concepcion on the chest Nowhere was the name of appellant mentioned as a member of the
and left thigh with a handgun, thereby inflicting upon the said Leonardo group which planned the death of Leonardo. Although the evidence
Punongbayan, Jr. y Concepcion gunshot wounds which were the direct revealed that it was really appellant who cooperated with Navarro in
and immediate cause of his death thereafter. the killing, the admission of Navarro regarding evident premeditation
Upon arraignment, Appellant Baydo, assisted by counsel, entered a cannot be taken against appellant in the absence of proof of
plea of not guilty. conspiracy. The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
The evidence presented by the prosecution was the testimony of declaration, or omission of another except as otherwise provided in
Rosito Punongbayan, nephew and Evelyn Punongbayan, wife of the Sections 29 to 32 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. Besides, it does
victim who saw Leonardo Punongbayan get shot. not follow that appellant was the one referred to as Lino Salandanan
As a defense, Bienvenido Baydo interposed the defense of alibi stating just because he actually cooperated with Navarro in the commission of
that he was resting inside their house at Onyx Avenue about 15 to 20 the crime. No proof whatsoever was adduced by the prosecution that
meters from the crime scene when he heard shots and went out to appellant was ever called Lino Salandanan or known by that name.
know what happened; he came to know that Leonardo Punongbayan
was shot and later he learned in the neighborhood that he is being
accused of shooting Leonardo Punongbayan. Out of fear, he fled to [GO] People v. Baharan, G.R. No. 188314, January 10, 2011
Laguna
Furthermore, George Navarro testified that he conspired with a certain Facts:
Lino Saladanan to murder Leonardo Punongbayan An RRCG bus was plying its usual southbound route, from its Navotas
RTC found appellant guilty of murder. bus terminal towards its Alabang bus terminal via EDSA, when
accused Gamal B. Baharan a.k.a. Tapay, Angelo Trinidad a.k.a. Abu
Issue: Khalil, and Rohmat Abdurrohim a.k.a. Abu Jackie or Zaky entered the
Whether or not The trial court erred in finding the accused guilty vehicle.
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder as charged in the Bus Conductor, Elmer Andales grew suspicious that the two were up
Information despite the apparent failure of the prosecution to prove the to know good. Although they entered the bus together they sat apart.
qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. As soon as the bus reached the stoplight at the corner of Ayala
Avenue and EDSA, the two men insisted on getting off the bus.
Ruling: According to Andales, the bus driver initially did not want to let them off
Yes, For evident premeditation to be appreciated, there must be proof, the bus, because a Makati ordinance prohibited unloading anywhere
as clear as the evidence of the crime itself, of the following elements except at designated bus stops. Eventually, the bus driver gave in and
thereof, viz.: 1) the time when the offender determined to commit the allowed the two passengers to alight. The two immediately got off the
crime; 2) an act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his bus and ran towards Ayala Avenue. Moments after, Andales felt an
determination; and 3) sufficient lapse of time between determination explosion. He then saw fire quickly engulfing the bus. He ran out of the
and execution to allow himself to reflect upon the consequences of his bus towards a nearby mall. After a while, he went back to where the
act. These, however, were not established. True, one can deduce from
60
bus was. He saw their bus passengers either lying on the ground or warning of Abu Solaiman. The next day, Asali allegedly received a call
looking traumatized. from accused Rohmat, congratulating the former on the success of the
The prosecution presented documents furnished by the Department of mission. According to Asali, Abu Zaky specifically said, Sa wakas nag
Justice, confirming that shortly before the explosion, the spokesperson success din yung tinuro ko sayo.
of the Abu Sayyaf Group Abu Solaiman announced over radio station
DZBB that the group had a Valentines Day gift for former President Issue: Whether or not the testimony of Asali is admissible as evidence.
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. After the bombing, he again went on radio
and warned of more bomb attacks. Ruling:
In an exclusive interview with ABS CBN, accused Baharan likewise Accused contend that the testimony of Asali is inadmissible pursuant
admitted his role in the bombing incident. Finally, accused Asali gave a to Sec. 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. It is true that under the rule,
television interview, confessing that he had supplied the explosive statements made by a conspirator against a co-conspirator are
devices for the 14 February 2005 bombing. The bus conductor admissible only when made during the existence of the conspiracy.
identified the accused Baharan and Trinidad, and confirmed that they However, as the Court ruled in People v. Buntag, if the declarant
were the two men who had entered the RRCG bus on the evening of repeats the statement in court, his extrajudicial confession becomes a
14 February. judicial admission, making the testimony admissible as to both
After being discharged as state witness, accused Asali testified that conspirators. Thus, in People v. Palijon, the Court held the following:
while under training with the Abu Sayyaf in 2004, Rohmat, a.k.a Abu [W]e must make a distinction between extrajudicial and judicial
Jackie or Zaky, and two other persons taught him how to make bombs confessions. An extrajudicial confession may be given in evidence
and explosives. The trainees were told that they were to wage battles against the confessant but not against his co-accused as they are
against the government in the city, and that their first mission was to deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine him. A judicial confession
plant bombs in malls, the Light Railway Transit (LRT), and other parts is admissible against the declarants co-accused since the latter are
of Metro Manila. afforded opportunity to cross-examine the former. Section 30, Rule
As found by the trial court, Asali, after his training, was required by the 130 of the Rules of Court applies only to extrajudicial acts or
Abu Sayyaf leadership, specifically Abu Solaiman and Rohmat, to admissions and not to testimony at trial where the party adversely
secure eight kilos of TNT, a soldering gun, aluminum powder, a tester, affected has the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. Mercenes
and Christmas lights, all of which he knew would be used to make a admission implicating his co-accused was given on the witness stand.
bomb. He then recalled that sometime in November to December It is admissible in evidence against appellant Palijon. Moreover, where
2004, Trinidad asked him for a total of 4 kilos of TNT that is, 2 kilos on several accused are tried together for the same offense, the testimony
two separate occasions. Rohmat allegedly called Asali to confirm that of a co-accused implicating his co-accused is competent evidence
Trinidad would get TNT from Asali and use it for their first mission. The against the latter
TNT was allegedly placed in two buses sometime in December 2004,
but neither one of them exploded.
Asali then testified that the night before the Valentines Day bombing, Sec. 31. Admission by privies
Trinidad and Baharan got another two kilos of TNT from him. Late in
the evening of 14 February, he received a call from Abu Solaiman. The [GO] Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152154, July 15, 2003
latter told Asali not to leave home or go to crowded areas, since the
TNT taken by Baharan and Trinidad had already been exploded in Facts: Petitioner Republic, through the PCGG, represented by the
Makati. Thirty minutes later, Trinidad called Asali, repeating the OSG, filed a petition for forfeiture before the Sandiganbayan, entitled
61
Republic of the Philippines vs. Ferdinand E. Marcos, represented by Respondents posits the defense of lack of knowledge for lack of privity
his Estate/Heirs and Imelda R. Marcos, pursuant to RA 1379[1] in or (inability to) recall because it happened a long time ago or, on the
relation to Executive Order Nos. 1,[2] 2,[3] 14[4] and 14-A.[5] part of Mrs. Marcos, that the funds were lawfully acquired.
In said case, petitioner sought the declaration of the aggregate amount In a resolution[11] dated January 31, 2002, the Sandiganbayan
of US$356 million (now estimated to be more than US$658 million reversed its September 19, 2000 decision, thus denying petitioners
inclusive of interest) deposited in escrow in the PNB, as ill-gotten motion for summary judgment:
wealth. The funds five account groups, using various foreign In sum, the evidence offered for summary judgment of the case did not
foundations in certain Swiss banks prove that the money in the Swiss Banks belonged to the Marcos
In addition, the petition sought the forfeiture of US$25 million and spouses because no legal proof exists in the record as to the
US$5 million in treasury notes which exceeded the Marcos couples ownership by the Marcoses of the funds in escrow from the Swiss
salaries, other lawful income as well as income from legitimately Banks.
acquired property. The treasury notes are frozen at the Central Bank of The basis for the forfeiture in favor of the government cannot be
the Philippines, now Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, by virtue of the deemed to have been established and our judgment thereon, perforce,
freeze order issued by the PCGG. must also have been without basis.
Meanwhile, on August 10, 1995, petitioner filed with the District WHEREFORE, the decision of this Court dated September 19, 2000 is
Attorney in Zurich, Switzerland, an additional request for the immediate reconsidered and set aside, and this case is now being set for further
transfer of the deposits to an escrow account in the PNB. The request proceedings.[12]
was granted. On appeal by the Marcoses, the Swiss Federal Supreme Hence, the instant petition. In filing the same, petitioner argues that the
Court, in a decision dated December 10, 1997, upheld the ruling of the Sandiganbayan, in reversing its September 19, 2000 decision,
District Attorney of Zurich granting the request for the transfer of the committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
funds. In 1998, the funds were remitted to the Philippines in escrow. jurisdiction.
Subsequently, respondent Marcos children moved that the funds be
placed in custodia legis because the deposit in escrow in the PNB was Issue: Whether or not there is sufficient evidence to establish that the
allegedly in danger of dissipation by petitioner. The Sandiganbayan, in Marcoses owns the swiss accounts.
its resolution dated September 8, 1998, granted the motion.
After several resettings, petitioner, on March 10, 2000, filed another Ruling: There is no doubt in our mind that respondent Marcoses
motion for summary judgment pertaining to the forfeiture of the admitted ownership of the Swiss bank deposits.
US$356 million, based on the following grounds: THE ESSENTIAL We have always adhered to the familiar doctrine that an admission
FACTS WHICH WARRANT THE FORFEITURE OF THE FUNDS made in the pleadings cannot be controverted by the party making
SUBJECT OF THE PETITION UNDER R.A. NO. 1379 ARE such admission and becomes conclusive on him, and that all proofs
ADMITTED BY RESPONDENTS IN THEIR PLEADINGS AND OTHER submitted by him contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith should be
SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDING ignored, whether an objection is interposed by the adverse party or
The Sandiganbayan granted petitioners motion for summary judgment: not.[104] This doctrine is embodied in Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules
There is no issue of fact which calls for the presentation of evidence. of Court:
The Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby granted. SEC. 4. Judicial admissions. An admission, verbal or written, made
The Swiss deposits which were transmitted to and now held in escrow by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not
at the PNB are deemed unlawfully acquired as ill-gotten wealth. require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that
Respondent Mrs. Marcos filed a motion for reconsideration
62
it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was but on a separate bed was Ninas 23-year old mentally deranged
made.[105] brother.
In the absence of a compelling reason to the contrary, respondents Nina was awakened when appellant, who had resided with the de la
judicial admission of ownership of the Swiss deposits is definitely Cruzes since 1976, he being one of the workers in the family metal
binding on them. craft business, armed with a bladed weapon, suddenly entered her
The individual and separate admissions of each respondent bind all of room. Appellant then covered her mouth, held her hand and removed
them pursuant to Sections 29 and 31, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court: her shorts and panty after which he removed his pants and brief, went
SEC. 29. Admission by co-partner or agent. The act or declaration of on top of her and inserted his penis into her vagina. After satisfying his
a partner or agent of the party within the scope of his authority and carnal desire, appellant warned her not tell anyone about what
during the existence of the partnership or agency, may be given in happened and left the room.
evidence against such party after the partnership or agency is shown More than two months after the May 25, 1997 incident or on July 29,
by evidence other than such act or declaration. The same rule applies 1997, around 1:25 a.m., Nina was, like her brother with whom she
to the act or declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person shared her bedroom, sleeping. She was once again awakened when
jointly interested with the party.[106] appellant, also again armed with a bladed weapon, suddenly entered
SEC. 31. Admission by privies. Where one derives title to property her room. Just like the May 25, 1997 incident, appellant removed her
from another, the act, declaration, or omission of the latter, while shorts and panty, after which he too removed his pants and brief and
holding the title, in relation to the property, is evidence against the threatened Nina that hell kill her if she shouted. Appellant thereafter
former.[107] went on top of her and inserted his penis into her vagina. His carnal
The declarations of a person are admissible against a party whenever desire satisfied, appellant left the room.
a privity of estate exists between the declarant and the party, the term In late July 1997, Ninas mother, after confirming from Nina herself that
privity of estate generally denoting a succession in rights.[108] she was pregnant, confronted appellant about the incidents but he
Consequently, an admission of one in privity with a party to the record remained silent. Appellant was thereupon asked to leave as he did, he
is competent.[109] Without doubt, privity exists among the respondents proceeding to Melencio de la Cruzs fathers house at Iba, Hagonoy,
in this case. And where several co-parties to the record are jointly Bulacan. On physical examination on August 2, 1997, Nina was found
interested in the subject matter of the controversy, the admission of to have at least two lacerations on the genital area, and fifteen to
one is competent against all.[110] sixteen weeks pregnant.
On the other hand, appellant, who was 55 when he testified on
November 16, 1998, denied that he raped Nina on May 25, 1997 or on
Sec. 32. Admission by silence July 29, 1997. He claimed that on May 25, 1997, around 12:30 a.m.,
he was at work in the glass factory of Melencio de la Cruzs niece Dory
[JULARBAL] People v. Roa, G.R. Nos. 138195-96, July 10, 2003 de la Cruz at Hagonoy; that on July 29, 1997, he was back at the
house of the de la Cruzes at Balubaran after Melencio de la Cruz
FACTS: rehired him; and on July 23, 1997, he was confronted about the
On May 25, 1997, around 12:30 a.m., then 15-year old Ma. Nina de la alleged rape and cursed by Maxima but [he] did not retaliate [and] just
Cruz (Nina) was sleeping in her room located at the third floor of the remained silent, and on even date he left and went to the house of
residence of her adopting parents, Maxima and Melencio de la Cruz, in Melencio de la Cruzs father at Iba, Hagonoy, Bulacan. Melencio de la
Ilang-Ilang St., Balubaran, Valenzuela City. Sleeping in the same room Cruz, together with his bodyguard later maltreated him and haled him

63
into the Hagonoy jail where he was detained. He did not complain, Following Section 32 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence
however. which provides:
Finding for the prosecution, the trial court found accused Nicanor Roa SECTION 32. Admission by silence. An act or declaration made in the
y Rabino Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged. presence and within the hearing observation of a party who does or
Appellant assails the credibility of the testimony of Nina, a close says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for
scrutiny of which he claims readily exhibits inconsistencies which go to action or comment if not true, and when proper and possible for him to
the very core of her credibility. do so, may be given in evidence against him.
Appellant argues that the fact that she was already sleeping would he is, by his silence, deemed to have admitted the charges.
make it impossible for [him] to lay her down again because these
circumstances do not appear to be in consonance with the normal [JULARBAL] People v. Magdadaro y Gerona, G.R. Nos. 89370-72,
course of human nature; and that while Nina attributed her pregnancy May 15, 1991
to appellant, she nevertheless admitted that she was already pregnant
before May 25, 1997 when the alleged rape subject of the first case FACTS:
occurred. As for Ninas attribution of her pregnancy to appellant, albeit The Complainant, Beverlinda Abrasado, is a 16-year old country girl, a
she admitted that she was already pregnant before the first rape Grade VI student, daughter of Leonardo Abrasado. The latter is a
incident, the same does not infirm her credibility. While, given her tenant of accused-appellant Magdadaro at the latter's farm at Balubal,
youth, she may erred in attributing her pregnancy to appellant on Cagayan de Oro City. Beverlinda helps her father till the farm.
account of the May 25, 1997 incident, what matters is that she was Appellant is a farmer, 54 years of age, married residing at Tin-ao,
positive in her claim about the occurrence of the sexual assault on her, Cagayan de Oro City.
as shown in her following verbatim testimony which the trial court did Beverlinda's narration of the three (3) happenings follows:
find, as does this Court, to be candid and bereft of any indication that it The 10 July 1988 incident:
was fabricated. At about 10:00 o'clock in the morning, when Beverlinda was gathering
"guyabano" near Appellant's house at Balubal, Cagayan de Oro City,
ISSUE: the latter suddenly appeared, held Beverlinda by the hand and pulled
Whether or not the silence of accussed-appelant is deemed an her towards the cornfield nearby. She tried her best to extricate herself
admission of the charges against him. but was no match for Appellant's strength. The latter then held her
hand again and boxed her in the stomach, making her fall to the
HELD: ground. She lost consciousness. When she regained her senses,
The prosecution having by its evidence prima facie established Appellant was already on top of her, taking advantage of her
appellants guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the burden of evidence womanhood.
shifted on him. Appellants evidence, however, is weak and fails to The event over, Beverlinda was ordered to go home by Appellant with
controvert the positive declaration of Nina who was not shown to have the threat not to reveal the occurrence to any one at the risk of her life
any reason to falsely charge him. His admitted silence when Ninas and that of her family.
mother confronted and even cursed him by his claim, betrays his guilt The 15 July 1988 incident.
just as his passivity does when he was allegedly maltreated and haled On this date, while Beverlinda was fetching water from the well near
into jail by Ninas father on account of the incidents. For an innocent Appellant's house, the latter appeared, held her by the hand, and
man would certainly strongly protest and deny a false accusation and pulled her towards the cornfield, despite her resistance and attempts to
do something positive to spare himself of punishment. But he did not. free herself. She was again boxed, fell to the ground, and when she
64
came to, Appellant was on top of her "making the push and pull o'clock position," "suggestive of sexual intercourse," but "negative of
movements." spermatozoa".
As in the first incident, Beverlinda did not reveal the episode for fear of Beverlinda's father declared that on his way to the City Hall on 22
her life. August 1988 in the company of Sgt. Romero, his wife, a Bantay
The 21 August 1988 incident. Bayan, and Appellant, the latter asked for forgiveness twice and
At about 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon of this date, Beverlinda was offered to pay damages but that he refused because the matter was
tethering a carabao in a grassy area adjoining Appellant's house at already before the authorities. Again, during the investigation at the
Balubal. From out of the bushes, Appellant appeared and chased her. Fiscal's Office, Appellant asked for settlement of the case but he gave
She was able to run but Appellant caught up with her and held her the same answer.
hand tightly. She shouted for help. Appellant boxed her in the stomach. So much for the prosecution evidence. Now, for Appellant's own
She lost consciousness and fell to the, ground. Regaining her senses, account:
she found Appellant already astride her, having carnal knowledge of He states that he knows Beverlinda because she is the daughter of his
her. tenant, Leonardo Abrasado. He admits having had carnal knowledge
Unknown to Beverlinda and Appellant, Leonardo Abrasado, of her on 10 July, 15 July and 21 August 1988 but maintains that the
Beverlinda's father, heard the shouts and proceeded towards the act was consummated upon mutual agreement.
direction where they came from. Leonardo testified that upon reaching On 10 July 1988, he had sex with Complainant at his own house,
there, he could hardly believe his eyes when he saw Appellant, his adding that she was no longer a virgin as he was able to penetrate
own landlord, abusing his own daughter. Engaged, he called "Gaw" immediately and without obstacle. The act consummated, Beverlinda
and unsheathed his bolo. But Appellant was quick on his feet, stood asked him for money so she could buy a birthday dress. He replied
up, naked from waist down, and ran away, leaving his pants', his that he had to go home first to get the money. On 14 July 1988, he
underwear and his hat in his haste. The father chased Appellant but went to Beverlinda's house at Balubal, bringing with him fish and
lost the latter lost in the bushes. P200.00.
Appellant was found about two hours later by some members of the The following day, 15 July 1988, Beverlinda went to his house and he
Bantay Bayan and the military, approximately 300 meters away from handed her the money. One thing led to another and they made love.
the place of the incident, still hiding in the bushes. He was "wearing his Beverlinda invited him for her birthday but he begged off because of
coat, but no pants, he just wrapped himself in the lower portion of his another appointment in Zamboanga, but promised that he would try
body with a long sleeved sweater." The witness asked him if he was and be back.
Paulino Magdadaro and "why did you do it?" but the latter did not In the morning of 21 August 1988, Appellant went fishing. Later, with
answer. Appellant was then taken to the checkpoint of the PC his two children, he went to Balubal and gave his catch to Leonardo,
detachment by Sgts. Lustre and Viras. his tenant. After having lunch at the latter's house, both went out to
When the search party arrived at the scene of the incident, they found gather fruits and cassava. An hour later, or at 2:30 P.M., they placed
the corn plants toppled down, a pair of long pants, a pair of briefs, a what they had gathered in sacks and Appellant instructed his children
hat and the underwear of a woman. Beverlinda was also still there, to hurry so they could catch the bus headed for home. Appellant
seated, crying. accepted Leonardo's offer to help the children carry the sacks. After
The genital examination of Beverlinda, on 22 August 1988, at the Leonardo and the two children had left, Beverlinda went to his house.
Northern Mindanao Regional Training Hospital, Cagayan de Oro City, After a brief conversation, Appellant discovered that he had not
disclosed "incomplete hymenal laceration at 1:00, 3:00, 7:00 and 9:00 brought the house keys. Beverlinda suggested that they go instead to
the cornfield near the house and repeat what they had engaged in on
65
two other occasions. Upon reaching the cornfield, he took off his pants incident. What more physical evidence is necessary? They eloquently
and brief. After spreading his pants and brief on the ground, Beverlinda confirm Beverlinda's testimony that after having undressed himself
removed her panty. They made love afterwards. Minutes later, Appellant had violated her on 21 August 1988.
Appellant heard Leonardo calling him "Gaw." Upon seeing him, he took Appellant's flight upon discovery by Beverlinda's father of his shameful
off immediately, leaving behind his pants and brief. act, belies consent by Beverlinda for if that had been so, she would not
In the course of his testimony, Appellant stoutly denied having forced have been found crying her heart out, nor would he have fled in fear.
Beverlinda to have sex with him; or having boxed her and rendering His silence when asked by the Barangay Captain "why he had done
her unconscious to satisfy his desire; or having threatened her and her it?" is likewise significant. His claim that there was no admission by
family if ever she reported the incidents to the authorities. In a nutshell, silence on his part since he was not given the opportunity to make a
Appellant's version is that he and Beverlinda were sweethearts. reply besides the fact that whoever asked the question was not known
The Trial Court disbelieved Appellant, found him guilty in all three to him, hardly deserves consideration.
criminal cases. Silence is assent as well as consent, and may, where a direct and
specific accusation of crime is made, be regarded under some
ISSUE: circumstances as a quasi-confession. An innocent person will at once
IV. In holding that a) the flight of the accused from the scene of the naturally and emphatically repel an accusation of crime, as a matter of
crime is evidence of guilt; b) the alleged repeated request for self-preservation and self-defense, and as a precaution against
settlement of the case by the accused is an implied admission of guilt; prejudicing himself. A person's silence, therefore, particularly when it is
and c) the failure of the accused to answer the question of Francisco persistent, will justify an inference that he is not innocent.
Bagtong when the accused was asked "are you the one who
committed the crime?", which would have naturally called for comment [JULARBAL] People v. Paragsa, G.R. No. L-44060, July 20, 1978
if not true, is admission of guilt;
FACTS:
In the afternoon of July 13, 1971, Mirasol, who was then a little over
HELD: twelve and a half (12) years old, was alone in her parents' house in
From the evidence before us, it is difficult to see how Appellant can Sitio Tabagac of Barrio Bunacan, Municipality of Madridejos, Cebu,
profess innocence. Even if we were to discount Beverlinda's testimony, cooking hog feed. Her parents were away at the time her father was
her father's declarations point to Appellant's clear culpability, He had in Cadiz, while her mother was in Sagay, both in Negros Occidental
heard his daughter's shouts (not knowing then that it was she) while while the rest of the family were with Mirasol's grandmother in Barrio
she was being pulled by Appellant. He had actually seen him Codia; also in Madridejos, Cebu. Mirasol was a 6th grade student of
consummating his dastardly act. Infuriated, the father chased him with the Bunacan Elementary School. Upon instruction of her mother, she
a bolo but he was fast on his feet and successfully eluded pursuit. That did not go to school that afternoon so that she could look after the pigs
immediate flight is strongly indicative of his consciousness of guilt. and cook their feed. Thus, she was alone in the ground floor of their
"The wicked flee when no man pursueth; but the righteous are as bold house cooking hog feed when the accused, Bienvenido Paragsa,
as the lion." armed with a hunting knife, entered the house and closed the door
When found, still hiding behind the bushes, Appellant was still without after him. Approaching from behind, he placed his left arm around
his brief and pants, was uncovered from the waist down, his private Mirasol's neck, encircled her abdomen with his right arm, at the same
part exposed. He was caught literally with his pants down. The pieces time pointing the hunting knife with s right hand at her breast, and
of clothing needed to cover him up were all found at the very site of the threatened her not to shout otherwise she would be killed. Thereafter,
66
the accused pushed her to a bamboo bed nearby, rolled up her dress Emergency Hospital in Bantayan, Cebu, where she was examined by
and, with his two hands, removed her panties. The accused then Dr. Luis L. Gandiongco, who submitted his findings as follows:
placed his hunting knife on the bed by Mirasol's side, opened the Abrasion of inguinal region
zipper of his pants while kneeling on the bed, opened Mirasol's thighs, Abrasion, left thigh, medial side
picked up the hunting knife again, placed himself on top of Mirasol, INTERNAL FINDINGS:
inserted his erect penis into her sexual organ and then made four push 1. Discharges sticky, milky in color, found at the anterior fornix but
and pull movement until he ejaculated. In the process, Mirasol's dress negative for spermatozoa
and panties were not torn, since, because of fear, she allowed the Mrs. Lita Parochel, the aunt-in-law of Mirasol, testified that she is the
accused to roll up her dress and pull her panties without any wife of the younger brother of Mirasol's father. Her house is fifty (50)
resistance whatsoever. During the intercourse, the accused was not meters away from the house of her brother-in-law, Ruperto
holding the hunting knife. After the accused had discharged, he ran to Magallanes. In the afternoon of July 13, 1971, she went to the house
the storeroom of the house upstairs because he heard Mrs. Lita of her brother-in-law in Tabagac Arriving there, she saw, through the
Parochel, wife of the younger brother of Mirasol's father, calling from gate which was made of split bamboos, the accused running away
outside the gate of the house, asking Mirasol to open the gate. Mirasol when she shouted to Mirasol, who was then in the act of putting on her
did not answer because she was then in the act of putting on her panties, to open the gate. Mirasol opened the gate after she had put
panties. After she had put on her panties, she opened the gate and on her panties. Entering the house, Mrs. Parochel asked Mirasol what
saw her aunt Lita, who asked her what the accused did to her, but she the accused did to her, but Mirasol did not answer. So, she hid and
did not answer because she was afraid as the accused was still inside from her hiding place she saw the accused emerge from his hiding
the house. She also did not tell her aunt Lita that the accused had place and run away, passing through the gate of the fence. Thereupon,
sexual intercourse with her under threats and against her will. Her aunt she told Mirasol to go home to barrio Codia because she was also
Lita then walked away. going there.
Thereafter, the accused reappeared in the room and told Mirasol that if Mrs. Parochel met Mirasol's father at about 4:00 o'clock the same
she would tell her aunt Lita what he did, he would kill her. After the afternoon but she did not talk to him about what she saw earlier in
incident, Mirasol went to Barrio Codia later in the afternoon of the Tabagak However, she revealed the incident to her husband.
same day and joined her brother and sister and grandmother. She did When Mirasol's mother returned from Sagay, Negros Occidental, Mrs.
not reveal to any of them what transpired between her and the Parochel had a conversation with her regarding the person of the
accused in Tabagac. accused and thereafter Mirasol's mother filed the corresponding
Mirasol's father returned from Cadiz, Negros Occidental that same complaint against the accused.
day; but Mirasol did not also reveal the incident to him because she In his typewritten brief, the appellant enumerated and discussed five
was afraid her father might punish her. Her mother returned home on errors as having been committed by the trial court. These errors may,
July 16, 1971 from Sagay, Negros Occidental; but Mirasol did not also however, be boiled down to the issue of credibility.
tell her mother about what happened to her on July 13 in Tabagac It Appellant admits having sexual intercourse with Mirasol, the
was her aunt Lita who revealed the matter to Mirasol's mother, who complaining witness, but he stoutly denied that he did so by employing
thereupon confronted her daughter. Mirasol had to reveal the incident force or intimidation against Mirasol. He claims he and Mirasol were
of July 13 to her mother only when her mother asked her about it; sweethearts; that on the day of the incident, it was Mirasol who invited
because, according to her, she wanted to take revenge on the him to the latter's house where they had sexual intercourse after
accused. Three days after her return from Sagay, Negros Occidental kissing each other; and that the intercourse they had that afternoon
on July 19, 1971 Mirasol's mother brought her to the Bantayan was, as a matter of fact, their third sexual intercourse.
67
The foregoing testimony of the accused was substantially corroborated his rights or in which he was then interested, and calling, naturally, for
by two witnesses for the defense, Mercado Batosbatosan and Eduardo an answer; (4) that the facts were within his knowledge; and (5) that
Ducay. the fact admitted or the inference to be drawn from his silence would
A careful scrutiny of the record reveals that the prosecution's evidence be material to the issue. These requisites of admission by silence all
is weak, unsatisfactory and inconclusive to justify a conviction. obtain in the present case. Hence, the silence of Mirasol on the facts
Certain circumstances negate the commission by the appellant of the asserted by the accused and his witnesses may be safely construed
crime charged and point to the conclusion that the sexual intercourse as an admission of the truth of such assertion.
between the appellant and the complaining witness was voluntary. One more circumstance which engenders serious doubt on the
Force and intimidation were not proven. Mirasol did not offer any truthfulness of Mirasol is the testimony of Dr. Gandiongco that he did
resistance or vocal protestation against the alleged sexual assault. not notice any laceration in the walls of Mirasol's vagina.
She could have easily made an outcry or resisted the appellant's Considering Mirasol's tender age, if she had no previous sexual
advances without endangering her life. But she did not. experience, she must have been a virgin when she was allegedly
Another circumstance is that Mirasol did not reveal immediately to her raped by the accused. Yet she did not state that she felt some pain as
parents that she was raped. It was only after her mother arrived from the accused tried to insert his organ into her private part. Neither did
Sagay, Negros Occidental, three (3) days after the incident, and she state that she was bleeding during and after the alleged forced
confronted her about the rape incident that her mother learned through coition. Instead, she matter-of-factly narrated that the accused made
her aunt Lita that she eventually revealed to her mother what the four push and pull movements after which the latter ejaculated
accused did to her in the afternoon of July 13, 1971. indicating that he had an easy time doing it.
Still another circumstance is the fact that Mirasol did not bother at all to That Mirasol was pale, afraid and trembling can only be attributed to
rebut the testimony of the appellant and his witnesses to the effect that the fact that her aunt discovered her having sexual intercourse at so
the accused and Mirasol were actually sweethearts; and that they had young an age and that she feared that her aunt would report the same
had two previous sexual communications before July 13, 1971, one of to her parents.
which happened on June 29, 1971 in the house of the accused, where
Mirasol and the accused slept together in the evening of the same day [JULARBAL] Solas v. Power Telephone Supply Phils., Inc., G.R. No.
after the mother of the accused and Mirasol had returned from the 162332, August 28, 2008
town fiesta of Bantayan, Cebu.
FACTS:
ISSUE: On 16 August 1997, Herbert Solas entered into a contract of
Whether or not the silence of Marisol may be safely construed as an employment with Power and Telephone /Supply Philippines, Inc., to be
admission of the truth of the assertion by the accused. the Assistant Sales Manager of the company with a monthly salary of
P21,600.00, excluding bonuses and commission.
HELD: On 06 November 1998, private respondent company granted petitioner
The rule allowing silence of a person to be taken as an implied Herbert Solas and Franklin D. Quiachon an amount of P85,418.00
admission of the truth of the statements uttered in his presence is each, corresponding to their sales commission from the month of
applicable in criminal cases. But before the silence of a party can be January to June of 1998. From that time up to the present, no other
taken as an admission of what is said, it must appear: (1) that he heard sales commission was ever again given to them.
and understood the statement; (2) that he was at liberty to interpose a Thus, on 04 February 2000, petitioner requested for the release of his
denial; (3) that the statement was in respect to some matter affecting alleged commission which had already accumulated since July of
68
1998. However, in an inter-office memorandum, said request was award amounting to P100,000.00 as attorney's fees, as well as the
denied, and instead, petitioner was even mandated to settle his dismissal of petitioner from employment.
outstanding obligation with the company. The parties submitted their position papers. On 31 August 2000, the
On 07 February 2000, petitioner likewise received another Labor Arbiter rendered a decision finding for the petitioner Herbert
memorandum requiring him to return the issued cellular phone, car Solas.
and key to his office, which he allegedly all complied. Petitioner Respondents appealed to the NLRC, which reversed and set aside the
averred that these were all forms of harassment including the non- decision of the LA. The NLRC ruled that that there was no constructive
payment of his salary for the month of February 2000, and onwards. dismissal in this case, because petitioner never resigned but merely
Hence, on 15 February 2000, he instituted a case for illegal filed an indefinite sick leave, even admitting during the preliminary
constructive dismissal, recovery of 10% sales commission on gross hearings that he was still an employee of respondents, and his
sales, and attorney's fees. principal claim was for payment of his sales commission. Furthermore,
In response, private respondents maintained that there was no the NLRC saw no badge of constructive dismissal in respondents'
agreement, written or oral, which talked of the grant of 10% action of applying petitioner's salary for the month of February 2000 as
commission on gross sales to sales agent, nor was there a CBA on the payment for his debts to the company amounting to P95,000.00. It was
matter. There was even no CBA to speak of, since the company had also held that petitioner failed to establish that there was an agreement
no union, with its employees numbering only to less than 10, all being between him and respondent employer for a 10% sales commission,
fixed-salaried employees. The company gave bonuses when there and that he failed to establish the origin and authenticity of the specific
was an income, but these were purely on the liberality of the company, amount of the commission being claimed by him.
subject to the availability of funds and profits. Besides, petitioner has Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC Decision, but
actually no client of his own from whom he could close sales, thus the the same was denied.
claim for commission was utterly baseless. From such adverse judgment, petitioner elevated his case to the CA
Private respondents maintained also that the claim of petitioner that he via a Petition for Certiorari. On September 12, 2003, the CA
was constructively dismissed, was without basis. Beginning 02 promulgated the assailed Decision affirming the NLRC ruling,
February 2000, petitioner's attendance was already irregular. On 11
February 2000, he was on absence without leave. He was sick and ISSUE:
had a growing lump on his left shoulder. It was this absence without I. THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS PATENTLY
leave which prompted private respondents to write several memoranda ERRED AND COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
to petitioner, one advising him to return to work immediately, as his AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN
continued absence was inimical to the company; the other, directing IT AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE NLRC FINDING THAT
him to explain his continued unauthorized absences within 24 hours THERE WAS NO ILLEGAL DISMISSAL.
from receipt of the memo.
Private respondents asserted further that neither the order directing HELD:
petitioner to return the company car, the issued cellular phone and In this case, petitioner's allegations that respondents committed acts of
keys, nor the deductions made on his salary, could constitute as basis harassment, i.e., the withholding of his salary for the month of
for his alleged constructive dismissal, all allegations being baseless February and directing him to return the company car, cellphone and
and without merit. Thus, private respondents prayed for an order office keys, have been rebutted and sufficiently explained by private
directing petitioner to pay the latter's debt with the company, and an respondent company in its Position Paper. Respondents were able to

69
show that its acts were not intended to harass or discriminate against the company car, key and cellphone. This constitutes admission by
petitioner. silence under Section 32, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
There was valid reason for respondents' withholding of petitioner's Sec. 32. Admission by silence. - An act or declaration made in the
salary for the month of February 2000. Petitioner does not deny that he presence and within the hearing or observation of a party who does or
is indebted to his employer in the amount of aroundP95,000.00. says nothing when the act or declaration is such as naturally to call for
Respondents explained that petitioner's salary for the period of action or comment if not true, and when proper and possible for him to
February 1-15, 2000 was applied as partial payment for his debt and do so, may be given in evidence against him.
for withholding taxes on his income; while for the period of February Verily, the only conclusion that may be reached is that respondents'
15-28, 2000, petitioner was already on absence without leave, hence, explanations are truthful and, based thereon, the NLRC and the CA
was not entitled to any pay.15 committed no grave abuse of discretion in ruling that there was no
With regard to the company car, respondents explained that the constructive dismissal in this case.
company car was actually issued to Franklin D. Quiachon although Lastly, as to petitioner's claim for commissions, the NLRC and the CA
petitioner and another employee, Nelson Gatbunton, may borrow the were correct in not sustaining the award thereof by the LA. It must be
car for company operations with the consent of Quiachon as stated in borne in mind that there is no law which requires employers to pay
an office memorandum dated March 10, 1999. Since Nelson commissions;19 thus, it is incumbent upon petitioner to prove that that
Gatbunton had to attend to official business in Clark, said employee there is indeed an agreement between him and his employer for
was then given use of the company car.16 payment of the same.
The taking of the office key from petitioner was also justified, as The only evidence presented by petitioner to prove that he is entitled to
respondents stated that the company's office consisted only of one big sales commissions are the employment certificate, stating that he is an
room without separate or individual offices, so it was only the main employee of respondents receiving P21,600.00 per month as salary,
door that required a key. The key to the office door could be borrowed exclusive of bonuses and sales commissions, and the undisputed fact
by any employee from a co-employee in possession thereof in case of that private respondent company gave him and its other employees
overtime or weekend work, but not a single employee had the the amount of P85,418.00 sometime in 1998. However, the CA was
exclusive use of the key to the office. Thus, when another employee, correct in ruling that the employment certificate was insufficient to
Myrna Dumlao, had to work overtime, she borrowed the key from prove that petitioner was indeed entitled to his claim for sales
petitioner on February 4, 2000. Thereafter, on February 18, 2000, commissions, as said document does not give the details as to the
respondents moved to another unit in the same condominium building conditions for payment of the same or the agreed percentage, if any.
housing its office, so it was already useless to return the key to the Here, the NLRC and the CA found that the computations for
door of the former office to petitioner.17 commissions were determined and prepared unilaterally by petitioner.
As to the cellphone, respondents maintain that said phone remained Thus, it was correctly ruled that said computation, with its uncertain
the property of the company, and it became company policy for its origin and authenticity, is self-serving and cannot prove petitioner's
employees to pay for personal calls. When petitioner's debts and claim for commissions in the amount of P892,780.37.
advances accumulated, and he showed no intention of paying for them
despite receipt of bonuses, the company had to take measures to [LINGAHAN] People v. Ranario, G.R. No. 25083, August 17, 1926
regulate the use of the company cellphones.18 FACTS:
Notably, petitioner never refuted respondents' explanations for
withholding his salary and the reasons why he was required to return The CFI of Bohol found Fulgencio Ranario guilty of the crime of murder
against Agustin Galanida The antecedent facts are as follows:
70
 censured him for his conduct. Leon Caday told him that he would
According to the confession made by the accused Leon Caday, at plead guilty provided he would give him P100. Fulgencio Ranario
about 8 oclock on the night of October 16, 1925, while Agustin replied that he would not give him that sum as he hadnt done
Galanida was seated on a bench, he was stabbed, through the said anything, although at the beginning he was inclined to, but was afraid
wall, with a bolo in the left lumbar region, causing a wound which that Leon Caday would betray him and say something else.
passed through his body as a result of which he died in about twenty-
four hours. During the trial, Fulgencio Ranario testified as a witness in his own
defense and denied everything that Leon Caday had said against him
The only evidence there is against the accused appellant Fulgencio outside of the court. He trial court found Ranario guilty. Hence, this
Ranario is that furnished by Leon Caday in the confession. The latter appeal.
confessed that he killed Agustin Ganida, claiming, however, that he
was induced to do so by Fulgencio Ranario, who promised to give him Issue:
P10, and gave him a bolo, which he returned to him after he had Whether or not an extrajudicial confession made by the accused
committed the crime. implicating his co-accused admissible and be used against the latter.

According to Caday, Fulgencio Ranario suspected that the deceased Held:

was the cause of the illness of his son Moises Ranario. In view of
these statements, Leon Caday was taken to Fulgencio Ranarios No.
house, who was not there, having gone to the river. The Constabulary Jurisprudence has already established that an extrajudicial confession
lieutenant who accompanied him, sent the chief of police to find him. made by an accused implicating his coaccused is not admissible
Before Fulgencio Ranario reached his house he was disarmed by the against him. (People v. Durante, 47 Phil., 654.) It is true that when
chief of police who accompanied him. Upon seeing the bolo, Leon Leon Caday made his confession contained in Exhibit B, in which he
Caday said that it was the one which Fulgencio Ranario had given him. implicates Fulgencio Ranario, the latter was present and said nothing,
Fulgencio Ranario protested saying it was not so and that Leon Caday according to justice of the peace Castor del Bando, but it does not
had not been in his house. appear that Fulgencio Ranario heard the confession of Leon Caday
nor had the opportunity to deny it.
On the night of October 16, 1926, Agustin Galanida, finding himself in
a serious condition and knowing that he was about to die, made a On the other hand, however, it does appear that when Leon Caday, in
declaration before the justice of the peace in which he said that he the presence of the Constabulary soldiers, was shown the bolo that
suspected that Moises Ranario was the aggressor because he was the Fulgencio Ranario carried and said it was the one that had been given
only one with whom he had trouble in 1925. him by the appellant, a discussion took place between them in which
the said Fulgencio Ranario denied having given the said Leon Caday
On October 22, 1925, Leon Caday made another confession in which his bolo and having been in his house. Neither is the presumption of
he explained the manner in which he committed the crime, again innocence sufficiently rebutted by the fact that before the commission
implicating Fulgencio Ranario. of the crime Fulgencio had a dispute with the deceased on the
question of boundaries, which was amicably settled aside from the fact
Fulgencio Ranario being confined in jail with Leon Caday, asked him that Agustin Galanida did not suspect him but his son Moises Ranario.
why he had stated that he had ordered him to kill Agustin Galanida and
71
The guilt of the accused-appellant has not been established beyond a Martinez, Pablito Santos and Alberto Meneng; that when the victim left
reasonable doubt and that he has the right to the benefit of the doubt. the house of Martinez, he and Alfredo Lacastesantos followed the
former; that before the victim reached his house, they overtook him;
whereupon appellant hacked him with a bolo, first on the throat and
when the victim fell on the ground, he again hacked him on the
Sec. 33. Confession forehead and realizing that the victim was already dead, they ran
away.
[LINGAHAN] People v. De los Santos, G.R. No. L-35598, May 29, On December 9, 1971, appellant executed an affidavit repudiating his
1987 extrajudicial confession. The lower court, however, ruled that the
extrajudicial confession of appellant was freely and voluntarily
FACTS: executed and appellant was found guilty of the crime
Appellant Leonardo de los Santos and Alfredo Lacastesantos were charged.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law li
charged with the crime of Murder for conspiring together and for In seeking the reversal of the decision rendered against him, appellant
assisting one another in assaulting Gregorio Dotado, thereby inflicting herein raised the sole issue that:
hack wounds upon the body of the latter, which caused his death. The "The lower court erred in having convicted defendant-appellant solely
trial court dismissed the case against Lacastesantos for the reason on the strength of Exhibit D, the alleged confession when the same
that although appellant Leonardo de los Santos was convicted, his was obtained thru violence, threat and intimidation . That in the
conviction was due to his extrajudicial confession and that evening of December 6, 1971, after Pat. Conrado Francisco had
Lacastesantos was merely implicated by the appellant as one of the brought him to the police station for questioning, two men from the
participants of the crime. Detective Department investigated him; that when he denied any
The pertinent facts that gave rise to the instant prosecution are as participation in the killing of the deceased, the two men boxed him,
follows: hitting him in the left eyebrow and in the mouth and they also kicked
Sometime in 1971, a certain Gregorio Dotado was found dead by his the left side of his body while he was in a squatting position.
sister at the junction of a trail leading to his house at Tairan, Isabela, ISSUES:
Basilan City. Francisco Dotado, the father of the deceased, reported 1. Whether or not Leonardo DeLos Santos extrajudicial confession
the matter to the manager of Tairan Plantation who notified the police is freely and voluntary executed.
authorities. There was no eyewitness to the commission of the crime. 2. Whether or not the declaration of an accused expressly
The police authorities immediately began the investigation of the case. acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, may be given in
Patrolman Conrado D. Francisco of the Basilan Police Department evidence against him.
learned that prior to his death, the victim Gregorio Dotado was courting
a certain Herminia Garcia and he had a rival by the name of Leonardo RULING:
de los Santos, appellant herein. On December 6, 1971, at around 5:30 1. Yes. A confession is deemed to have been made voluntarily if
p.m., appellant was picked up for questioning by the police authorities the accused did not complain to the proper authorities regarding the
of Basilan City. The following day, appellant voluntarily executed an alleged maltreatment despite the opportunity to do so (People v. Page,
affidavit wherein he confessed to his participation in the killing of the 77 SCRA 348). If appellants confession as contained in Exhibit "D"
deceased. . Appellant narrated in his confession that at about 7:00 was voluntary, we have to conclude that Dotado was slain in the
p.m. on November 29, 1971, the victim was then drinking tuba at the manner and for the reason set out in that document. It is needless to
house of Manuel Martinez together with Sebastian Ambrosio, Romeo say that no one in his right mind would convict himself without
72
compulsion by fabricating a highly self-damaging story and informed before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution (Magtoto v.
suppressing the truth which would absolve him (People v. Carillo, 77 Manguera, 63 SCRA 4).
Phil. 572).chanrobles.c 2. Yes. Furthermore, the declaration of an accused expressly
a. It is significant to consider that Exhibit "D" was taken on acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, may be given in
December 7, 1971 by Pat. Conrado Francisco while the alleged evidence against him (Sec. 29, Rule 130). It has been held that a
maltreatment was done in the evening of December 6, 1971. confession constitutes evidence of high order and the presumption is
It is unbelievable that the alleged maltreatment made by the two that no sane person would deliberately confess the commission of a
policemen was what induced appellant to admit the crime the following crime unless prompted to do so by truth and conscience. (U.S. v. De
day. Ordinarily, confessions executed through intimidation or los Santos, 24 Phil. 329).
maltreatment are obtained during or immediately after the supposed
maltreatment. In the instant case, appellant alleges that in spite of the [LINGAHAN] People v. Satorre, G.R. No. 133858, August 12, 2003
alleged manhandling, he never admitted anything that evening and the
two policemen desisted from further harming him. However, when FACTS:
investigated the following day (December 7, 1971) by police detective Appellant Herminiano Satorre alias Emiano Satorre was charged with
Conrado Francisco, appellant readily confessed his participation in the Murder for attacking Romero Pantilgan with the use of .38 paltik
killing of Gregorio Dotado. revolver hitting the latter at the head which caused his instantaneous
b. Another factor that militates against the claim of appellant of death.
involuntariness in the execution of Exhibit "D" is the fact that the
confession is replete with details that only the confessant could have On arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits then
known. The post-mortem examination of the body of the deceased ensued.
conducted by Sanitary Inspector Hilario Guerrero showed that the
wounds sustained by the victim were located exactly in the places Gliceria Saraum, wife of the victim Romero Pantilgan, testified that at
where appellant in his affidavit stated that he inflicted them upon the 2:00 a.m. of May 25, 1997, her husband, Romero, went out to attend a
victim. fiesta. While she was asleep, she was awakened by a gunshot.
Indeed, the confession at bar being complete with details that only the Gliceria got up and went out to the porch, where she found her dead
appellant could have known, therefore, show that the confession was husband lying on the ground. Blood oozed out of a gunshot wound on
executed voluntarily (People v. Jimenez, 105 SCRA 721). his head.
c. It is significant to note that the extrajudicial confession, Exhibit
"D," was obtained and offered in evidence before the 1973 Constitution Rufino Abayata, a barangay kagawad, testified that around 7:00 a.m.
took effect. In fact, the decision appealed from was rendered by the of May 25, 1997 appellants father, Abraham Satorre, informed them
trial court on May 24,1972. Consequently, appellants extrajudicial that it was appellant who shot Pantilgan. They looked for appellant in
confession, Exhibit "D," is admissible in evidence although the the house of his brother, Felix Satorre, at Dumlog, Talisay, Cebu, but
requisites in Section 20 of Article IV of the 1973 Constitution which were told that he already left. Nevertheless, appellants brothers,
declares inadmissible a confession obtained from a person under Margarito and Rosalio Satorre, went to Rufinos house and surrendered
investigation for an offense who has not been informed of his right to the gun which was allegedly used in killing Pantilgan.
remain silent and to counsel were not observed, since that portion of
the 1973 constitutional mandate should be given prospective and not Flavio Gelle narrated that he accompanied appellant and his father,
retrospective effect and no law gave the accused the right to be so Abraham, to the Barangay Captain of Can-asohan, Carcar, Cebu
73
where appellant admitted killing Pantilgan. Thereafter, appellant was After trial, the court a quo gave credence to the prosecution's evidence
detained. and rendered a decision convicting appellant of Murder. Hence, this
appeal.
Corroborating Gelles story, Cynthia Castaares, Barangay Captain of
Can-asuhan, Carcar, Cebu testified that Abraham Satorre and Gelle ISSUES:
brought appellant to her residence where he confessed having killed Whether or not the confession of the accused is admissible in
Pantilgan. Appellant allegedly informed her that he killed Pantilgan evidence despite the fact that it was not reduced in writing and was
because the latter struck him with a piece of wood. That same made out of court.
evening, she went to the Carcar Police Station with appellant where Whether or not the alleged confession or admission is voluntary and
she executed an affidavit. She further averred that appellant voluntarily freely made
narrated that he killed Pantilgan with the use of a handgun which he
wrestled from his possession. RULING:
1. Yes There is no question as to the admissibility of appellants
Dr. Plebia Villanueva, Municipal Health Officer of Carcar, Cebu alleged oral extrajudicial confession. Indeed, as far as admissibility is
certified that the cause of Pantilgans death was gunshot wound. concerned, Rule 130, Section 33 of the Rules of Court makes no
distinction whether the confession is judicial or extrajudicial.
Bonifacio Ayag, NBI Ballistician, testified that the deformed bullet taken Rule 130, Section 26 of the Rules of Court defines an admission as an
from Pantilgans head wound was fired from the gun surrendered by act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact. A
appellants brothers to the Carcar Police. confession, on the other hand, under Section 33 of the same Rule is
the declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense
Denying the charges against him, appellant claimed that he was charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein. Both may be
asleep inside his house at the time of the incident. He alleged that given in evidence against the person admitting or confessing. On the
Rufino Abayata had a grudge against him because of an incident when whole, a confession, as distinguished from an admission, is a
he tied Rufinos cow to prevent it from eating the corn in his farm. He declaration made at any time by a person, voluntarily and without
denied having confessed to the killing of Pantilgan. He disclaimed compulsion or inducement, stating or acknowledging that he had
ownership over the paltik .38 revolver and stated that he could not committed or participated in the commission of a crime.
even remember having surrendered a firearm to Castaares. Evidently, appellants alleged declaration owning up to the killing before
the Barangay Captain was a confession. Since the declaration was not
Abraham Satorre corroborated appellants testimony. He denied having put in writing and made out of court, it is an oral extrajudicial
accompanied appellant to Castaares house to surrender him. confession.
2. No. Accordingly, the basic test for the validity of a confession is
Appellants brother, Rosalio Satorre, claimed that he never was it voluntarily and freely made. The term voluntary means that the
accompanied appellant to Castaares house to surrender. His other accused speaks of his free will and accord, without inducement of any
brother, Felix, also testified that he never surrendered any firearm to kind, and with a full and complete knowledge of the nature and
anybody. consequences of the confession, and when the speaking is so free
from influences affecting the will of the accused, at the time the
confession was made, that it renders it admissible in evidence against

74
him. Plainly, the admissibility of a confession in evidence hinges on its At any rate, an extrajudicial confession forms but a prima facie case
voluntariness. against the party by whom it is made. Such confessions are not
conclusive proof of that which they state; it may be proved that they
The voluntariness of a confession may be inferred from its language were uttered in ignorance, or levity, or mistake; and hence, they are, at
such that if, upon its face, the confession exhibits no suspicious best, to be regarded as only cumulative proof which affords but a
circumstances tending to cast doubt upon its integrity, it being replete precarious support and on which, when uncorroborated, a verdict
with details which could only be supplied by the accused reflecting cannot be permitted to rest.
spontaneity and coherence, it may be considered voluntary. The
problem with appraising voluntariness occurs when the confession is To be sure, a confession is not required to be in any particular form. It
an oral extrajudicial confession because the proof of voluntariness may be oral or written, formal or informal in character. It may be
cannot be inferred from the testimony of a witness who allegedly heard recorded on video tape, sound motion pictures, or tape. However,
the confessant since there is no written proof that such confession was while not required to be in writing to be admissible in evidence, it is
voluntarily made. Neither can the confessant be appraised by the court advisable, if not otherwise recorded by video tape or other means, to
since, precisely, it was made outside the judicial proceeding. The reduce the confession to writing. This adds weight to the confession
problem posed therefore by an oral extrajudicial confession is not only and helps convince the court that it was freely and voluntarily made. If
the admissibility of the testimony asserting or certifying that such possible the confession, after being reduced to writing, should be read
confession was indeed made, but more significantly whether it was to the defendant, have it read by defendant, have him sign it, and have
made voluntarily. it attested by witnesses.

On the question of whether a confession is made voluntarily, the age, Furthermore, the events alleged in the confession are inconsistent with
character, and circumstances prevailing at the time it was made must the physical evidence. According to Barangay Captain Castaares,
be considered. Much depends upon the situation and surroundings of appellant narrated to her that during the struggle between him and the
the accused. This is the position taken by the courts, whatever the deceased, he fell to the ground after the latter hit him on the head with
theory of exclusion of incriminating statements may be. The a piece of wood. In the autopsy report, however, Dr. Plebia Villanueva
intelligence of the accused or want of it must also be taken into found that the entrance wound on the deceased was located at the top
account. It must be shown that the defendant realized the import of his of the head or the crown, indicating that the victim was probably lying
act. down when he was shot.

In the case at bar, appellant was a 19-year old farmer who did not Indeed, an extrajudicial confession will not support a conviction where
even finish first grade. Granting that he made the confession in the it is uncorroborated. There must be such corroboration that, when
presence of Barangay Captain Castaares, he may not have realized considered in connection with confession, will show the guilt of
the full import of his confession and its consequences. This is not to accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence may be
say that he is not capable of making the confession out of a desire to sufficient corroboration of a confession. It is not necessary that the
tell the truth if prompted by his conscience. What we are saying is that supplementary evidence be entirely free from variance with the
due to the aforesaid personal circumstances of appellant, the extrajudicial confession, or that it show the place of offense or the
voluntariness of his alleged oral confession may not be definitively defendants identity or criminal agency. All facts and circumstances
appraised and evaluated. attending the particular offense charged are admissible to corroborate
extrajudicial confession.
75
Nonetheless, the fatal gun and the slug extracted from Pantilgans (they) did is only to watch them while they were in the course of killing
brain can not be considered as corroborative evidence. While the slug the victim . . ." And Ernesto Villar alleges that he "was just standing (at)
embedded in Pantilgans brain came from the fatal gun, the prosecution the door of the bedroom because . . (he) was amazed that . . (his
was not able to conclusively establish the ownership of the gun other companions) intention was to kill Pedro Nacional, Jr., and . . (he) was
than the bare testimony of prosecution witnesses that appellants also threatened that if . . . (he) will not go with them something will
brothers surrendered the gun to them. This was denied by appellant happen to . . (him), and because they are also . . (his) friends . . (he)
and his brothers and there was no other proof linking the gun to him. went with them."

[LINGAHAN] People v. Cavite, G.R. No. 86784, November 8, 1991 Trial commenced after the accused all entered a plea of not guilty on
arraignment. No eyewitness was presented by the prosecution. The
Facts: victims "common-law wife," Edna San Juan, never took the witness
stand.
Pedro Nacional, Jr. was found lifeless in front of his house, his hands
bound, wounded in several parts of the body. The police investigation Nevertheless, the Trial Court found that the guilt of the accused as co-
team found at the scene, and took possession of, the rope with which conspirators in the crime charged had been established beyond
Nacional had been bound; a bamboo pole and a piece of wood (which reasonable doubt by "the totality of the contents of Exh. A, B, C, 38
appeared to have been used as weapons); and a telescope. Acting on together with the recovered evidence, Exh. E 39 and F, 40 (and) the
leads apparently obtained through preliminary inquiries at the scene of flight of the accused Pedro San Jose and Eduardo Privaldos . . "
the crime, the police officers brought in and investigated Eduardo Hence, this appeal.
Cavite y Taduran (53 years of age) and Augusto San Juan y Cavite
(25 years old).. Another suspect, Ernesto Villar y Benavente (18 years Issues:
old), was questioned, at the police station. 1. Whether or not there was an admission of guilt based on the
affidavits executed.
It appears that Eduardo Cavite and Augusto San Juan (and their 2. Whether or not the admission that all of them are in the scene when
families) used to occupy a portion of land owned in common by Pedro the crime was perpetrated is sufficient for them to be convicted as
Nacional, Jr. and his brother, Municipal Trial Court Judge Jose authors of the crime.
Nacional. Cavite and San Juan however had to vacate the premises
sometime on January 11, 1986 on request of Judge Nacional on Ruling:
account of suspicions by Pedro Nacional, Jr. that Augusto San Juan
had stolen his goat and had been stoning his house. 1. No. It is apparent that the three sworn statements are not
confessions. The Rules of Court define a confession as the
It is noteworthy that in their affidavits, which was executed by Cavite, "declaration of an accused expressly acknowledging his guilt of the
San Juan and Villar, all three (3) suspects attempted to exculpate offense charged." None of the three (3) affidavits contains any
themselves. Eduardo Cavite claims that he "was just standing near the acknowledgment of "guilt of the offense charged" on the part of the
house and . . was surprised because . . (he had) no knowledge that . . affiants. Not one of them acknowledged having laid a hand on the
. (his companions) intention was to kill Pedro Nacional, Jr." Augusto victim or assisted in inflicting any injury on him, or having taken, or
San Juan asserts that he and Cavite "were only made to guide . . . (the assisted in the taking of any property for him. On the contrary, they all
killers and robbers to) the house of Pedro Nacional, wherein what . .
76
disclaimed any participation in the offense or even knowledge of any
intention or plan to kill or rob Pedro Nacional, Jr.

2. No. The affidavits are not sufficient to warrant the conviction of the [MACAVINTA] United States v. Corrales, G.R. No. 9230, November
appellants. The most that perhaps may be said about the affidavits, as 10, 1914
evidence against the affiants, is that they are admissions that the latter
were in fact at the scene as the crime was being perpetrated. This is of Fact:
no help to the prosecution's cause in so far as concerns implication The appellant in this instant case was convicted for the crime of
of the affiants themselves in the killing of Pedro Nacional, Jr. for the misappropriation of public funds, and sentenced to 9 months
affidavits fasten responsibility therefor directly and exclusively on imprisonment plus costs of trial
persons other than he affiants who, as repeatedly stated, explicitly
deny any participation therein, or even prior awareness that the crime On or about june 6, 1913 the appellant was the clerk of court of first
would be committed. Worse, those affidavits are categorically rejected instance of misamis, he received a sum of P321.88 from a chinaman
and repudiated by their supposed authors who variously asserted, also named Melliza, which was the fine imposed upon the latter, and that
under oath, that the declarations attributed to them were false and instead of giving Melliza the proper official receipt, the accused handed
extracted under duress. him a copy of judgement of conviction stating fine and costs paid.

Moreover, it is impermissible to pick the affidavits apart, lending However upon audit and inspection it was later discovered that the
credence only to the portions seen as incriminatory, while disregarding funds were not found, hence the accused was charged with
as false and unacceptable those supportive of innocence, absent, as misappropriation of funds; however a few hours later the accused went
here, any circumstance which would logically justify such to the house of the auditor and informed him that the amount in
dismemberment. But this, it would appear, is what the Trial Court did; question is now safe in the drawer which he kept in his personal funds.
with no further explanation than an advertence to the "totality" of the
contents of said affidavits and the recovered physical evidence it in The accused admitted the fact that he received the money from melliza
effect hung a finding of conspiracy against appellants Cavite, San Juan but he was busy and had no time to render a receipt for melliza, and
and Villar on those portions of the affidavits that would lend put the money in a safe which he kept in his personal funds, and
themselves to an inference of such circumstance and ignored their making the proper deposit on a later date in his convenience. Which
exculpatory parts. This is manifest error because said statements each he ultimately forgot until the auditor saw the discrepancy in the funds.
considered in complete context, or "in totality" as it were, recount
nothing more culpable than that the affiants were unwilling, or Accused states that he never used the funds kept in his personal safe
unwitting, witnesses to a crime in the planning and commission of and that upon audit, he went straight to the auditors house to explain
which they had no conscious involvement. Such finding of conspiracy what had happened.
thus lacking any clear or sufficient basis where those affiants are
concerned, a verdict of guilt against them, as to whom here is no other This court however does not agree with the accused alleged alibi and
evidence to contradict their claim of never having laid a hand on the agrees with the trial judge stating that the evidence of record
victim, cannot be allowed to stand. conclusively establishes the falsity of the account of what occurred as
given by the accused.
Accused-appellants are all acquitted.
77
The auditor testified that the accused admitted that he put the money gives to them their evidentiary value, and provided that the fact is
in the safe AFTER the inspection had been completed. established it does not matter whether they are made under oath or
not.
Counsel for appellant contends that such admission should be
disregarded, on ground that it was incompetent and inadmissible.
Counsel for accused further contends that such admission was not [MACAVINTA] People v. Artellero, G.R. No. 129211, October 2, 2000
freely and voluntarily made, without compulsion or inducement and
that it was not made under oath. Facts:
On october 11, 1991, at the Far East Bank and Trust Company branch
Issue: in manila, a messenger found the lifeless body of Matias, inside the
Whether or not admission is admissible when not freely given bank premises and bore a total of 32 stab wounds. This sprung an
Whether or not admission is admissible when not made under oath investigation led by SPO3 Mendoza and two other officers of the
western police district. Upon investigation, they interviewed the bank
Held: janitor, Mr cawagdan, and the other security guard Dionisio Vargas.
The court held that the admission is admissible. They also found a bloodstained scissors made inside a podium located
near the main entrance of the bank. Head of security also reported that
The court herein points out the difference between a confession and .38 cal revolvers and five 12 gauge shotguns were missing from the
an admission. Confession, is a declaration made at any time by a guard rostrum.
person, voluntarily and without compulsion or inducement, stating that
he had committed or participated in the commission of a crime. Upon follow-up investigation, they learned that there was an ongoing
construction on the upper floors of the bank, and that the appellant
While admission is usually applied in criminal cases to statement of (Artillero) and his co-accused (Rodriguez) had access to the bank
facts made by the accused which do not directly involve an after office hours. This prompted SPO3 Jamoralin to go to the barracks
acknowledgement or a criminal intent to commit the offense. of the construction workers, wherein they saw the accused and co-
accused, rodriguez, packing his personal belongings.
As to the first issue, The reason for the rule excluding evidence as to
confessions unless it is first made to appear that they are made When asked why he was packing, he replied that he had nothing else
voluntarily does not apply in cases of admissions, although, of course, to do at the site. The police however saw some reddish stains on the
evidence of the fact that a particular statement was made under accused shirts and pants. Again probbed on the reasoning behind
duress would tend very strongly to destroy its evidentiary value. It is such stain the accused explained that he had a wound on his back.
very clear from all the evidence, and from the circumstances under Upon inspection of his back no wound was found. Hence this
which the statement was made by the accused to the auditor, that it prompted SPO3 Jamoralin to arrest appellant and bring him to the
was not made under duress, and we are of opinion that the trial judge police station for further interrogation together with the t-shirt and
properly took it under consideration as evidence against the accused. maong pants found with the reddish stain

As to the second issue the law does NOT prescribe either confession On october 15, 1991, accused rodriguez executed a sworn statement
or admissions to be competent to be made under oath. It is the fact confessing that he and appellant together with one Mendoza, and two
that they are made by the accused and against his own interest which other names he did not know, killed Matias.
78
 Whether or not extrajudicial confession made by Co-accused
They were then charged with the crime of robbery with homicide. Rordriguez is admissible for establishing conspiracy with appellant
Artellero
Upon arraignment they entered their plea of not guilty.
Held:
During trial, the prosecution presented the following witnesses (1) The court states the four fundamental requisites for admissibility of a
SPO3 MENDOZA (2) SPO3 JAMORALIN (3) Atty Lao III (4) Carolyn confession
Custodio the supervisor of the chemistry district of the NBI Confession must be voluntary
Confession must be made with competent counsel
Custodio testified that the reddish stains on rodriguez pants and shirt Confession must be express
were positive of type O blood, which was also the blood type of Confession must be in writing
rodriguez.
We find the second requisite lacking. The records show that both
After the prosecution presented evidence, the appellant filed Demurrer accused were detained for 4 days, and that Atty Lao from PAO was
to evidence on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish only called on the 4th day of detention when accused was about to put
accused beyond reasonable doubt and that testimonies presented his confession in writing. Under the factual milieu, the moment
were hearsay. accused and appellant were arrested they were already under
Custodial Investigation.
Such demurrer was however denied.
The records who that rodriguez and appellant, at the time of their
On the stand, both rodriguez and appellant Artillero admitted that they arrest was informed of their miranda rights. WORSE, they were not
were province mates from masbate and worked in the construction provided with competent and independent counsel during the custodial
site. Rodriguez claims that he was mauled by the policemen to make a investigation prior to the execution of the EJ confession.
confession while appellant was placed outside the room where
rodriguez was being interrogated and was not asked for any Assuming further, that granting arguendo that the EJ confession was
statement, further stating that he did not own any maong pants. admissible, section 33 of rule 130 of the ROC provides that such
confession is only admissible against the CONFESSANT. And that
After due trial, the court rendered a decision finding appellant and there is a requirement that independent evidence is required aside
rodriguez guilty of murder, instead of robbery with homicide. from the EJ confession to prove conspiracy. In this case however no
independent evidence was presented.
This prompted an appeal only by Artillero and contends that the court
erred in giving credence to the extrajudicial confession of rodriguez in Hence both appellant and rodriguez are ACQUITTED.
proving conspiracy as circumstantial evidence to show probability of
his participation.

Issue:
[MACAVINTA] People v. Urro, G.R. No. L-28405, April 27, 1972

79
Facts: aggravating circumstances of premeditation and promise of reward
That on or before january 26, 1962 the four accused in the municipality without any mitigating circumstance.
of zambuanga del sur, acting with treachery and premeditation, struck
several times the victim Reconalla inflicting mortal injuries that caused The court rendered decision against the defendants, which prompted
his death. an appeal.

Evidence for the prosecution shows that on the night of January 25, On appeal, the accused-appellants assail that the lower court erred in
1962, Reconalla left the conjugal home to catch fish and thereafter did basing their conviction on the alleged extra judicial confessions,
not return. After search by his wife was in vain, she reported the notwithstanding their strong and convincing evidence that the
disappearance to the police authorities. After search with the confessions were prefabricated and take from them by force and
authorities, they found his lifeless body along the beach near his coercion.
sailboat.
Issue:
Upon investigation, it was then found out by the chief of police that the Whether or not the extra judicial confession made is admissible as
4 herein accused are the enemies of the deceased. The chief of police evidence
investigated the four suspects (herein defendants). They voluntarily
executed their confessions and signed them and acknowledged them Held:
to be true before the mayor. Two telling earmarks of prefabrication of appellants alleged
confessions were presented, that (1) it is impossible to tell from the
The four confessions, were in complete harmony with one another, record just who actually reduced the statements in writing and that the
and stated that Urro asked his co-defendants to meet him and that he (2) intrinsic evidence of diction and style unerringly shows that the
offered the amount of P300.00 for the death of Reconalla. Which the confessions are products of one mind and not of four different minds.
defendants accepted. Hence there is there is reason to believe that the alleged confessions
were prefabricated by persons other than the accused, who were
It was here that the three defendants went into shore on january 26, thereafter compelled to sign them.
1962 to find Reconalla fishing. They approached him pretending to be
buyers of fish, but when the latter declined their offer, they began (medjo mahaba and malabo na ung testimonies pero in short sinasabi
clubbing him to death with a piece of bamboo and paddle. lang that the 4 extrajudicial confessions were too good to be true,
because they were all in sync hence meron nang doubt that opens up
The confession was corroborated by pedro calago, who declared that the possibility of fabrication)
while returning to the shore, he heard the cries of a Reconalla and saw
the co-defendants carrying the lifeless body of the deceased and The court held that it is an established doctrine that the confession or
dumped the same into the shore. declaration of an accused expressly acknowledging his guilt of the
offense charged may be given in evidence against him, where it is
The defense consisted mainly of denials. After weighing the evidence VOLUNTARY. Involuntary or coerced confessions obtained by the
for the prosecution and defense, the court believes that the crime of force or intimidation are null and void and are abhorred by the law,
murder was committed by the four herein. This is attended with the which proscribes the use of such cruel and inhuman methods to

80
secure confession. A coerced confession stands discredited in the The prosecution asked the court to adopt the past testimonies given in
eyes of the law and is as a thing that never existed the first witness. The defense did not object to said motion, thus, it was
granted.
Hence ACQUITTED
according to the prosecution, AAA was on board the tricycle driven by
accused. De mesa, saw bascugin going towards Balayan town proper,
but did not notice if he had a passenger on board. On the same night,
[MACAVINTA] People v. Bascugin y Agquiz, G.R. No. 184704, June liwanag, was on his way home from work via his motorcycle when he
30, 2009 passed bascugins tricycle parked near a waiting shed. Liwanag
testified that he heard a girl shout but he ignored the same because
Facts: the area was allegedly haunted.
In an information dated June 21, 1999 herein accused-appellant,
Bascugin was charged with rape with homicide. When AAA was reported missing, the police conducted an
investigation. PO3 de castro received information that a patient was
With his the assistance of counsel de oficio, Bascugin pleaded guilty being treated at Don Manuel Lopez Memorial District Hospital for
upon arraignment on august 5, 1999. tongue injury. As they rushed to the hospital they found the patient to
be Bascugin.
Since this was a capital offence, the trial court asked him if his plea
was voluntarily given and whether he understood the consequences of Bascugin told the police that AAA was his passenger that night and
his plea. that a man and a woman also boarded his tricycle. He was then hit
behind the neck and fell unconscious, and when he awoke, his tongue
The prosecution presented testimonial, object, and documentary was injured and the passengers were gone.
evidence, while the defense offered no contest. The trial court then
and there adjudged him guilty of the charge beyond reasonable doubt Further investigation ensued and the police went to the scene of the
and sentenced him to death crime, where they found in a muddled portion of a sugarcane
plantation the lifeless body of AAA naked with 13 stab wounds inside a
In automatic review by the SC, the OSG and bascugin challenged the canal along national road. They also recovered a pair of maong pants
proceedings in trial court, specially the invalid arrangement of and two panties belonging to the victim.
bascugin, they contended that consultation made by the counsel de
oficio was hasty; and bascugin was not sufficiently apprised of the Before prosecution can rest its case, the defense manifested that
nature of his case and consequences of his plea. Bascugin wanted to change his plea of not guilty to guilty, hence on
sep 29, 2003 he was arraigned one more time, and pleaded guilty to
SC found merit and remanded the case back to court a quo for the charge.
appropriate proceedings.
Upon motion of the prosecution, Bascugin was placed on the wtiness
Bascugin was once again arraigned on may 6, 2002. And this time with stand, where he affirmed that he understood the consequences of his
assistance from counsel de oficio, he pleaded not guilty. voluntary plea, and admitted that AAA rode his tricycle on june 4, 1999
and that he raped and killed her.
81
 The court held that the confession of Bascugins, wsa freely,
HOWEVER, on november 12, 20013 he moved to withdraw his plea of intelligently, and deliberately given. Judicial confession constitutes
guilty and when Re-arraigned again he pled not guilty. evidence of a high order.

Bacugin testified that AAA rode his tricycle and that due to heavy rain, Rule 130 sec 33 states that Confession is a declaration of an accused
they stopped at a waiting shed in a barangay for a long time. He then acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense
further stated that something happened which he could not tell but necessarily included therein, may be given evidence against him.
after that incident, he started the engine of his tricycle to bring AAA
home but she ran away, and that he can only remember driving her The court stated that the presumption is that no sane person would
lifeless body to bagong daan and assumed responsibility for his deliberately confess to the commission of a crime unless prompted to
passenger. Thereafter, he went home and was brought to the hospital do so by truth and conscience. Admission of guilt constitutes evidence
by his father to treat his injured tongue soon after that he voluntarily against him.
went with the investigators, and on cross-examination, admitted he
raped and killed AAA.

The RTC found bascugin GUILTY.

[SANTOS] People v. Muit, G.R. No. 181043, October 8, 2008
Hence forwarded to the CA for review
FACTS:
In the CA, bascugin argued that his confession when he pleaded guilty Muit, Pancho, Jr.,Dequillo, Romeo,Hermano, Ferraer were charged
should be expunged from the records since he withdrew the said plea with kidnapping for ransom with homicide and carnapping in two
and substituted it with a plea of not guilty. separate informations. All appellants pleaded not guilty during their
arraignments. In the afternoon of 11 November 1997, Julaton, a
The CA upheld the conviction, stating that he admitted in open court relative of Ferraer, arrived at the latters house in Kaylaway, Nasugbu,
that he raped and killed AAA. this judicial admission constitutes Batangas with Pancho, Sr., Pancho, Jr., Dequillo and four other men
evidence of high order, not only because it is presumed that a on board a gray Mitsubishi car. Pancho, Sr. told Ferraer that they
deliberate confession to a crime is prohibited by truth, but also wanted to use his house as a safehouse for their visitor. Hermano told
because such admission was supported by medical findings of sexual Ferraer not to worry because they are not killers; their line of work is
intercourse between him and AAA. kidnap for ransom. Ferraer was assured that the money they will get
would be shared equally among them. After the assailants carried
Hence appeal to the SC. their plan into action, Pancho, Jr. proceeded to their agreed meeting
place
Issue: The prosecution presented the extra judicial confessions of Pancho, Jr.
Whether or not confession during arraignment was admissible and Dequillo, which were executed with the assistance of Atty. Mallare
admitting that they did the crime.
Dequillo, for his part, claimed that for the period of November to
Held: December 1997 he was working as a mason at Villanueva
Construction in BF Homes. He stated that on 8 December 1997, he
82
was arrested by the CIDG at his house and allegedly tortured when he The kidnapping for ransom with homicide and the carnapping were
denied any knowledge about the kidnapping and was forced to sign a established by the direct testimony of Ferraer, Seraspe and Chavez.
statement without being allowed to read it. Atty. Mallare only came in During the investigation, Pancho, Jr., Dequillo, and Muit, with the
after he had already signed the statement. He denied any participation assistance of their counsels and family members, executed extra
in the crimes charged against him. judical confessions divulging their respective roles in the planning and
Pancho, Jr. claimed that he was arrested on 7 December 1997 in execution of the crimes.
Calbayog, Samar. He alleged that the police tortured him and forced Even though Pancho, Jr., Dequillo and Romeo did not participate in
him to sign the written confession of his participation in the crimes. He the actual abduction of the victim, they should still be held liable, as the
denied having participated in the commission of the offenses charged courts below did, because of the existence of conspiracy. The degree
against him. of actual participation in the commission of the crime is immaterial.
On the other hand, Muit claimed that on 2 December 1997 he was in The extra judicial confessions of Pancho, Jr., Dequillo, and Muit
Lipa City, near the place of the shootout. He had just attended a strengthened the case against them. There is nothing on record to
gathering of the Rizalistas and was waiting for his uncle Bonifacio support appellants claim that they were coerced and tortured into
when the police arrested him. He denied having any knowledge of the executing their extra judicial confessions. One of the indicia of
crime. He denied knowing the people whose name appeared in his two voluntariness in the execution of appellants extra judicial statements is
extra judicial confessions. He claimed that the names were supplied by that each contains many details and facts which the investigating
the police and that he was not assisted by counsel during the custodial officers could not have known and could not have supplied, without the
investigation. knowledge and information given by appellants. Moreover, the
The RTC found Muit, Pancho, Jr., Dequillo, and Romeo guilty. appellants were assisted by their lawyers when they executed their
The RTC held that mere denials and alibis of appellants cannot prevail statements.
over the positive declarations of the prosecutions witnesses. The RTC Appellants claims of torture are not supported by medical certificates
did not give credence to the claims of appellants that their extra judicial from the physical examinations done on them. These claims of torture
confessions were procured through torture as these were belied by the were mere afterthoughts as they were raised for the first time during
testimony of Atty. Mallare and appellants medical certificates which trial.
were issued during their incarceration and after the execution of their The extra judicial confessions of Pancho, Jr., Dequillo, and Muit also
statements. The CA affirmed the decision. The prosecution was able to strengthened the prosecutions case against Romeo. The rule that an
prove through Ferraer that appellants conspired with one another in extra judicial confession is evidence only against the person making it
the planning and execution of their plan to kidnap the victim. Moreover, recognizes various exceptions. One such exception is where several
appellants executed extra judicial confessions, duly assisted by their extra judicial statements had been made by several persons charged
counsels, detailing their participation in the kidnapping. with an offense and there could have been no collusion with reference
to said several confessions, the fact that the statements are in all
material respects identical is confirmatory of the confession of the co-
ISSUE: defendants and is admissible against other persons implicated therein.
Whether or not the RTC erred in giving credence to the extra-judicial They are also admissible as circumstantial evidence against the
confessions of Pancho, Jr. and Dequillo, and to the sworn statement person implicated therein to show the probability of the latters actual
and testimony of Ferraer in convicting them. participation in the commission of the crime and may likewise serve as
HELD: corroborative evidence if it is clear from other facts and circumstances

83
that other persons had participated in the perpetration of the crime as he was not under custodial investigation when the said extrajudicial
charged and proved. These are known as interlocking confessions. confessions were executed; they were conducted before an Assistant
City Prosecutor and a City Prosecutor.
In detail, accused-appellant Peaflors first extrajudicial confession
Ra 7438, An Act Defining Certain Rights Of Person Arrested, Detained was taken before Assistant City Prosecutor Albulario, during which
Or Under Custodial Investigation As Well As The Duties Of The accused-appellant Peaflor was assisted by Atty. Cristobal. On the
Arresting, Detaining And Investigating Officers, And Providing other hand, his second extrajudicial confession was taken before City
Penalties For Violations Thereof Prosecutor Lagcao with Atty. Cavales assisting accused-appellant
Peaflor, and while in the presence of accused-appellant Peaflors
father, mother, and other relatives. The Court of Appeals rejected the
[SANTOS] People v. Omilig y Mancia, G.R. No. 206296, August 12, defenses claim of inadmissibility of accused-appellant Peaflors
2015 extrajudicial confessions, which is anchored on the sole ground that
they were not made with the assistance of a competent and
Estur, a COA Auditor, discovered in July 1993 rice stocks unaccounted independent counsel, preferably of his own choice. According to the
for in the bodega of the NFA. The stocks were under the account of Court of Appeals, the right to competent and independent counsel
Matas. Estur suspended accused Matas. Upon disembarking from the applies only to a person under custodial investigation. In the case at
Ford Fiera driven by Fajardo, was stabbed and shot in front of his bar, as accused-appellant Peaflor was not under custodial
rented apartment. Upon hearing her husband shout, If you want to kill investigation, but under a preliminary investigation before a public
me, dont include my wife, quickly followed by two gunshots, Vicenta prosecutor, during which his right to a competent and independent
hid inside their apartment. After a few minutes, she went out of the counsel does not apply.
house and saw Betonio, barely alive, slumped on the ground with a ISSUE:
knife, with a handle like that of an eagle and a carving like that of a Whether or not the extrajudicial confessions are admissible?
dragon, still pierced through his chest. Before Betonio was brought to
the hospital, where he was later pronounced dead on arrival, he
whispered to his wife the names, Delfin and Matas.
During the investigation, accused-appellant Peaflor admitted killing HELD:
Betonio and that he was hired by accused Ondo, the brother-in-law of YES.
Matas, for the amount of P15,000.00, to kill Betonio. At 3:00 p.m. of As correctly found by the lower courts, accused-appellant Peaflor
that same day, the police brought accused-appellant Peaflor to the executed his extrajudicial confession not during custodial investigation,
Office of the City Prosecutor to obtain his admission. but during the preliminary investigation. In Ladiana v. People, the
The RTC acquitted accused Matas, Omilig, and Ondo, while it Court defined the difference between custodial investigation and
convicted accused-appellant Peaflor for the crime of murder for killing preliminary investigation: Custodial Interrogation/Investigation is the
Betonio. The RTC admitted accused-appellant Peaflors extrajudicial questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has
confessions because they were not taken under duress or intimidation been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action
as the extrajudicial confessions were conducted at the Prosecutors in any significant way; on the other hand, Preliminary Investigation is
Office and not in a police station, and in the presence of his relatives. an inquiry or a proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient
The CA affirmed the decision. The CA ruled that accused-appellant ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been
Peaflors two extrajudicial confessions were admissible in evidence committed, and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and
84
should be held for trial. In Ladiana, this Court has unequivocally Appellant Hoyle Diaz y Urnillo was invited by the investigators for
declared that a person undergoing preliminary investigation cannot be questioning. A second sworn statement, substantially similar and
considered as being under custodial investigation. The import of the corroborating many of the details of Daniega's sworn affidavit, was
distinction between custodial interrogation and preliminary later extracted from Diaz. In the said statement, Diaz admitted his
investigation relates to the inherently coercive nature of a custodial participation in the rape of Canoy, but denied that he had something to
interrogation which is conducted by the police authorities. Due to the do with the victim's death. Armed with the said extra-judicial
interrogatory procedures employed by police authorities, which are confessions, an Information was filed with the Regional Trial Court of
conducive to physical and psychological coercion, the law affords Quezon City, charging petitioners with the crime of Rape with
arrested persons constitutional rights to guarantee the voluntariness of Homicide. At trial, the confessions obtained by law enforcement
their confessions and admissions, and to act as deterrent from authorities during their (separate) custodial investigations formed the
coercion by police authorities. These safeguards are found in Article centerpiece of the prosecution's case for Rape with Homicide against
III, Section 12(1) of the Constitution and Section 2 of R.A. No. 7438. both accused. In their defense, appellants, during the course of the
Sans proper safeguards, custodial investigation is a fertile means to trial, vehemently denied the claim that they had voluntarily executed
obtain confessions and admissions in duress. Resultingly, as the said confessions. Appellants Daniega and Diaz went to the extent
pronounced in Ladiana, the claim by the accused of inadmissibility of of seeking the assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation, and
his extrajudicial confession is unavailing because his confessions were there executed a sworn statement to the effect that their respective
obtained during a preliminary investigation. And even if accused- confessions were coerced and obtained through torture. Both testified
appellant Peaflors extrajudicial confessions were obtained under that they were subjected to electrocution and water treatment. They
custodial investigation, these are admissible. To be admissible, a contended that they were arrested without warrants of arrest and that
confession must comply with the following requirements: it must be (a) the confessions obtained from them immediately thereafter were made
voluntary; b) made with the assistance of a competent and without the assistance of counsel.
independent counsel; c) express; and d) in writing.31 In the case at
bar, the prosecution did not present proof of the absence of any of ISSUE
these requirements. WON the confessions made are admissible.

[OFALSA] People v. Deniega y Macoy, G.R. No. 103499, December HELD

29, 1995 The legal insufficiencies and inconsistencies in the documents in
question are so glaring, even from a cursory examination of the
FACTS confessions. The statements evidencing the interrogation, including
The naked body of Marlyn Canoy was found on a heap of garbage in those portions in which the appellants purportedly were informed of
an ill-frequented back corner on the left side of the Mt. Carmel Church their constitutional rights, were in typewritten form. However, within the
in New Manila, Quezon City. Her hands were tied behind her back by a body of these documents, blank spaces were conspicuously left at
shoestring and pieces of her own clothing. The body bore 39 stab strategic areas (spaces) where the accused were supposed to sign
wounds. There was evidence that she had been brutally assaulted, and acknowledge that they were appraised of their rights and that they
physically and sexually, before she was murdered. Police authorities gave their statements voluntarily. These were spaces obviously
arrested Rey Daniega y Macoy on information that the victim was last provided for the accused to fill in the blank with the word "yes" ("opo")
seen with Daniega. Friends of Canoy volunteered the information that followed by another blank space for their respective signatures. Apart
the former had just broken off from a stormy relationship with Daniega. from the defects evident on the face of the documents, there exists
85
evidence indicating that the actual custodial investigation was THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED
conducted at the police headquarters in the absence of counsel, as PURELY ON THE BASIS OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT
contended by appellants. These facts lead us to the inevitable DO NOT HOWEVER MEET THE REQUISITES PROVIDED FOR BY
conclusion that the confessions of both defendants were obtained in LAW FOR CONVICTION BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
the absence of independent and competent counsel as mandated by
the 1987 Constitution and that the same may have been acquired HELD
under conditions negating voluntariness, as alleged by the accused. In the instant case, the admission made by accused-appellant was not
in the form of a written extra-judicial confession; the admission was
[OFALSA] People v. Felixminia y Camacho, G.R. No. 125333, March made verbally to PO3 Roberto Reyes, a member of the Philippine
20, 2002 National Police stationed in Urdaneta, Pangasinan. PO3 Reyes
testified that after accused-appellant was taken into custody, he
FACTS "interviewed and interrogated" the latter and in the course of their
Rolando Felixminia was convicted by the trial court of the crime of rape "conversation," accused-appellant said that he "raped, killed and
with homicide and the extreme penalty of death was imposed upon buried" Maria Lourdes. There is no doubt, therefore, that accused-
him. The conviction was based on the circumstantial evidence that appellant was taken into custody for investigation of his possible
Felixminia abducted the six-year old Maria Lourdes Galinato who was participation in the commission of the crime. Hence, the constitutional
later found to have been raped, killed and buried near the Macalong mantle of protection clearly covers the instant situation. While said
River in San Vicente, Urdaneta, Pangasinan. In this appeal, Felixminia officer testified that he apprised the accused-appellant of his right to
claimed that the trial court erred in convicting him based purely on remain silent and to have a counsel of his own choice, accused-
circumstantial evidence and in not applying the doctrine of the "fruit of appellant's alleged admission was made without the presence of a
the poisonous tree." counsel. It does not appear either that accused-appellant manifested
The Court found the extra-judicial confession of the accused as invalid that he could not afford the services of a counsel nor waived his right
since he was deprived of his right to counsel during said custodial to one in writing and in the presence of a counsel as no such written
investigation. Consequently, the exclusionary rule applies and the and counseled waiver of these rights was presented in evidence.
extra-judicial confession should be struck down as inadmissible. Therefore, the Court finds the extra-judicial confession of accused-
However, it bears stressing that in crimes of rape with homicide, it is appellant invalid since he was deprived of his right to counsel during
seldom, if not ever, that there is an eyewitness to the act itself. said custodial investigation. Consequently, the exclusionary rule
Consequently, the courts must rely on the circumstantial evidence, applies and the extra-judicial confession should be struck down as
which led to the obvious conclusion that accused is the perpetrator of inadmissible. Notwithstanding the inadmissibility of the extra-judicial
the crime, more so when there is corroborative evidence pointing to confession executed by the accused-appellant, he was properly
the guilt of the accused. Here, the testimonies of the prosecution convicted by the trial court because (a) compromising circumstances
witnesses in court and the findings made in the autopsy report of Dr. were duly proven which were consistent with each other and which
Ramon Gonzales, Jr., the autopsy report of the Philippine National lead with moral certainty to the conclusion that he was guilty of the
Police, the joint affidavit of police officers Reyes and Rubianes, and crime charged and (b) the totality of such circumstances eliminated
the affidavit of witness Mangunay, showed that the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt the possibility of his innocence.
is guilty of the crime charged.
The circumstances are consistent with each other, consistent with the
ISSUE hypothesis that the accused-appellant is guilty, and at the same time
86
inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent and with every
other rational hypothesis except that of guilt. Moreover, Section 4, Rule Pat. Cavalida continued the investigation in the presence of Ex-judge
133 of the Rules provides that an accused can still be convicted even if Jabagat who acted as counsel for Marcos. Cavalida typed the
no eyewitness is available, provided that enough circumstantial confession but was unsigned by Marcos because Jusge Calderon,
evidence has been established by the prosecution to prove beyond before whom the confession was supposed to be sworn and signed
reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime. Resort to had earlier left. Marcos agreed to return the next day to sign but did
circumstantial evidence is essential when to insist on direct testimony not return.
would result in setting felons free and deny proper protection to the
community. Circumstantial evidence is not a "weaker form of evidence Subsequently, an information was filed against Albina, Marcos, Pelagio
vis-a-vis direct evidence," and cases have recognized that and added Wilkins, another brother for Parricide. During arraignment,
circumstantial evidence in its weight and probative force, may surpass they all pled not guilty.
direct evidence in its effect upon the Court. Marcos testimony included the following:
Marcos admitted having been investigated by Lt. Bancog on August
16. They were only two in the room. He likewise admitted that Judge
[PATAWARAN] People v. Jimenez, G.R. No. 82604, December 10, Jabagat arrived but only after his statement had been typed by Pat.
1991 Cavalida. He admitted that Lt. Bancog wrote down what he stated, and
this handwritten statement was handed to Pat. Cavalida . . . (He also)
FACTS: The police officers of Cebu station received a report that one admitted the existence of blood near the house and plenty of it in the
Pelagio Jimenez had been found dead below the cliff near the Balite bushes . . .; the existence of blood in the plowed area . . . (and) it was
tree. They went to the scene and found the lifeless body of Pelagio he and Robert who plowed the same. In the matter of his confession
which sustained stab wounds to the head and leg and was apparently (Exh. 'B'), he claims that what is stated there is in accordance with
already rotting. what his uncle, Marcos Jimenez, wanted him to tell, that he was
pressured to admit the crime under threat of punishment."
Upon further investigation, the police officers drew their suspicion to
the sons of Pelagio, Marcos and Robert. Also, there was a trail of dried The RTC acquitted Albina and Wilkins and were ordered to be
blood stains from the deceaseds porch leading to the cliff where he released. However, the brothers Marcos and Robert were found guilty
was found dead. It was also alleged by witnesses that the brothers beyond reasonable doubt for parricide.
were seen by their neighbors bathing in the artesian well as if washing The RTC based the brothers conviction from the confession made by
away blood stains and that there were occasions where the brothers Marcos.
would violently box their father who had been accused of
surreptitiously selling their uncles copra, a Dr. Jimenez. ISSUE: Whether or not the conviction based on Marcos confession is
valid.
The police invited the brothers and Pelagios widow, Albina for
questioning where MARCOS CONFESSED that it was who hacked HELD: No, the RTC is reversed. Marcos and Roberto are
their father on the right leg and thereafter, the carried their father and ACQUITTED.
left him near the Balite tree. Lt. Bancog TOOK DOWN THE The Constitution explicitly declares that a person being investigated by
CONFESSION ON A PIECE OF PAPER and gave it to Pat. Cavalida, the police as a suspect in an offense has the right, among others, 'to
who was to type up the confession and continue the investigation. have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own
87
choice. In this case, former Judge Jabagat was evidently not of [PATAWARAN] People v. Chi Chan Liu, G.R. No. 189272, January 21,
Marcos ,Jimenez' own choice; she was the police officers' choice; she 2015
did not ask Marcos if he was willing to have her represent him; she just
told him: "I am here because I was summon(ed) to assist you and I am FACTS: SPO2 Paglicawan and SPO3 Yuzon received a radio
going to assist you." This is not the mode of solicitation of legal message from the barangay captain Torreliza that a suspicious looking
assistance contemplated by the Constitution. boat was seen in the vicinity of the island of Looc, Mindoro. The police
officers proceeded to the island and they saw a fishing boat and a
Furthermore, the evidence discloses that Judge Jabagat was not speed boat anchored side by side with people transferring cargo from
present at the critical time that interrogation of Marcos Jimenez by the the fishing boat to the speed boat. As the police officers boat
police was actually taking place. She came only after the questioning approached, the fishing boat sped away leaving the speed boat which
had been completed, and the handwritten record of Marcos Jimenez' seemed to be having engine problems. The police officers were not
answers already typewritten- and all she did was to show the able to apprehend the fishing boat due to the strong waves.
typewritten document to Marcos and ask him if he had voluntarily given
the statements therein contained. The officers found Chi Chan Liu and Leofe Senglao with several plastic
bags containing a crystalline substance which they immediately
It follows that neither the handwritten summary of Marcos Jimenez' suspected as shabu. Unable to produce their identification papers
answers made by two investigating officers for the typewritten upon the police officers demand, they were brought to the police
statement based thereon is admissible. officers where they repeatedly tried to bribe the officers with big, big
amount of money. In the police station and in the presence of the
The typewritten confession is, in any event, unsigned, as are the appellants and the municipal mayor Telebrico, they conducted an
handwritten notes from which the former was derived. The confession inventory of the 45 bags. The bags were subsequently confirmed to
was in fact expressly rejected by Marcos Jimenez as not reflective of contain shabu.
his own perceptions and recollection, but as containing only what his The accused were then transported to Laguna by General Acop and
uncle, Marcos Jimenez, had instructed him to tell the police "under during the CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION, both the accused still
threat of punishment." Hence, the supposed waiver made therein of his refused to say anything but big money, call China. General Acop
constitutional right to counsel of his own choice is void. then allowed them to make a call but was unable to understand the
situation because they spoke in their native tongue. Due to this, they
Equally obvious is that any confession or admission ascribed to sought the assistance of an interpreter. Upon arrival of the interpreter,
Marcos Jimenez in the premises is inadmissible against his brother, his he was tasked to inform both the accused of their constitutional rights
co-accused, Robert Jimenez, not only because obtained in violation of but they only kept repeating big money, call China.
the Constitution and therefore void, but also because of the familiar
principle of res inter alios acta. "The rights of a party cannot be The RTC found them GUILTY for violating the RA 7659 (Dangerous
prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another;" the Drugs Act). On appeal the CA AFFIRMED in toto the RTC decision.
confession of an accused is admissible only against him, but not Senglao and Liu now questions the validity of their arrest.
against his co-defendants.
ISSUE: Whether or not they were afforded their Constitutiolnal rights
during custodial investigation?

88
HELD: YES, the CA decision is AFFIRMED. by a court-appointed government lawyer. The facts borne by the
records of the case, however, militate against the contention of the
Appellants also assail the legality of their detention for being formally appellants. This Court does not find a violation of appellants' right to
charged in an Information on December 8, 1998 or five (5) days after counsel for even in their own narration of facts, appellants stated that
their arrest on December 3, 1998, beyond the thirty-six (36)-hour when they appeared without counsel when the case was called for
period in Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. But while the law arraignment on January 19, 1999, the trial court gave appellants time
subjects such public officers who detain persons beyond the legal to secure the services of counsel of their choice. It was only when
period to criminal liability, it must be remembered that the proceeding appellants again appeared for the second time without counsel on
taken against the detained persons for the act the committed remains February 23, 1999 that the court appointed a counsel from the Public
unaffected, for the two acts are distinct and separate. This Court is Attorney's Office. It is clear, therefore, that appellants had ample
nevertheless mindful of the difficult circumstances faced by the police opportunity to secure the services of a counsel of their own choice.
officers in this case, such as the language barrier, the They cannot now assign error in the proceedings conducted by the trial
unresponsiveness of the appellants, the fact that one of the days fell court for the fact remains that they were appointed with counsel in full
on a Sunday, as well as the disparity in the distances between the compliance with the law.
different offices. But even assuming that the police officers intentionally
delayed the filing of the Information, appellants should have taken [PATAWARAN] Aquino v. Paiste, G.R. No. 147782, June 25, 2008
steps to report or file charges against the officers. Unfortunately, they FACTS: Aquino, Garganta and another woman identified as Adeling
cannot now rely on administrative shortcomings of police officers to get went to the house of respondent Paiste to convince the latter to buy a
a judgment of acquittal for these do not diminish the fact that illegal gold bar owned by a certain Arnold, an Igorot. Aquino and company
drugs were found in appellants' possession. showed Paiste a sample of the gold bar then proceeded to a
pawnshop to test its authenticity which was shown to be genuine.
Anent appellants' claim that their constitutional rights were further However, Paiste informed them that she did not have money.
violated for during custodial investigation, they did not have counsel of Regardless, Aquino repeatedly convinced her and agreed to meet
their choice nor were they provided with one, this deserves scant Arnold who showed Paiste the gold bar and informed her that it was
consideration since the same is relevant and material only when an worth P60,000. Aquino and company then repeatedly tried to convince
extrajudicial admission or confession extracted from an accused Paiste to buy the gold bar for P50,000 to which she agreed.
becomes the basis of his conviction. In this case, neither one of the
appellants executed an admission or confession. In fact, as the Paiste subsequently had the gold bar tested and was informed that it
records clearly show, appellants barely even spoke and merely kept was fake. Paista went to Aquinos house to inform the latter that the
repeating the phrase "call China, big money." The trial court convicted gold was fake. Aquino replied that she had nothing to do with it and
them not on the basis of anything they said during custodial that they needed to see Garganta.
investigation but on other convincing evidence such as the testimonies
of the prosecution witnesses. Verily, there was no violation of Paiste brought Aquino to the NBI and in the presence of a certain Atty.
appellants' constitutional right to counsel during custodial investigation. Tolentino, Aquino promised amicably compromised with Paiste that
they would locate Garganta and the document they both signed would
In this relation, appellants further criticize the legality of the be disregarded should they locate Garganta. The amicable settlement
proceedings in saying that during their arraignment, they were not reads:
represented by a counsel of their choice but were merely represented
89
(1) In view of the acceptance of fault by MRS. JUANITA ASIO- HELD: Yes, the amicable settlement and the waiver of the right to
AQUINO of the case/complaint filed by MRS. TERESITA PAISTE counsel are valid.
before the NBI-National Capital Region for Swindling, Mrs. J. Aquino
agreed to pay the complainant half the amount swindled from the Republic Act No. (RA) 7438 has extended this constitutional guarantee
latter. Said P25,000.00 offered by Mrs. J. Aquino as settlement for the to situations in which an individual has not been formally arrested but
case of Estafa will be paid by her through installment scheme in the has merely been "invited" for questioning. Specifically, Sec. 2 of RA
amount of P1,000.00 per month beginning from the month of March, 7438 provides that "custodial investigation shall include the practice of
1991 until fully paid issuing an invitation to a person who is investigated in connection with
an offense he is suspected to have committed x x x."
(2) The undersigned accused/respondent hereby waives her right to
counsel despite the recital of her constitutional rights made by NBI Petitioner never raised any objection against Atty. Gordon Uys
agent Ely Tolentino in the presence of a lawyer Gordon S. Uy. appointment during the time she was in the NBI and thereafter, when
she signed the amicable settlement. As this Court aptly held in People
Petitioner brought Garganta to the house of respondent. In the v. Jerez, when "the accused never raised any objection against the
presence of Barangay Chairperson Pablo Atayde and a police officer, lawyers appointment during the course of the investigation and the
respondent pointed to Garganta as the person who sold the fake gold accused thereafter subscribes to the veracity of his statement before
bar. Garganta was brought to the police station where there was a the swearing officer" the accused is deemed to have engaged such
demand against Garganta alone. Subsequently, respondent filed a lawyer. Verily, in the instant case, petitioner is deemed to have
criminal complaint from which an Information against Garganta, engaged Atty. Uy when she conferred with him and thereafter signed
petitioner, and three others for the crime of estafa the amicable settlement with waiver of right to counsel in his presence.
Garganta and the others remained at large and only the petitioner was We do not see how the answer of NBI agent Atty. Tolentino upon
arraigned who pled not guilty. cross-examination about the petitioners counsel in the NBI, could be
evasive when the NBI agent merely stated the fact that an independent
The RTC found that petitioner conspired with Garganta, Adeling, and counsel, Atty. Uy, was provided petitioner.
Arnold in committing the crime of estafa. The trial court likewise gave
credence to the amicable settlement as additional proof of petitioners When petitioner engaged Atty. Uy as her lawyer, she undoubtedly
guilt as an amicable settlement in criminal cases is an implied executed the amicable settlement. Verily, she was provided with an
admission of guilt. The CA AFFIRMED the RTC. independent counsel and such "right to counsel is intended to preclude
the slightest coercion as would lead the accused to admit something
Aquinos claim that the documents cannot be given weight as she false. The lawyer, however, should never prevent an accused from
executed the documents under threat and not freely and voluntarily freely and voluntarily telling the truth."15 An amicable settlement is not
which was a violation of her Constitutional rights under the Miranda and does not partake of the nature of an extrajudicial confession or
Rule. admission but is a contract between the parties within the parameters
of their mutually recognized and admitted rights and obligations. Thus,
ISSUE: Whether or not the amicable settlement and the waiver of the the presence of Atty. Uy safeguarded petitioners rights even if the
right to counsel are valid. custodial investigation did not push through and precluded any threat
of violence, coercion, or intimidation.

90
Even granting arguendo that the amicable settlement is in the nature of During trial, Mesina then ADMITTED collecting the patubig collection
an admission, the document petitioner signed would still be admissible but denied misappropriating or embezzling the fund maintaining that
since none of her constitutional rights were violated. Petitioners the patubig collection was found complete in his vault during the
allegations of threat, violence, and intimidation remain but bare inspection. He alleged that he kept the funds in his safe believing that
allegations. Allegations are not proof. he did not yet need to remit the amount because it was to be re-
counted and because his wife suffered a heart attack and was rushed
to the emergency room.

[PATAWARAN] Mesina v. People, G.R. No. 162489, June 17, 2015 RTC gave no credence to his defense and found him GUILTY of
MALVERSATION. The CA AFFIRMED the RTC.
FACTS: Bernardo Mesina, then Local Treasurer of the Local
government of Caloocan City collected from Rosalinda Baclit the On appeal with the Supreme Court, Mesina raises that he was not
weeks collection of market fees, miscellaneous fees, real property informed of his constitutional right to assistance of counsel during the
taxes, community tax receipts and the patubig collection all investigation. He argues that a custodial investigation was what really
amounting to P468,394. The cash were bundled and placed inside transpired and insists that the failure to inform him of his Miranda rights
separate envelopes containing their respective liquidation statements rendered the whole investigation null and void.
which were signed by both Mesina and Baclit.
ISSUE: Whether or not the investigation conducted was equivalent to a
Later that day, Baclit received several phone calls confirming the custodial investigation.
collection of the patubig collections by Mesina. 30 minutes later,
Baclit received a call informing her that the supposed patubig HELD: NO, The CA is AFFIRMED.
collection amounting to P167,870 was not remitted. Mesina then called According to People Vs. Marra, custodial investigation involves any
Baclit to inform her that he allegedly DID NOT RECEIVE the patubig questioning initiated by law enforcement authorities after a person is
collection. taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in
any significant manner. The safeguards during custodial investigation
Carolo Santos, City Treasurer then summoned both Mesina and Baclit begin to operate as soon as the investigation ceases to be a general
for an inquiry relative to the missing collection. Baclit and Mesina inquiry into a still unsolved crime, and the interrogation is then focused
insisted on their respective versions. The City treasurer then ordered on a particular suspect who has been taken into custody and to whom
the Sealing of Mesinas vault pending investigation. the police would then direct interrogatory questions that tend to elicit
The following morning, Mayor Malonzo called an immediate probe on incriminating statements.
the matter. Mesina stood fast in his denial of having received the same
while Baclit positively asserted that Mesina indeed received the Contrary to the petitioner's claim, the fact that he was one of those
collections. being investigated did not by itself define the nature of the investigation
as custodial. For him, the investigation was still a general inquiry to
The following day, the statement of collections supposedly signed by ascertain the whereabouts of the missing patubig collection. By its
Mesina which had been previously lost was recovered. A criminal case nature, the inquiry had to involve persons who had direct supervision
for Malversation was then filed Mesina. over the issue, including the City Treasurer, the City Auditor, the
representative from different concerned offices, and even the City
91
Mayor. What was conducted was not an investigation that already appellant's mother), who was still in the market with Emerlito Guting
focused on the petitioner as the culprit but an administrative inquiry (Emerlito), Jose and Flora's other son (accused-appellant's brother),
into the missing city funds. Besides, he was not as of then in the who was then driving a tricycle for hire. While waiting for Flora and
custody of the police or other law enforcement office. Emerlito, PO1 Macusi, SPO2 Hermosado, and SPO2 Felipe inquired
from the neighbors if anybody had witnessed the crime, but no one did.
[PERENA] People v. Guting y Tomas, G.R. No. 205412, September 9, When Flora and Emerlito arrived, they entered the house and saw
2015 Jose's lifeless body with blood still oozing from his wounds.
Immediately, Flora and Emerlito brought Jose to the hospital where he
FACTS: was pronounced dead on arrival.

In an Information dated August 1, 2006, docketed as Criminal Case On cross-examination, PO1 Macusi divulged that when the knife was
No. 06-93, accused-appellant was charged before the RTC with given to him by PO1 Torre for safekeeping, he did not ask accused-
Parricide. When arraigned on September 19, 2006, accused-appellant appellant if it was the knife he used to kill his father. Neither did
pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Thereafter, pre-trial and trial accused-appellant mention to PO1 Macusi that it was the knife he
on the merits ensued. used in stabbing Jose. All that accused-appellant said was, "Sinaksak
ko po yong tatay ko! Napatay ko na po!" PO1 Macusi also admitted
Police Officer (PO1) Fidel Torre (Torre) testified that on the rainy that he did not request for the examination of the knife because it was
afternoon of July 30, 2005, at around 5:00 o'clock, he and PO1 Alexis clean; any trace or stain of blood on it would have been washed away
Macusi (Macusi) were standing in front of the Camiling Police Station by the rains at that time. PO1 Macusi was further questioned as to why
when accused-appellant, all wet from the rain and with a bladed he did not put into writing accused-appellant's admission that he killed
weapon in his hand, suddenly approached them and told them that he his father, and PO1 Macusi explained that it escaped his mind as he
had stabbed his father. Hearing accused-appellant's statement, PO1 was still new at the job then and he was carried away by the fast flow
Torre immediately got the bladed weapon from accused-appellant and of events.7
turned it over to PO1 Macusi for proper disposition.5
Accused-appellant opted not to present any evidence in his defense.
PO1 Macusi corroborated PO1 Torre's testimony. PO1 Macusi
narrated that accused-appellant suddenly appeared before them at the Issue: Whether or not accused-appellants extrajudicial confession is
Police Station, all wet and holding a knife. Accused-appellant admissible in evidence.
proclaimed that his father was already dead. Unsuspecting, PO1
Macusi asked who killed accused-appellant's father. Accused- HELD: The Court ruled that accused-appellants extrajudicial
appellant answered, "Sinaksak ko po yong tatay ko! Napatay ko na confession is admissible in evidence.
po!" PO1 Torre then got the knife from accused-appellant and gave it
to PO1 Macusi. PO1 Macusi placed the knife in the custodian cabinet Accused-appellant argues that his oral confession to PO1 Torre and
in the Police Station. Thereafter, PO1 Macusi, Senior Police Officer PO1 Macusi, without the assistance of counsel, is inadmissible in
(SPO) 2 Eliseo Hermosado (Hermosado), and SPO2 Noli Felipe evidence for having been made in blatant violation of his constitutional
(Felipe) went to the residence of Jose Guting (Jose), accused- right under Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution.
appellant's father, to verify the reported crime, while other police
officers informed Flora Guting (Flora), Jose's wife (also accused-
92
Section 12, paragraphs 1 and 3, Article III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987
Constitution mandate that: FACTS: Petitioner, represented by the Assistant Provincial Fiscal of
SEC. 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an Antique, in this special action for certiorari, assails the Order dated
offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent March 26, 1985 issued by the respondent Judge Luis V. Sison of
and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own Branch X, Regional Trial Court of Antique, rejecting the extrajudicial
choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be confession of private respondent Jocelyn de Asis for having been
provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and taken in violation of Section 20, Article IV of the Constitution.
in the presence of counsel.
It appears that in an amended information dated January 4, 1984, the
xxxx Provincial Fiscal of Antique, Ramon M. Salvani, Jr., charged Jocelyn
de Asis, 20, single, a resident of Barangay Agcarupi, Januiay, Iloilo,
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section and an elementary school graduate, with subversion for having
17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. become a member of the New People's Army (Criminal Case No.
2670). Jocelyn pleaded not guilty to the charge.
The "investigation" in Section 12, paragraph 1, Article III of the 1987 Fiscal Recaredo P. Barte offered in evidence the aforecited
Constitution pertains to "custodial investigation." Custodial extrajudicial confession (Exhibit Q) dated May 19, 1983 of Jocelyn.
investigation commences when a person is taken into custody and is This was vehemently objected to by her counsel. Respondent judge
singled out as a suspect in the commission of a crime under sustained the objection on the ground that Jocelyn's waiver of her right
investigation and the police officers begin to ask questions on the to counsel was made without the assistance of counsel, consonant
suspect's participation therein and which tend to elicit an admission. with the ruling of this Court in the twin cases of Morales vs. Enrile, et
al., G.R. No. L-61016, Moncupa vs. Enrile, et al., G.R. No. L-61107,
Applying the foregoing definitions, accused-appellant was not under April 26, 1983 (121 SCRA 538).
custodial investigation when he admitted, without assistance of
counsel, to PO1 Torre and PO1 Macusi that he stabbed his father to In her confession, which was taken at a hospital in San Jose, Antique,
death. Accused-appellant's verbal confession was so spontaneously Jocelyn was led to admit through a leading question that she became
and voluntarily given and was not elicited through questioning by the a member of the New People's Army on May 8, 1983. She further
police authorities. It may be true that PO1 Macusi asked accused- stated that in an encounter with the Philippine Constabulary and
appellant who killed his father, but PO1 Macusi only did so in response Civilian Home Defense Forces a week later, or on May 17, 1983, she
to accused-appellant's initial declaration that his father was already was wounded and her brother David was killed.
dead. At that point, PO1 Macusi still had no idea who actually
committed the crime and did not consider accused-appellant as the Fiscal Barte contends that the ruling in the aforecited cases has no
suspect in his father's killing. Accused-appellant was also merely doctrinal value since the said ruling was contained in an obiter dictum
standing before PO1 Torre and PO1 Macusi in front of the Camiling and was concurred in by only three Justices instead of the required
Police Station and was not yet in police custody. number of eight Justices.

Counsel for private respondent, in his comment, contends that the

doctrine in the Morales and Moncupa case was reiterated in the
[PERENA] People v. Sison, G.R. No. 70906, May 30, 1986
93
decision in People vs. Galit, G.R. No. L-51170 promulgated on March inadmissible in evidence. (People vs. Galit, supra., p. 472) (Emphasis
20, 1985. supplied).

The former Solicitor General, in his comment, submits that said WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. No costs.
confession is admissible.

After deliberating on the petition and comments, the Court resolved to [PERENA] Manuel v. N.C. Construction Supply, G.R. No. 127553,
dismiss the petition. In the case of People of the Philippines vs. November 28, 1997
Francisco Galit (135 SCRA 465), which was decided en banc and
concurred in by all the Justices except one who took no part, the Court FACTS:
had occasion to put at rest all doubts regarding the ruling in the
Morales vs. Enrile and Moncupa vs. Enrile cases. The Court, in setting Petitioners Eddie Manuel, Romeo Bana, Rogelio Pagtama, Jr. and
aside the judgment appealed from and acquitting the accused Joel Rea were employed as drivers at N.C. Construction Supply
Francisco Galit, reiterated the ruling laid down in the aforecited cases, owned by private respondents Johnny Lim (a.k.a. Lao Ching Eng) and
which we quote below: Anita Sy.

10. This Court, in the case of Morales vs. Ponce Enrile, laid down On June 3, 1995, the security guards of respondent company caught
the correct procedure for peace officers to follow when making an Aurelio Guevara, a company driver, and Jay Calso, his helper
arrest and in conducting a custodial investigation, and which we ("pahinante"), taking out from the company premises two rolls of
reiterate: electrical wire worth P500.00 without authority. Calso was brought to
the Pasig Police station for questioning. During the investigation, Calso
7. At the time the person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the named seven other employees who were allegedly involved in a series
arresting officer to inform him of the reason for the arrest and he must of thefts at respondent company, among them petitioners Manuel,
show the warrant of arrest, if any. He shall be informed of his Bana, Pagtama, Jr. and Rea.
constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that any
statement he might make could be used against him. The person On June 5, 1995, petitioners received separate notices from
arrested shall have the right to communicate with his lawyer, a relative respondent company informing them
or any one who chooses by the most expedient means-by telephone if that they were positively identified by their co-worker, Jay Calso, as
possible-or by letter or messenger. It shall be the responsibility of the perpetrators of the series of thefts committed at respondent company.
arresting officer to see to it that this is accomplished. No custodial They were thus invited to the Pasig police station for investigation
investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of regarding their alleged involvement in the offense.
counsel engaged by the person arrested, by any person in his behalf,
or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself or Atty. Ramon Reyes, private respondents' counsel conducted in their
by anyone on his behalf. The fight to counsel may be waived but the behalf an investigation regarding petitioners' involvement in the theft.
waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel. Atty. Reyes interrogated the petitioners on their alleged participation in
Any statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down, the series of thefts committed at respondent company. Petitioners
whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in whole or in part shall be initially denied the charge. However, after being positively identified by

94
Jay Calso, petitioners admitted their guilt and offered to resign in In the case at bar, the admission was made by petitioners during the
exchange for the withdrawal of any criminal charge against them. course of the investigation conducted by private respondents' counsel
to determine whether there is sufficient ground to terminate their
On July 17, 1995, petitioners filed a complaint against private employment. Petitioners were not under custodial investigation as they
respondents for illegal dismissal. Petitioners alleged that they were not were not yet accused by the police of committing a crime. The
informed of the charge against them nor were they given an investigation was merely an administrative investigation conducted by
opportunity to dispute the same. They also alleged that their admission the employer, not a criminal investigation. The questions were
made at the Pasig police station regarding their involvement in the propounded by the employer's lawyer, not by police officers. The fact
theft as well as their resignation were not voluntary but were obtained that the investigation was conducted at the police station did not
by private respondents' lawyer by means of threat and intimidation. necessarily put petitioners under custodial investigation as the venue
of the investigation was merely incidental. Hence, the admissions
Issue: Whether or not the admission of the petitioners is admissible in made by petitioners during such investigation may be used as
evidence. evidence to justify their dismissal.

HELD: The Court ruled that petitioners extrajudicial admission is

admissible in evidence. [PERENA] People v. Marra y Zarate, G.R. No. 108494, September 20,
1994
We are not convinced by petitioners allegation that such admission
was obtained by means of threat or intimidation as such allegation is FACTS:
couched in general terms and is unsupported by evidence.
In an information filed before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 43,
We also reject petitioners' argument that said admission is Dagupan City, Samuel Marra y Zarate, John Doe, Peter Doe, Paul Doe
inadmissible as evidence against them under Section 12 Article III of and Tom Doe were charged with the crime of murder for the fatal
the 1987 Constitution. The right to counsel under Section 12 of the Bill shooting of one Nelson Tandoc on March 7, 1992.
of Rights is meant to protect a suspect in a criminal case under
custodial investigation. Custodial investigation is the stage where the The prosecution's eyewitness, Jimmy Din, positively identified
police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved appellant as the triggerman in the killing of Nelson Tandoc. Din
crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect who had been recounted that at around 2:00 A.M. on March 7, 1992, he and his
taken into custody by the police to carry out a process of interrogation friend, Nelson Tandoc, were conversing with each other in front of
that lends itself to elicit incriminating statements. It is when questions Lucky Hotel located at M.H. del Pilar Street, Dagupan City, which was
are initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken owned by the witness' father and of which he was the administrator.
into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any He noticed a man pass by on the opposite side of the street. The man
significant way. The right to counsel attaches only upon the start of made a dirty sign with his finger and Din informed Tandoc thereof. The
such investigation.Therefore, the exclusionary rule under paragraph man repeated his offensive act and called them by waving his hands.
(3) Section 12 of the Bill of Rights applies only to admissions made in Infuriated, they followed the man until the latter stopped in front of the
a criminal investigation but not to those made in an administrative Dunkin' Donuts store at the corner of Arellano and Fernandez streets.
investigation. They demanded an explanation from the man but they were not given
any.
95
 and that the killer was, at that time, wearing the polo shirt of a security
At that instant, two men arrived and one of them inquired what was guard's uniform.
going on. Tandoc informed him that they were just demanding an
explanation from the man. Din was surprised when Tandoc They decided to proceed to an eatery called "Linda's Ihaw-Ihaw."
unexpectedly slapped one of the two men. A brawl ensued, with Seeing the security guard of a nearby bus company, they inquired from
Tandoc clashing with the two men while Din exchanged blows with the him if he knew of any unusual incident that happened in the vicinity.
man who made the dirty finger sign. After the fisticuffs, their three The guard said that he saw the guard of "Linda's Ihaw-Ihaw," together
opponents ran away in a westward direction. with some companions, chasing two persons running towards M. H.
del Pilar Street. He further added that the man was wearing a polo
Tandoc and Din then decided to walk back to the hotel. When they shirt of a security guard's uniform. Asked where that particular guard
were about to enter the place, they noticed that the men with whom might be, he pointed to a man eating inside the eatery nearby. The
they just had a fight were running towards them. Sensing danger, they man eating was not in a security guard's uniform.
ran inside the annex building of the hotel and immediately secured the
lock of the sliding outer door. They entered a room and waited until They approached the man and inquired whether he was the security
they felt that the situation had normalized. After ten to fifteen minutes, guard of "Linda's Ihaw-Ihaw," which the latter answered in the
thinking that the men were no longer in the vicinity, they left the room. affirmative. After a series of questions, they learned that he was
Having decided to go home, Tandoc opened the sliding door. All of a Samuel Marra, that his tour of duty was from 7:00 P.M. of a preceding
sudden, Din saw Appellant, who at that time was wearing a security day to 6:00 A.M. the following day, that he was still on duty at around
guard's uniform, shoot Tandoc with a revolver. There was a fluorescent 2:30 in the morning of March 7, 1992, and that the firearm issued to
bulb installed at the front of the hotel which enabled Din to identify the him was in his house. Upon their request to see the firearm, they
assailant. Tandoc was shot in the middle of the chest and he fell down. proceeded to Marra's residence at Interior Nueva Street.
Then, Din saw four to five men scamper away from the scene.
When they arrived, Marra took a .38 caliber revolver from inside an
Aware of his injury, Tandoc told Din, "Tol, I was shot." The latter tried aparador and handed it to De Vera. De Vera also found five live bullets
to chase appellant and his companions but he failed to catch up with and one spent shell. Smelling gunpowder from the barrel of the gun,
them. Din and his wife then brought Tandoc to the Villaflor Hospital. De Vera asked Marra when he last fired the gun but the latter denied
The victim was taken to the emergency room but he expired an hour ever having done so. Abruptly, De Vera asked him point-blank why he
later. shot Tandoc. Marra at first denied the accusation but when informed
that someone saw him do it, he said that he did so in self-defense,
At about 3:45 A.M. of March 7, 1992, SPO3 Reynaldo de Vera of the firing at the victim only once.
Dagupan City Police Station received a report about a shooting
incident at the annex building of the Lucky Hotel. He proceeded to the Issue: Whether or not Marras confession is admissible in evidence.
crime scene along with SPO4 Orlando Garcia, SPO3 Mauricio Flores
and SPO3 Noli de Castro. Upon their arrival about five minutes later, HELD: The Court ruled that Marras confession is not admissible in
they were informed by the wife of Jimmy Din that the victim had been evidence.
brought to the Villaflor Hospital. They proceeded to the hospital where
Din informed them that he could recognize the man who killed Tandoc Custodial investigation involves any questioning initiated by law
enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or
96
otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. It is Relying on the extrajudicial confessions of the accused and on the
only after the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial court
unsolved crime and begins to focus on a particular suspect,the suspect found Suarez, Reyes and Lara guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
is taken into custody, and the police carries out a process of robbery with homicide.
interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements that
the rule begins to operate. Issue:
Whether the extrajudicial confessions of each of the accused are
In the case at bar, appellant was not under custodial investigation binding against each other and admissible in evidence
when he made the admission. There was no coercion whatsoever to
compel him to make such a statement. Indeed, he could have refused Ruling:
to answer questions from the very start when the policemen requested YES. If it is made freely and voluntarily, a confession constitutes
that they all go to his residence. The police inquiry had not yet reached evidence of a high order since it is supported by the strong
a level wherein they considered him as a particular suspect. They were presumption that no sane person or one of a normal mind will
just probing into a number of possibilities, having been merely deliberately and knowingly confess himself to be the perpetrator of a
informed that the suspect was wearing what could be a security crime unless prompted by truth and
guard's uniform. conscience.
Extrajudicial confessions independently made without collusion, almost
identical with each other in their essential details which could have
been known only to the declarants, and corroborated by other
[RAMOS] People v. Suarez, G.R. No. 111193, January 28, 1997 evidence against the person or persons implicated to show the
probability of the latter's actual participation in the commission of the
crime, are thus impressed with features of voluntariness in their
Facts: execution
On or about the 8th day of December, 1987 in the Municipality of The court treated the confessions of the three accused as interlocking
Pasig, Estrelita Guzman was robbed and was killed in her own house. confessions sufficient to corroborate and bolster the truth of each
accused's own incriminating statements. This doctrine of interlocking
Suarez wanted his aunt killed so that he and his wife, Marivic Suarez, confessions has been accepted and recognized in numerous decisions
also the victims adopted daughter, could get at once any property that of this Court as an exception to the res inter alios acta rule and the
Marivic might inherit from Estrellita upon the latter's death. In exchange hearsay rule. Reyes' confession is thus admissible against Lara to
for the job, Suarez would allow the other accused to steal what they show the probable involvement of the latter in the perpetration of the
wanted from the house, in addition to giving them P100,000.00 after crime. Where the confession is used as circumstantial evidence to
one month from the killing of Estrellita. show the probability of participation by an accused co-conspirator, that
confession is receivable as evidence against him.
Two of the accused, Reyes and Lara, gave their sworn statement
detailing what transpired from the planning until the execution of the
crime. [RAMOS] People v. Buluran y Ramirez, G.R. No. 113940, February 15,
2000

97
Facts: The Meyer family was celebrating the birthday of their mother at Quezon City, who "invited" appellant Buluran to the precinct,[6] and
their residence in Area 4, Barangay Amaparo, Capri, Novaliches, Chief Inspector Florante F. Baltazar, the Medico-Legal Officer who
Quezon City. It appears that Dominador Meyer, Jr., had an altercation conducted the autopsy on the victim. Baltazar testified that the cause
with a cousin. The victim, Edilberto Meyer, Sr., tried to pacify them, of death was the "penetrating stab wound at the posterior left lumbar
and brought Dominador outside the house to cool-off. However, while region."[7] The victims widow, Mrs. Erlinda C. Meyer, testified as to
the victim and Dominador, were talking outside their residence, the actual damages sustained as a result of the death of her
Reynaldo Danao approached them and warned them not to make any husband.[8] Hence, the present appeal.
trouble because the community was celebrating its fiesta. The victim
denied making any trouble and said that the matter was a family Issues: here involve the alleged irregularity of appellants arrest; the
problem. Suddenly, Reynaldo boxed the victim who also retaliated with alleged violation of their constitutional rights during custodial
a fistblow. The two exchanged blows and grappled with each other. investigation for lack of counsel; and the alleged invalidity of the
Reynaldo managed to run away but returned after about two minutes. proceedings in the trial court sans preliminary investigation.
Considering these issues,
Now, accompanied by his barkadas or gangmates (Cielito Buluran,
Leonardo Valenzuela and Jaime Danao), Reynaldo was armed with a Held:
12-inch stainless knife. Cielito had also a knife. Leonardo and Jaime First. Appellants are estopped from questioning the validity of their
each carried slingshots, with sharp-pointed arrows made of five-inch respective arrests since they never raised this issue before
nails with abaca tails. Without warning, Reynaldo stabbed the victim at arraignment. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the
the left side of his lower back. All the while, his three companions were acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made
pointing and brandishing their weapons at the Meyer brothers and the before he enters his plea, otherwise the objection is deemed
other people present in order to prevent them from interfering. Cielito waived.[15]
poked his knife at the Meyer brothers and stood guard to prevent other
people from rendering help to the victim. Leonardo likewise held his Second. There is no violation of the constitutional rights of the accused
slingshot against the Meyer brothers and prevented people from going during custodial investigation since neither one executed an
near the victim by pointing his loaded slingshot at them. Thereafter, the extrajudicial confession or admission. In fact, the records[16] show that
four barkadas fled. The victim died that same night appellant Cielito Buluran opted to remain silent during the custodial
investigation. Any allegation of violation of rights during custodial
During trial, the prosecution presented three eyewitnesses all were investigation is relevant and material only to cases in which an
neighbors of the victim. The prosecution likewise presented PO1 extrajudicial admission or confession extracted from the accused
Roberto C. San Miguel of Station 2, Sangang Daan, Novaliches, becomes the basis of their conviction.[17] In this case, the basis of the
Quezon City, who "invited" appellant Buluran to the precinct,[6] and conviction by the trial court was the testimonies of the three
Chief Inspector Florante F. Baltazar, the Medico-Legal Officer who eyewitnesses, Artemio Avendao, Jacinto Castillo, and Gloria Castillo. It
conducted the autopsy on the victim. Baltazar testified that the cause is noteworthy that appellants never attempted to impeach their
of death was the "penetrating stab wound at the posterior left lumbar testimonies during trial. Neither do they assail the credibility of said
region."[7] The victims widow, Mrs. Erlinda C. Meyer, testified as to the witnesses on appeal.
actual damages sustained as a result of the death of her husband.[8]
All were neighbors of the victim. The prosecution likewise presented Third. The failure to accord appellants their right to preliminary
PO1 Roberto C. San Miguel of Station 2, Sangang Daan, Novaliches, investigation did not impair the validity of the information nor affect the
98
jurisdiction of the trial court.[20] While the right to preliminary
investigation is a substantive right and not a mere formal or technical Facts: For automatic review is the judgment of the Regional Trial Court
right of the accused, nevertheless, the right to preliminary investigation (RTC) of Antipolo City, Branch 73, dated March 7, 2001, in Criminal
is deemed waived when the accused fails to invoke it before or at the Case No. 98-14724, finding appellant Eric Guillermo y Garcia guilty of
time of entering a plea at arraignment.[21] It appearing that appellants murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death. Apellant is
only raised the issue of lack of preliminary investigation during appeal, accused of murdering his employer, Victor Francisco Keyser. Appellant
their right to a preliminary investigation was deemed waived when they contends that his conviction was based on inadmissible evidence. He
entered their respective pleas of not guilty. points out that there is no clear showing that he was not informed of
his constitutional rights nor was he made to understand the same by
Pursuant to the doctrine that an appeal in a criminal case opens the the police investigators.
whole case for review (including penalty, indemnity and damages),[22]
we shall now consider whether appellants were correctly found guilty Issue: THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT
of murder beyond reasonable doubt. THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME OF
MURDER HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
Unquestionably, and appellants do not allege otherwise, conspiracy
attended the killing of the victim. Conspiracy to exist does not require THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN IMPOSING THE EXTREME
an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence.[23] PENALTY OF DEATH.
From the legal standpoint, conspiracy exists if, at the time of the Held: Appellant contends that his conviction was based on
commission of the offense, the accused had the same purpose and inadmissible evidence. He points out that there is no clear showing
were united in its execution.[24] In this case, the presence of that he was informed of his constitutional rights nor was he made to
appellants, both armed with deadly weapons, at the locus criminis understand the same by the police investigators. In fact, he says, he
indubitably shows their complicity in the criminal design of Reynaldo was only made to read said rights in printed form posed on the wall at
Danao to kill the victim. the police precinct. He was not provided with the services of counsel
However, we find that no treachery attended the killing. On numerous during the custodial investigation, as admitted by SPO1 Reyes. In view
occasions, we have held that where a killing was preceded by an of no showing on record that he had waived his constitutional rights,
argument or quarrel, then the qualifying circumstance of treachery can appellant argues that any evidence gathered from him, including his
no longer be appreciated since the victim could be said to have been alleged confession, must be deemed inadmissible.
forewarned and could anticipate aggression from the assailants.[25] the confession appellant made while he was under investigation by
The previous boxing incident between the victim and Reynaldo Danao SPO1 Carlito Reyes for the killing of Keyser at the Antipolo PNP
must have already put the victim on guard for further aggression or Station, falls short of the protective standards laid down by the
retaliation by Reynaldo Danao. Hence, treachery could not be Constitution. Under Article III of the Constitution,[43] a confession to be
appreciated as a qualifying circumstance in this case. admissible must satisfy the following requisites: (a) the confession
must be voluntary; (b) the confession must be made with the
assistance of competent and independent counsel; (c) the confession
[RAMOS] People v. Guillermo y Garcia, G.R. No. 147786, January 20, must be express; and (d) the confession must be in writing.[44] In the
2004 instant case, the testimony of SPO1 Reyes on cross-examination
clearly shows the cavalier treatment by the police of said constitutional
People v. Guillermo y Garcia, G.R. No. 147786, January 20, 2004 guarantees.
99
 Endino appeared and fired at Dennis. As Dennis staggered for safety,
Be that as it may, however, the inadmissibility of the appellants the two (2) assailants fled in the direction of the airport.
confession to SPO1 Reyes at the Antipolo PNP Station as evidence
does not necessarily lead to his acquittal. For constitutional safeguards Meanwhile, Dennis, wounded and bleeding, sought refuge inside the
on custodial investigation (known, also as the Miranda principles) do Elohim Store where he collapsed on the floor. He was grasping for
not apply to spontaneous statements, or those not elicited through breath and near death. Clara with the help of some onlookers took him
questioning by law enforcement authorities but given in an ordinary to the hospital but Dennis expired even before he could receive
manner whereby the appellant verbally admits to having committed the medical attention.
offense. The rights enumerated in the Constitution, Article III, Section
12, are meant to preclude the slightest use of the States coercive An Information for the murder of Dennis Aquino was filed against
power as would lead an accused to admit something false. But it is not Edward Endino and accused-appellant Gerry Galgarin and warrants
intended to prevent him from freely and voluntarily admitting the truth were issued for their arrest.
outside the sphere of such power.
Gerry Galgarin was arrested through the combined efforts of the
Thus, we have no hesitation in saying that, despite the inadmissibility Antipolo and Palawan police forces at a house in Sitio Sto. Nio,
of appellants alleged confession to the police, the prosecution has Antipolo, Rizal. He was immediately taken into temporary custody by
amply proven the appellants guilt in the killing of Victor F. Keyser. The the Antipolo Police. Early in the evening of the following day, he was
bare denial raised by the appellant in open court pales in contrast to fetched from the Antipolo Police Station by PO3 Gaudencio Manlavi
the spontaneous and vivid out-of-court admissions he made to security and PO3 Edwin Magbanua of the Palawan police force to be taken to
guard Campos and the two media reporters, Abelgas and David. The Palawan and be tried accordingly.
positive evidence, including the instruments of the crime, together with
the medical evidence as well as the testimonies of credible prosecution On their way to the airport, they stopped at the ABS-CBN television
witnesses, leaves us no doubt that appellant killed his employer, Victor station where accused Galgarin was interviewed by reporters. Video
Francisco Keyser, in the gruesome manner vividly described before footages of the interview were taken showing Galgarin admitting his
the trial court. guilt while pointing to his nephew Edward Endino as the gunman

Testimonies of different persons present in the crime scene were

adduced pointing out Galgarin as the accused. For his part, accused-
[RAMOS] People v. Galgarin, G.R. No. 133026, February 20, 2001 appellant Gerry Galgarin disclaimed having taking part in the slaying of
Dennis. Gerry asserted that on 14 October 1991 he was in Antipolo to
Facts: On a busy street in Puerto Princesa City in the evening of 16 help his common-law wife Maria Marasigan give birth to their first born.
October 1991, an emboldened Gerry Galgarin, uncle of accused Accused-appellant disowned the confession which he made over TV
Edward Endino, suddenly and without warning lunged at Dennis and Patrol and claimed that it was induced by the threats of the arresting
stabbed him repeatedly on the chest. Dennis girlfriend Clara Agagas police officers. He asserted that the videotaped confession was
who was with him, stunned by the unexpected attack, pleaded to constitutionally infirmed and inadmissible under the exclusionary rule
Galgarin to stop. Dennis struggled and succeeded momentarily to free provided in Sec.12, Art. III, of the Constitution.[8]
himself from his attacker. Dennis dashed towards the nearby Midtown
Sales but his escape was foiled when from out of nowhere Edward
100
The trial court however admitted the video footages on the strength of similar confessions. For in all probability, the police, with the
the testimony of the police officers that no force or compulsion was connivance of unscrupulous media practitioners, may attempt to
exerted on accused-appellant. The alibi of Galgarin was likewise legitimize coerced extrajudicial confessions and place them beyond
rejected since there was no convincing evidence to support his the exclusionary rule by having an accused admit an offense on
allegation that he was not at the locus criminis on the evening of 16 television. Such a situation would be detrimental to the guaranteed
October 1991. Accordingly, accused-appellant Gerry Galgarin was rights of the accused and thus imperil our criminal justice system.
convicted of murder qualified by treachery. Hence, this appeal.
We do not suggest that videotaped confessions given before media
Issue: W/N the trial court erred in rejecting his alibi and admitting his men by an accused with the knowledge of and in the presence of
videotaped confession as evidence against him. police officers are impermissible. Indeed, the line between proper and
invalid police techniques and conduct is a difficult one to draw,
Held: With accused-appellant having been positively identified by the particularly in cases such as this where it is essential to make sharp
prosecution witnesses as the one who stabbed Dennis, his bare denial judgments in determining whether a confession was given under
proves futile and unavailing. Josephine Leongs identification of coercive physical or psychological atmosphere.
accused-appellant was given in a very categorical and spontaneous
manner. Her confidence as to the attackers identity was clearly shown With all the evidence tightly ringed around accused-appellant, the
by her vivid recollection of him having a mole below his nose, which is question that next presents itself is whether the trial court correctly
correct. Moreover, it is inconceivable for Josephine and Anita to denominated the crime as murder qualified by treachery. Doubtless,the
implicate accused-appellant, a complete stranger to them, if there was crime committed is one of murder considering that the victim was
no truth to their assertion. As for Clara, her naming of accused- stabbed while he was simply standing on the pavement with his
appellant as her boyfriends assailant was not done out of spite, but girlfriend waiting for a ride, blissfully oblivious of the accused's criminal
was impelled by her desire to seek justice for Dennis. design. The suddenness of the assault on an unsuspecting victim,
without the slightest provocation from him who had no opportunity to
Apropos the court a quos admission of accused-appellants videotaped parry the attack, certainly qualifies the killing to murder.[15]
confession, we find such admission proper. The interview was
recorded on video and it showed accused-appellant unburdening his
guilt willingly, openly and publicly in the presence of newsmen. Such
confession does not form part of custodial investigation as it was not [TAN] Gutang v. People, G.R. No. 135406, July 11, 2000
given to police officers but to media men in an attempt to elicit
sympathy and forgiveness from the public. Besides, if he had indeed FACTS:
been forced into confessing, he could have easily sought succor from Petitioner along with 2 others were charged with illegal possession and
the newsmen who, in all likelihood, would have been symphatetic with use of prohibited drugs in the RTC of Pasig City. During their arrest,
him. As the trial court stated in its Decision[13]- several items were seized by the police in the bedroom they were in
during the arrest and their cars. These items included weed, shabu
However, because of the inherent danger in the use of television as a and several paraphernalia used in the consumption and storage of the
medium for admitting ones guilt, and the recurrence of this said drugs. The police issued receipts for property seized to the
phenomenon in several cases,[14] it is prudent that trial courts are accused w/c he was required to sign and they were subjected to
reminded that extreme caution must be taken in further admitting
101
chemical test and thereafter used as evidence in the criminal case. Hence, the said Reports containing the results of the laboratory
Accused and company were also subjected to drug tests. examinations, aside from the testimonial and other real evidence of the
Petitioner contends that the items seized should be inadmissible as prosecution, are admissible in evidence and sufficiently proved that the
evidence since they were obtained without the assistance of a lawyer, petitioner used and had the said prohibited drugs and paraphernalia in
said evidence are tantamount to having been derived from an his possession. In other words, even without the Receipts of Property
uncounseled extra-judicial confession and, thus, are inadmissible in Seized (Exhibits I and R) the alleged guilt of the petitioner for the
evidence for being fruits of the poisonous tree. The chemical tests crimes charged were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
done on the items should therefore be inadmissible following this train The right to counsel begins from the time a person is taken into
of thought. custody and placed under investigation for the commission of a crime,
Absence of counsel should also render the drug test inadmissible i.e., when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit
since the same violated his constitutional rights. information and/or confession or admissions from the accused. Such
ISSUE: WON the items seized, chemical tests performed on them and right is guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot be waived except in
the drug tests should be considered as being fruits of the poisonous writing and in the presence of counsel. However, what the Constitution
tree. prohibits is the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort
communication from the accused, but not an inclusion of his body in
HELD: evidence, when it may be material. In fact, an accused may validly be
W/ regard to the items seized, it has been held in a long line of cases compelled to be photographed or measured, or his garments or shoes
that the signature of the accused in the Receipt of Property Seized is removed or replaced, or to move his body to enable the foregoing
inadmissible in evidence if it was obtained without the assistance of things to be done, without running afoul of the proscription against
counsel. The signature of the accused on such a receipt is a testimonial compulsion. The situation in the case at bar falls within the
declaration against his interest and a tacit admission of the crime exemption under the freedom from testimonial compulsion since what
charged for the reason that, in the case at bar, mere unexplained was sought to be examined came from the body of the accused. This
possession of prohibited drugs is punishable by law. Therefore, the was a mechanical act the accused was made to undergo which was
signatures of the petitioner on the two (2) Receipts of Property Seized not meant to unearth undisclosed facts but to ascertain physical
(Exhibits I and R) are not admissible in evidence, the same being attributes determinable by simple observation. In fact, the record
tantamount to an uncounseled extra-judicial confession which is shows that petitioner and his co-accused were not compelled to give
prohibited by the Constitution. samples of their urine but they in fact voluntarily gave the same when
they were requested to undergo a drug test.
However, as to the chemical tests performed and the drug tests, the
SC held that the fact that the Receipts of Property Seized (Exhibits I
and R) are inadmissible in evidence does not render inadmissable the
Physical Science Reports (Exhibit D and M) and the Chemistry Report [TAN] People v. Paynor, G.R. No. 116222, September 9, 1996
(Exhibit L) inasmuch as the examined materials were legally seized or
taken from the petitioners bedroom on the strength of a valid search FACTS:
warrant duly issued by Judge Villarama, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court Accused was charged by the RTC of Roxas, Isabela with the murder of
of Pasig, Metro Manila. Since the said materials were validly seized or Carmelita Aguinaldo based the testimony of a single witness,
taken from the bedroom of the petitioner in his presence, the Fresnaida Magaway who saw how the crime was perpetrated.
laboratory tests conducted thereon were legally and validly done.
102
The accused provided an alibi in his defense, asserts that there was a
violation of his constitutional rights when his clothes were seized
during his custodial investigation to be later used as evidence in his [TAN] People v. Gamboa, G.R. No. 91374, February 25, 1991
trial and contends that the court erred in convicting him on the basis of
the testimony of a single underaged witness. FACTS:
The accused in the case was convicted of murdering Rene Impas in
ISSUE: WON the testimony of Magaway should prove that the the RTC of Cebu. The accused allegedly went to the house of the
accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. deceased, kicked open his bedroom door and fired 2 rounds with a
shotgun at Impas and ran away. Several witnesses saw the
HELD: occurrence and testified in court against the accused. An extrajudicial
Yes. The contention of appellant that the expected reaction of the confession was also obtained by the investigating police as was the
witness should have been to identify him by name is an obvious non murder weapon. A paraffin test also came back positive w/c
sequitur. What should be considered as a general or common rule is established that the accused had recently fired a gun.
that witnesses to a crime react in different ways. In the instant case, Gamboa claims that the testimonies of the witnesses had
the youthful witness was unable to immediately reveal the name of inconsistencies and that the confession, murder weapon and paraffin
appellant to the police as she was evidently scared or confused and, test were all obtained in violation of his constitutional rights because of
as she explained, she also failed to name appellant at that time since the absence of counsel.
her concern and thoughts were of her teacher whom she followed to
the hospital. Surely, we cannot fault the young girl for her confusion ISSUE: WON the lower court erred in convicting the accused.
and fear, it being her first time to witness such a crime of violence.
The important thing is that when she testified at the trial, she was firm, HELD:
spontaneous and categorical in her declaration that it was appellant No. The SC held that the appellant's claim of contradictions and
whom she saw that afternoon, and that it was he who entered the inconsistencies on the part of the prosecution witnesses puts into
classroom of her teacher and stabbed the latter with a pointed bladed serious doubt their credibility, Different persons who witnessed an
weapon. The witness stood by her declaration, unshaken throughout incident from different angles and situations could not be expected to
the entire trial, and never showed any hesitation in her testimony. give uniform details of what they saw and heard. Such minor
Another fact worth stressing is that the witness had no motive discrepancies and inconsistencies are to be expected because of the
whatsoever to fabricate a serious charge against appellant. When human differences in perception. Such contradicting statements are on
there is no showing that the principal witness for the prosecution was minor details, as hereinabove discussed, and rather than affect the
actuated by an improper motive, the presumption is that he was not so credibility of the witnesses, the same are badges of candor.
actuated, and his testimony is thus entitled to full faith and credit. The paraffin test is not a violation of his right against self-incrimination
As to his clothes, this constitutional right applies only against as this constitutional right extends only to testimonial compulsion and
testimonial compulsion and not when the body of the accused is not when the body of the accused is proposed to be examined as in
proposed to be examined. In fact, an accused may validly be this case. Indeed, the paraffin test proved positively that he just
compelled to be photographed or measured, or his garments or shoes recently fired a gun. Again, this kind of evidence buttresses the case of
removed or replaced, or to move his body to enable the foregoing the prosecution.
things to be done, without running afoul of the proscription against As to his extrajudicial confession, the SC found merit as to his
testimonial compulsion. contention as he was maltreated during his interrogation.
103
As to the murder weapon, the Court is not persuaded that the police Antonio Otadora planned a revenge upon Castro because the latter as
investigators in this case would willingly allow themselves to be a spy caused the death of his father Sergio Otadora at the hands of
instruments to frame the appellant for so serious a crime as murder. It the Japanese. He, however, found himself in the necessity of
appears that the three empty shells were actually recovered from the eliminating Apolonia Carreon because the latter was a witness to his
vicinity of the scene of the crime. The ballistics examination shows that deed. On the other hand, Antonio Otadora (and the other witnesses
it was fired from the very shotgun of the appellant. This evidence who are his relatives) also desire to take revenge upon Hilaria Carreon
corroborates the theory of the prosecution, very strongly, that the because the latter, during the Japanese occupation, saved Leon
appellant was the assailant of the victim. Castro from death at the hands of the guerrillas. The defense says that
However, the Court did not have to take into account the to those who had been prejudiced by the espionage activities of Leon
inconsistencies regarding the confession and the weapon in order to Castro, Hilaria Carreon appears to be just as responsible as Leon
prove the accused as guilty since there was already a multitude of Castro.
evidence that corroborated this fact as provided by the prosecution. The theory can not be lawfully accepted. Firstly, Otadora denies that
his father died at the hands of the Japanese. Secondly, the alleged
"saving" of Leon Castro was not sufficiently established. Loreto
Micabel, the superior officer of the guerrillas, who ordered the release
[TAN] People v. Carreon, G.R. No. L-2154, April 26, 1950 of Leon Castro, did not mention Hilaria as one of those who interceded
for the prisoner (p. 286, stenographic notes). Thirdly, nobody in his
FACTS: right senses holds Pedro criminally responsible for the crime of Juan
Accused and one Otadora were charged with the crime of murdering simply because a few days before the crime Pedro saved Juan from
Leon Castro and Apolonia Carreon. Otadora plead guilty to the charge drowning.
and claimed that the accused had induced him in committing the crime
by promising money as a reward. The accused denied the same and
asked for a separate trial.
This was granted by the court and so Otadora was presented as one [UY] People v. Omilig y Mancia, G.R. No. 206296 , August 12, 2015
of the witnesses along with several others who testified that the
accused had provided Otadora with the murder weapon and promised Facts: An information was filed against accused Omilig for the killing of
money in order to commit the murder. Eduard Betonio. The same was amended imploding accused Matas
ISSUE: WON the court erred in finding the accused guilty. and Peaflor. It was further amended imploding Ondo. During
arraignment, all plead not guilty. The prosecution presented 10
HELD: witnesses and the defense presented 5 witnesses while Peaflor
presented 3 witnesses.
No, of course it is founded mainly upon the declarations of Antonio Estur, COA auditor, discovered the unaccounted rice stocks in the
Otadora that necessarily are persuasive inasmuch as he himself bodega of the NFA, who Betonio was the Provincial Manager. Betonio
admits his direct participation and his assertions are fully corroborated who was stabbed and shot in front of his rented apartment. Before
by a series of circumstances competently established. Metonio was brought to the hospital, he whispered to his wife the
Hilaria denied connection with the assassination. And naturally the names Delfin and Matas. Based on the necropsy, Betonio died of
defense exerted effort to discredit Otadora's version, by submitting the cardio-respiratory arrest hypopolemic shock due to a gunshot and
following theory: deep stab wounds. However thru the complete sketch, they found out
104
that it was Peaflor who was actually the killer. Peaflor admitted in
killing Betonio however he reiterated that he was hired by Ondo. Facts: Petitioner was originally charged with murder however the anti-
Padilla was the counsel of Peaflor thru Praquilles. However Padilla graft court issued an order noting that beside the allegation of the
was only hired 3 days after Peaflors first extra judicial admission. crime committed, it was done while he was taking advantage of his
Padilla was dismissed when the 2nd extra judicial confession was official position. Prosecution presented 5 witnesses and their
made but this was conducted by the City Prosecutor Lagcao with the testimonies:
assurance of Atty. Cavales as counsel de officio.
RTC admitted the extra judicial confession and charged Peaflor for a. Caridad M. San Juan declared that she is the wife of
the crime of murder. On appeal, defense claimed that the extra judicial Francisco San Juan (victim herein.) Caridad testified that Francisco
confession should be inadmissible for obtaining it in violation of his was the Barangay Captain of Barangay Salac, Lumban,
constitutional right. CA affirmed the decision. Hence this appeal. Laguna, until he was shot and killed by accused Ladiana, who
happens to be also a distant relative of the decedent. Caridad
Issue: WON the court erred in admitting the extrajudicial confessions received the news that her husband was shot and was killed. The
made by the accused? lifeless body was being examined by Gabinete. Caridad maintained
that she was aware that her husband was killed by accused Ladiana
Held: No! it was discussed in the case of Ladiana that a Custodial because this was what the woman actually told her. Moreover,
investigation is the questioning initiated by law enforcement officers accused Ladiana had given himself up to the police authorities.
after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his Caridad presented the Death Certificate of her husband and testified
freedom of action in any significant way. Preliminary investigation is an that he was eventually buried at the Lumban Cemetery. Caridad
inquiry or a proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground narrated that her husband suffered two gunshot wounds - one on the
to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, upper right temple and the other on the left cheek. However,
and that resident is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. Caridad stated that she was told that the wounds were the entry and
Also it said that a person undergoing prelim investigation cannot be the exit points. She also told the Court that her husband was wearing
considered as being under custodial investigation. Even if that those short pants at the time of his death and that she found some bruises
were obtained in custodial investigation to be admissible, it must be on his knees.
made a.) voluntary b.) express c.) writing d.) with the assistance of a
competent and independent counsel. However in the case at bar, the b. PO2 Leopoldo Cacalda JR, declared that he is a policeman
prosecution did not present proof of the absence of any of these assigned at the Lumban Police Station in Lumban, Laguna. He even
requirements. Furthermore there is a presumption of regularity continued that a certain person reported to him about an existing
therefore it means that a confession is admissible until the accused trouble along Jacinto Street, he was also accompanied by Alberto
successfully proves that it was given as a result of violence, Mercado, a member of the CAGFIL. Cacalda saw the lifeless body of
intimidation, threat or promise of reward or leniency. Prosecution failed Francisco lying face up on the road. Cacalda did not examine the
to adduce evidence to prove the presence of any of the circumstance body of Francisco. He left the place of the incident when [SPO2]
that would negate the admissibility of the submission of evidence to Percival A. Gabinete and other policemen subsequently arrived. He
convert the accused-appellant herein provided. gathered news from the people that it was Ladiana who killed the
deceased and therefore started to search for him but to be surprised
that the accused had already surrendered to the authorities. On cross-
[UY] Ladiana v. People, G.R. No. 144293, December 4, 2002 examination, Cacalda testified that he was a radio operator and
105
 not an investigator of the police station. He also testified that he e. Maria T. Cortez. retired assistant prosecutor. the defense
did not witness the incident subject matter of the case at bar. counsel made an admission as to the authorship, authenticity, and
voluntariness of the execution of the counter-affidavit of accused
c. Dr. Rogelio M. Javan, he is the physician and the Municipal Ladiana, which was subscribed and sworn to before Cortez. In said
Health Officer in Laguna. Javan recounted that he was the one who counter-affidavit, accused Ladiana allegedly admitted to making the
performed the necropsy on the cadaver of Francisco and that he had fatal shots on Francisco. However, accused Ladiana allegedly
prepared the corresponding reports and/or documents relating thereto. did so in self-defense as Francisco was then purportedly attacking
Javan made a sketch representing the anterior and posterior views of accused Ladiana and had, in fact, already inflicted a stab wound on
the body of Francisco, and labeled and placed red markings on the the arm of accused Ladiana. Cortez emphasized that he was
gunshot wounds found on the said cadaver. The marking Gunshot not the one who conducted the preliminary investigation of the
wound A is the point of entry, which is one (1) centimeter in diameter complaint which led to the filing of the subject case. Additionally,
and situated two (2) inches behind the left ear. The marking Gunshot Cortez testified that he would not be able to anymore recognize the
wound B is the point of exit of Gunshot wound A, which is two (2) face of the affiant in the said counter-affidavit, but maintained that
centimeters in diameter and found above the right cheekbone and one there was a person who appeared and identified himself as Josue
(1) inch below the right eye. Javan also testified that there is another Ladiana before he affixed his signature on the counter-affidavit. The
gunshot wound and the point of entry and exit are labeled as Gunshot prosecution filed its formal offer of evidence and rested its case.
wound C and Gunshot wound D, respectively. Gunshot wound D is
one and one-half (1-1/2) centimeters in diameter and located at the left Court issued a resolution for the admission of all documentary
cheek, three and one-half (3-1/2) centimeters below the left eye, while evidence. Accused however filed for a motion for leave to file a
Gunshot wound C is one (1) centimeter in diameter and found at the demurrer of evidence. Court denied the motion for being improper.
right lateral aspect of the neck, at the level of the adams apple.
Sandiganbayan ordered that the prosecution was able to establish the
the assailant must be behind the victim when he guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. It convicted him of the
inflictedGunshot wound A. As regards Gunshot wound C, the assailant same hence this appeal.
likewise must be behind the victim, at a distance of more than
twenty-four (24) inches away. Javan testified that Gunshot
wound A could have been fired first because the trajectory is on Issue: WON the issue of self defense may be given weight as
the same level so much so that the assailant and the victim admission?
could have been both standing. Javan inferred that Gunshot wound C
could have been inflicted while the victim was already falling down.
Javan then stressed that both wounds are fatal in nature. Held: Yes! The declarations contained in his Counter-Affidavit are
admissions that may be used as evidence against him. The
d.SPO2 Percival A. Gabinete, The testimony of Gabinete wa Sandiganbayan did not unfairly presume that he had indeed raised the
subsequently dispensed with, upon the admission of the defense that theory of self-defense, because this argument had already been laid
he was part of the group of policemen who proceeded to the place of out in his Counter-Affidavit. No presumption was necessary, because
the subject incident and that he found the body of Francisco lying the admission was clear and unequivocal.
along the road.

106
The unsubstantiated and uncorroborated statements of petitioner in his Tamayo, Notary Public on and for the Province of Rizal 3. That as a
Counter-Affidavit are utterly insufficient to discharge his burden of result of said partial partition, the properties affected were actually
proving that the act of killing was justified. It is hornbook doctrine that partitioned and the respective shares of each party, adjudicated to
self-defense must be proved with certainty by sufficient, satisfactory him/her. However That despite the execution of this Deed of Partial
and convincing evidence that excludes any vestige of criminal Partition and the eventual disposal or sale of their respective shares,
aggression on the part of the person invoking it. It cannot be the contracting parties herein covenanted and agreed among
entertained if it is uncorroborated by any separate and competent themselves and by these presents do hereby bind themselves to one
evidence, and it is also doubtful. The question whether the accused another that they shall share alike and received equal shares from the
acted in self-defense is essentially a question of fact properly proceeds of the sale of any lot or lots allotted to and adjudicated in
evaluated by the lower court; in this case, the Sandiganbayan. their individual names by virtue of this deed of partial partition.
Agreement shall continue to be valid and enforceable. The MOA was
By itself, the Counter-Affidavit miserably fails to establish the requisites registered and annotated. Deeds were issued in their names.
of self-defense enumerated in the law. Had petitioner been more Meanwhile, the spouses Eliseo and Virginia Malolos filed Civil Case
vigilant in protecting his rights, he could have presented clear and No. 31231 against the spouses Nerissa Cruz-Tamayo and Nelson
cogent evidence to prove those elements. But, as found by the court a Tamayo for a sum of money. RTC ruled in favor of Eliseo & Virginia.
quo, he not only failed to discharge the burden of proving the existence Enforcing said writ, the sheriff of the court levied upon the lands in
of the justifying circumstance of self-defense; he did not even bother to question. It was sold in an execution sale to the highest bidders, the
present any evidence at all. So, we do not see how the spouses Eliseo and Virginia Malolos. Nerissa Cruz Tamayo failed to
Sandiganbayan could have been selective in its treatment of his exercise her right of redemption within the statutory period and so the
Counter-Affidavit. final deed of sale was executed by the sheriff conveying the lands in
question to spouses Eliseo and Virginia Malolos. The Malolos couple
asked Nerissa Cruz Tamayo to give them the owners duplicate copy of
4. Previous Conduct as Evidence the seven (7) titles of the lands in question but she refused. The couple
moved the court to compel her to surrender said titles to the Register
Sec. 34. Similar acts as evidence/ Res inter alios acta, Part 2 of Deeds of Rizal for cancellation. This was granted on September 7,
1984. But Nerissa was adamant. She did not comply with the Order of
[UY] Cruz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126713, July 27, 1998 the court and so the Malolos couple asked the court to declare said
titles as null and void. Adoracion Cruz, Thelma Cruz, Gerry Cruz and
Facts: Delfin I. Cruz and Adoracion Cruz were spouses and their Arnel Cruz entered the picture by filing is said lower court a motion for
children were Thelma, Nerissa, Arnel and Gerry Cruz. Upon the death leave to intervene and oppose Maloloses motion. The Cruzes alleged
of Delfin I. Cruz, [his] surviving spouse and children executed on that they were co-owners of Nerissa Cruz Tamayo over the lands in
August 22, 1977 a notarized Deed of Partial Partition by virtue of which question. Said order was modify by the court. directing the surrender of
each one of them was given a share of several parcels of registered the owners duplicate copies of the titles of the lands in question to the
lands all situated in Taytay, Rizal. The next day the same mother & Register of Deeds not for cancellation but for the annotation of the
children executeed MOA that provided: 1. That the parties hereto are rights, interest acquired by the Maloloses over said lands. Adoracion,
common co-owners pro-indiviso in equal shares of the following Thelma, Gerry and Arnel Cruz filed Civil Case No. 961-A for Partition
registered real properties, all situated at Taytay, Rizal, Philippines 2. of Real Estate against spouses Eliseo and Virginia Malolos over the
Deed of Partial Partition was executed among us before Atty. Virgilio J. lands in question. As already stated in the first paragraph of this
107
Decision, the court a quo rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiffs design to treat all the parcels of land covered by the DPP as absolutely
from which the defendants appealed to this court. CA reversed the owned and not subject to co-ownership.
judgement of the RTC hence this petition.

Issue: WON the court violated the Res Inter Alios *Acta Rule [UY] Tanzo v. Drilon, G.R. No. 106671, March 30, 2000

Held: No. Res inter alios acta, as a general rule, prohibits the Facts: Private respondents are brothers who were engaged in the
admission of evidence that tends to show that what a person has done business of forwarding and transporting from Cali to Manila. Manuel
at one time is probative of the contention that he has done a similar as operates MANSAL forwarders, Mario on the other hand handles the
act at another time. Evidence of similar acts or occurrences compels forwarding business in the USA. Mario convinced petitioner to invest
the dependant to meet allegations that are not mentioned in the money in the said business. Mario had allegedly represented that
complaint, confuses him in his defense, raises a variety of irrelevant petitioner's money will be held in trust and administered by both him
issues, and diverts the attention of the court from the issues and his brother for the exclusive use of their forwarding and
immediately before it. Hence, this evidentiary rule guards against the transporting business. Petitioner further alleged that Mario promised
practical inconvenience of trying collateral issues and protracting the him a return on his investment equivalent to ten per centum for one
trial and prevents surprise or other mischief prejudicial to litigants. month, at the end of which, his money plus interest earned ned shall
However The rule is not without exception. While inadmissible in be returned to him. When petitioner got home to the PH, it was Manuel
general, collateral facts may be received as evidence under who tried to convince him and in the end an investment total of US
exceptional circumstances, as when there is a rational similarity or $34,000.00 which he entrusted to his aunt, Liwayway Dee Tanzo, who
resemblance between the conditions giving rise to the fact offered and was residing in the U.S.A. Several checks were issued and the same
the circumstances surrounding the issue or fact to be proved.[26] were acquired by their aunt. After the expiration of the 30 days,
Evidence of similar acts may frequently become relevant, especially in petitioner demanded for his financial investment and Mario gave
actions based on fraud and deceit, because it sheds light on the state excuses to forestall payment of which and instead said that there were
of mind or knowledge of a persons; it provides insight into such problems encountered in the BOC. When petitioner tried to acquired
persons motive or intent; it uncovers a scheme, design or plan; or it the balikbayan boxes, smuggled goods were inside the balikbayan
reveals a mistake. boxes. Private responden continued to neglect his obligation to
In the case herein, Evidence of such transactions falls under the petitioner which resulted to a complaint filed with the Office of the
exception to the rule on the res inter alios acta. Such evidence is Prosecutor which the latter dismissed for being lack of jurisdiction. MR
admissible because it is relevant to an issue in the case and was also denied. A crime of estafa was filed against private
corroborative of evidence already received.[28] The relevancy of such respondent with then Sec of Justice Drilon which the same was
transactions is readily apparent. The nature of ownership of said dismissed for lack of merit. MR was the same was also denied. Hence
property should be the same as that of the lots on question since they this petition.
are all subject to the MOA. If the parcels of land were held and
disposed by petitioners in fee simple, in the concept of absolute Issue: WON the evidentiary loan contract of Manuel the same with
owners, then the lots in question should similarly be treated as those of Liwayway & if the res inter *alios *acta rule applies?
absolutely owned in fee simple by the Tamayo spouses. Unmistakably,
the evidence in dispute manifests petitioners common purpose and Held: Yes! These loan contracts may, however, be given evidentiary
value in support of Manuel's claim that the agreement with petitioner
108
was no different from the loan contracts with Liwayway Dee Tanzo. HELD: YES. Circumstantial evidence can support conviction. Here,
Under the rule of res inter alios acta, evidence that one did or did not there were several circumstances which support conviction: 1) he has
do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or motive; 2) his presence at the locus criminis during the fire; 3) his
did not do the same or similar thing at another time, but it may be nonchalance and threats subsequent to the burning and; 4) accuseds
received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, previous conduct. Accuseds intent to commit the arson was
scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like. established by his previous attempt to set on fire a bed inside the
As held in the case of Cruz v. CA Collateral facts may be received as house of Filomena which was burned later in the night. Prosecution
evidence under exceptional circumstances, as when there is a rational witness Mona xxx testified that xxx in the afternoon of the same day,
similarity or resemblance between the conditions giving rise to the fact she saw appellant carrying a gas stove and knife. When she asked
offered and the circumstances surrounding the issue or fact to be him what he was going to do with the stove, he answered that he was
proved. Evidence of similar acts may frequently become relevant, going to burn the house of (Filomena). Later, she heard the sound of
especially in actions based on fraud and deceit, because it sheds light somebody throwing a chair and breaking bottles next door. When she
on the state of mind or knowledge of a person, it provides insight into peeped in the kitchen, she saw that appellant entered the house of
such person's motive or intent; it uncovers a scheme, design or plan, (Filomena) and started pouring gas on a bed ("papag") and then
or it reveals a mistake. lighted a fire with a disposable lighter. Appellant's wife rushed in and
extinguished the fire with a broomstick. xxx
While it is true that "evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing
at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the
same or similar thing at another time," it may be received "to prove a
[MANIQUIS] People v. Acosta, G.R. No. 126351, February 18, 2000 specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan system, scheme, habit,
custom or usage, and the like." Pp. v. Dadles: "In the early case of US
FACTS: Accused was a friend of Elmer Montesclaros, grandson of v. Evangelista, accused was convicted of arson after the trial court
complainant Filomena Marigomen. Elmer lived in the house of admitted evidence that he had earlier attempted to set fire to the same
Filomena. A few hours before the fire (set by accused?), Elmer, premises. Ruling on the admissibility of the said evidence, we said
thinking accused harboured his live-in partner, stormed the house of that: ". . . While it was not the fire charged in the information, and does
the accused and burned clothes, furniture and appliances. Afternoon of not by any means amount to direct evidence against the accused, it
the same day, accused was seen carrying a stove and a kitchen knife was competent to prove the intent of the accused in setting the fire
going to the house of Filomena. He told one Mona that he will burn the which was charged in the information." xxx xxx xxx 'Where a person is
house of Filomena. There, accused poured kerosene on the bed and lit charged with the commission of a specific crime, testimony may be
it but the fire was easily put off by accused's wife. Next day, neighbour received of other similar acts, committed about the same time, for the
Lina, who was roused from sleep, saw Filomenas house burning and purpose only of establishing the criminal intent of the accused.'"
noticed accused standing in front of the burning house. The accused
was charged with arson. RTC for convicted him. Accused bewails
conviction based on several circumstantial evidence.

ISSUE: Was it proper to convict accused based on circumstantial [MANIQUIS] People v. Magpayo, G.R. Nos. 92961-64, September 1,
evidence of previous act? 1993

109
FACTS: Appellant was charged with Rape, Robbery, Robbery with ISSUE: Was it proper to admit and consider evidence of similar acts
Hold-up and Forcible Abduction in four separate informations against the accused?
allegedly.
Criminal Cases (For RAPE) and (For ROBBERY) HELD: YES. Appellant assails the application of res inter alios acta
Ten-year old Lilibeth was given P26 by her parents for her to buy milk. (S34, R130) allegedly because the similarity of the acts involved (i.e.,
On the way, she was approached by appellant, accusing her of molestation) was not sufficiently established.
involvement in a theft of coffee. Lilibeth denied but appellant told her The trial court committed no error in applying the exception to the
that the thief had a tattoo on the back. Appellant demanded that she doctrine. As a rule, evidence is not admissible which shows or tends to
come with him. "They proceeded to the Church and then entered the show, that the accused in a criminal case has committed a crime
cemetery beside the church. Upon the prodding of appellant, Lilibeth wholly independent of the offense for which he is on trial. It is not
raised her blouse to show that she had no tattoo. But appellant said: competent to prove that he committed other crimes of a like nature for
"Ano ang gusto mo, kakantutin ka o makakauwi ka ng buhay." Lilibeth the purpose of showing that he committed the crime charged in the
pleaded for her life. Appellant inserted his organ into her mouth. He complaint or information.
also inserted his organ into hers. "After his coitus with her, appellant An exception to this rule is when such evidence tends directly to
took the P26.00 of Lilibeth and warned her to keep quiet. Lilibeth went establish the particular crime, and it is usually competent to prove the
back to her mother and told her she was raped. motive, the intent, the absence of mistake or accident, a common
Criminal Case (For Robbery Hold-Up) scheme or plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes so
Jacquiline, then eight, was accosted by appellant who accused her of related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the other, or
stealing a cart. Appellant insisted that they go to the police station, and the identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime on
Jacquiline consented. Instead, she was brought to the cemetery trial.
beside the church where she was divested of her gold earrings and a Here, evidence was introduced in Case (Forcible Abduction with Rape)
ring with red stone, valued at P1,000.00, given by her father as a committed by appellant against Mara on November 20, 1987, not as
birthday gift. evidence of similar acts to prove that on April 10, 1988, appellant also
Criminal Case (For Forcible Abduction with Rape) committed a similar act of rape (and robbery) against Lilibeth. These
Then 11-year old Mara was with her younger brother Daniel in the offenses are separate crimes and are the subject of separate
Market upon instruction of their mother to buy "sago". They were complaints and proofs though jointly tried. Hence, the evidence in one
approached by appellant, who asked her if she was involved in a theft was not offered and admitted to prove the other but only to show the
of Nescafe coffee, and to which she answered in the negative. plan, scheme or modus operandi of the offender.
Appellant asked her if she knew Neneng, and when she said yes, It is to be observed that in all the cases, the modus operandi of the
appellant suddenly poked a sharp instrument at her neck and forced offender is that of approaching young girls of not more than twelve
her and Daniel to go with him. They boarded a pedicab and alighted years of age, and taking advantage of their innocence, imputed to
somewhere and they walked to a grassy portion where Daniel was told them the commission of a crime and brought them to an isolated place
by appellant to stay at a corner, while appellant brought Mara to where the offenses charged were committed. These young girls
another portion, about four meters away. Appellant inserted his organ narrated in detail in a clear and convincing manner what the offender
into hers. Appellant left the place. did to them and likewise positively identified said offender as herein
Mara and Daniel told a mortorshop owner that they were lost. The accused during the investigation as well as during the trial. Thus, S34,
owner asked a jeepney driver to take them back to the market, from R130 provides that evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing
where they were able to get home.
110
at one time may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, True, (res inter alios acta is the rule)." However, (exception applies
identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage and the like. here). Thus we have held that: "The general rule is that evidence is not
admissible which shows or tends to show, that the accused in a
criminal case has committed a crime wholly independent of the offense
for which he is on trial. It is not competent to prove that he committed
[MANIQUIS] People v. Dadles, G.R. Nos. 118620-21, September 1, other crimes of a like nature for the purpose of showing that he would
1997 be likely to commit the crime charged in the indictment. A man may be
a notorious criminal, but this fact may not be shown to influence a jury
FACTS: This case involved the alleged kidnapping of farmer Alipio in passing upon the question of his guilt or innocence of the particular
Tehidor and son Dionisio, and farmer Salvador Alipan and son offense for which he is on trial. A man may have committed many
Antonio, for which appellant along with several other accused were crimes and still be innocent of the crime charged in the case on trial.
accused charged in two separate informations. Of the several To permit proof of other crimes would naturally predispose the minds
accused, only appellant was arraigned as the other accused remained of the jurors against the defendant. One who commits one crime may
at large. be more likely to commit another; yet logically, one crime does not
Accused et al. were allowed entry at the Tehidors residence. There, prove another, nor tend to prove another, unless there is such a
they tied the hands of Alipio and Dionisio. Accused et al. told the wife relation between them that proof of one tends to prove the other." (Pp.
that the captives would be freed for the firearms of two other Tehidor v. Asinas)
sons who were CAFGU. Unable to surrender the firearms which were In US v. Evangelista, the accused was convicted of arson after the trial
not in possession of the spouses, accused et al. took the victims and court admitted evidence that he had earlier attempted to set fire to the
since then, were not heard from. same premises. Ruling on the admissibility of the said evidence, we
Same night, about 30 minutes later, accused et al. showed up at the said that: "While it was not the fire charged in the information, and
Alipans. Accused told the wife that they will borrow Salvador and does not by any means amount to direct evidence against the
Antonio and will be returned tomorrow. They never came back. accused, it was competent to prove the intent of the accused in setting
the fire which was charged in the information. xxx xxx xxx 'Where a
ISSUE: Was it error to convict accused of kidnapping the Alipans person is charged with the commission of a specific crime, testimony
absent testimony to the effect that the latter were coerced? may be received of other similar acts committed about the same time,
for the purpose only of establishing the criminal intent of the accused.'"
HELD: NO. As regards the Alipans, appellant points out that the Here, there is such a relation between both incidents of kidnapping
testimony of wife who witnessed the alleged kidnapping demonstrates charged in the two informations that "proof of one tends to prove the
that the victims were not deprived of their liberty because they went other", and evidence of similar acts committed about the same time
with the appellant and his companions peacefully without being establishes the criminal intent of the appellant to deprive Salvador and
subjected to threats and coercion. The court is not convinced. That the Antonio of their liberty. First of all, both incidents happened almost
victims' hands were not tied nor guns poked at their sides when they simultaneously. The kidnapping of Alipio and Dionisio occurred only
were taken do not conclusively preclude the deprivation of their liberty. some thirty (30) minutes before Salvador and Antonio were taken from
The circumstances that appellant et al.s previous conduct in their home. The appellant and his companions were apparently well
kidnapping the Tehidors, plainly demonstrate their intent to likewise acquainted with the Tehidors and the Alipans who readily allowed
deprive the Alipans of their liberty. them entrance. Alipio and Dionisio were taken by appellant's group on
the pretext that they wanted to talk to Alipio. Similarly, the appellant
111
claims that they took Salvador and Antonio only because they wanted "balikbayan" boxes from the Customs, he discovered that the same
to talk to the former. Alipio's wife was warned not to tell the authorities had actually contained smuggled goods and were accordingly seized
about the incident. The same warning was given to Salvador's wife. and forfeited.
OSG: circumstances exist to conclude that it was the appellant's When respondents continued to ignore petitioner's demand, the latter
criminal intent to deprive the victims of liberty: "First. If appellant's filed a complaint for estafa before the Prosecutor. Prosecutor
group merely wanted to talk to Salvador Alipan, they could just have dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction over the offense as it was
talked to him then and there at the house of the latter without committed not in QC. Petitioner elevated it to the Secretary of Justice.
necessarily taking him together with his son. Second. Appellant's Acting SOJ dismissed the petition. Reconsideration was also denied,
group could have elicited the required information from Salvador in just saying lack of jurisdiction and lack of evidence for estafa (apparently
a matter of hours. Hence, they should have returned Salvador and his believing respondents evidence [consisting of loan contracts between
son the following day as promised. To this date, however, no trace of respondent and petitioners aunt LDT] and averment that the
the two (2) can be found. Third. If they did not have any ill-motive transaction was merely of loan, not trust).
against the duo, why did they warn the family of the victims not to
report the incident to anybody or they will be killed? Clearly, this ISSUE: Was it proper to consider the loan contracts between LDT and
behavior betrays the falsity of their alleged intention." respondents as evidence of the real transaction between petitioner and
respondents?

HELD: YES. Petitioner failed to present evidence other than his bare
[MANIQUIS] Tanzo v. Drilon, G.R. No. 106671, March 30, 2000 assertion that he had invested money on the basis of a trust
agreement. The checks allegedly subject of the trust agreement did
FACTS: Respondents Salazars are brothers engaged in forwarding more damage than good to petitioner's proposition. None of these
and transporting "balikbayan" boxes from California to Metro Manila. checks were issued to either Mario or Manuel and were in fact payable
Manuel managed the Philippine side via MANSAL Forwarders, a to "LDT," "Calfed" or "Cash." Moreover, only one of these checks was
business in his name. Mario handled the U.S. side as GM of M.J.S. actually encashed by Mario, the rest by LDT. On the basis of the
International, Inc. foregoing alone, respondents could have completely denied the
Petitioner alleged that while in the US, Mario tried to convince him to existence of their liability to petitioner as neither proof in writing nor
invest. Mario represented that petitioner's money will be held in trust witnesses exist to substantiate petitioner's claim of a trust agreement
and administered by both him and his brother for the business. Mario between himself and the respondents. On the contrary, Manuel does
promised him a return on his investment equivalent to 10% for one not deny that Mario had indeed received money from the petitioner,
month, at the end of which his money plus interest earned shall be albeit claiming that the latter's liability thereunder is purely civil in
returned to him. Manuel also tried to persuade him to invest. Petitioner nature for being rooted in a simple loan contract. Manuel offered in
agreed to invest $34K which he entrusted to his aunt Liwayway Dee evidence copies of the contracts of loan between M.J.S. International
Tanzo who was in the US. Thus, Tanzo issued several personal and LDT. True, these loan contracts do not by themselves prove that
checks payable to aunt LDT, or to Calfed, or to Cash. his agreement with respondents was also a loan.
Upon the expirations of the 30 day investment period, petitioner However, these loan contracts may, be given evidentiary value in
demanded accounting and/or the return of capital plus interest earned. support of Manuel's claim that the agreement with petitioner was no
Manuel admitted that their shipments encountered some problems with different from the loan contracts with LDT. Under the rule of res inter
the Customs. When petitioner attempted to secure the release of the alios acta, evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one
112
time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or informed the latter of her intention to go back to the province with her
similar thing at another time, but it may be received to prove a specific son. She also averred that she does not get along so well with the
intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or accused and quarelling between them is frequent. At midday the same
usage, and the like. [C]ollateral facts may be received as evidence morning, the accused sought assistance from his neighbor carrying the
under exceptional circumstances, as when there is a rational similarity seemingly dead child bleeding from the mouth saying that he is to be
or resemblance between the conditions giving rise to the fact offered blamed if Arturo dies. He brings the latter to the hospital to no avail,
and the circumstances surrounding the issue or fact to be proved. while constantly asking Betty for forgiveness and even went on vigil
Evidence of similar acts may frequently become relevant, especially in during the wake. An autopsy confirmed that the victim died due to
actions based on fraud and deceit, because it sheds light on the state hematoma in the chest area which may be caused by a blunt
of mind or knowledge of a person, it provides insight into such person's instrument/weapon such as a punch. Accused admitted that he only
motive or intent, it uncovers a scheme, design or plan, or it reveals a slapped the victim causing him to hit the door and fall down the stairs.
mistake. (Cruz v. CA) Accused was arrested and pled not-guilty during arraignment, hence
The series of transactions between M.J.S. and LDT were entered into trial on the merits ensued. As there is no eye-witness to the crime, a
under similar circumstances as those surrounding the contract resort to circumstantial evidence was necessary. RTC convicted the
between petitioner and Mario. Just like the alleged trust agreement accused. At his appeal, accused averred that prosecution has not
between petitioner and Mario, the loan between M.J.S. and LDT satisfactorily proved appellants guilt by circumstantial evidence as it
provide that the creditor shall lend to the debtor a specific amount for was he who initially sought assistance with his neighbor and then
use by the latter in its business operations. Petitioner also admits that subsequently with the hospital and that he stood vigil during the wake.
he entrusted the checks to Liwayway Dee Tanzo for investment in Issue:
private respondents' business. This shows that private respondents WON court erred in finding the accused guilty by circumstantial
were transacting directly with LDT in the usual manner that they evidence.
conduct business, that is, the loan of money for stipulated interest. Held:
Hence, respondents' modus operandi, if there ever was one, in raising No. The ff. circumstantial evidence are crucial in the determination of
additional capital for M.J.S. was to borrow money from willing the guilty verdict.
investors. It is thus unlikely, considering the scheme of things, that 1. Victim was not the son of accused.
respondents would all of a sudden deviate from an established 2. He maltreats both mother and child on occasions.
business practice to enter into a trust agreement with the petitioner. 3. On that fateful morning, he quarreled with the mother.
4. He was left alone on the house with the victim on the said date.
5. He constantly asks for forgiveness.
Also important to note that the expert testimony of P/Capt. Baltazar of
[MELCHOR] People v. Magtuloy y Montaray, G.R. No. 105671, June PNP Crime Lab, stating that a fall of 1 meter, even upon a hard
30, 1993 pavement will not resort to a hematoma and the suspects testimony
Facts: on cross examination stating that there are no stairs in their house
Accused was charged with murder of 1 year old Arturo, Jr. before RTC were appreciated by the court.
Caloocan. According to the victims mother, Betty, she, Arturo, and her The proven facts of the case yield the inescapable conclusion that the
live-in partner, the accused, are residents of Caloocan and that she prosecutions evidence albeit circumstantial, was of a sufficient
always leaves the child with the accused when she works, selling quantum to establish the guilt of the accused. There is more than one
siopao. On that fateful day, she quarreled with the accused when she
113
circumstance, and the combination of all is enough to produce guilt Halrey Const. has bid on. This is evinced by the fact that no further
beyond reasonable doubt. introductions were required when the petitioner appeared at the office
of Halrey Const. on the two above-mentioned dates, demanding Php
[MELCHOR] Malig v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 71712, April 15, 1988 20,000 for a favorable post-inspection review. While Rule 130, Sec. 35
Facts: of the Rules of Court states that evidence that one did or omitted to a
On 10/29/1982, after public bidding, the Province of Bulacan thing at one time is inadmissible to prove that he did one thing/omitted
contracted Halrey Const. for the construction of a road for Php to do one thing at another time, it may be received to prove a specific
963,850, to be completed in 120 days from the date of award, 10% intent, knowledge, identity, plan, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and
retention fee and liquidated damages of no less than 20% of contract the like. Also, through participation on previous construction projects,
price in case of failure to comply with the stipulations, with work respondent knows of the petitioners habit of demanding money for
beginning in 11/02/1982. On 11/24, Provincial Engineer wrote Halrey favors. Also, the post-inspection report is erroneous as it reported a
Const. changing the station limits in the contract where the last 200m delay in the project even if it was finished on time, and that there is no
is to be transferred to the start point and that there is no actual change shortage in the finished road as what occurred was an authorized
in the length of the road. However, petitioners say that they knew change of station limits, evinced by an authorization letter from the
nothing of the changes, as it was not documented. On 03/07/1983, provl. engineer.
Pres. Halili of Halrey Const. informed the provincial govt that project
was completed and asked for payment, the process of which was [MELCHOR] People v. Saguban, G.R. No. 96287, April 25, 1994
initiated. Pres. Halili avers (through prosecution witnesses Francisco Facts:
and Gerona) that petitioner appeared in his office on the 15th, An information for Rape was filed with RTC Dumaguete by Casido
demanding Php 20,000 for a favorable post-inspection report. They alleging that accused raped her Accused pled not guilty and trial on the
were said to also have appeared on said office on the 21st, still merits ensued. The prosecution presented the ff.witnesses: Dra.
demanding payment but coming home empty-handed. On the 22nd, Fuentes, Brgy. Capt. Lacpao, Atty. Icao and Casido herself. They set
petitioners contended via a Contract Review Report and Contract out to prove that on 1pm, while bathing after washing clothes on a
Review Work Sheet that only 820m of the contracted 1,020m was creek in Brgy. Alangilan, accused jumped her and held both her hands
completed, recommending payment of only Php 691,619 and a penalty while prodding her with a knife, compelling her to stop screaming and
of Php 92,770 for the delay, leaving only Php 498,849 due the enabling the accused to have carnal knowledge of her. Eventually, she
complainant contractor out of a total contract price of Php 963,850. was able to extricate herself from him and escaped. She, along with
Hence Pres. Halili filed an anti-graft case against petitioners with her hubby then reported the matter to Capt. Lacpao, who was unable
Sandiganbayan, which found petitioner guilty of violating the anti-graft to locate the accused as he had already left. Also, prosecution offered
law. Petitioner denies knowing the witnesses and contends that the the suspects previous rape conviction to prove his penchant for
witness testimony presented by respondent is insufficient as such is committing such crimes. Defense on the other hand called the ff.
self-serving and purely hearsay. witnesses: Tinaa, Sienes and accused himself, seeking to establish
Issue: that he was nowhere near the crime scene as he was plowing his field
WON witness testimonies by Francisco and Gerona is sufficient to in Brgy. Jantianon, and that he doesnt know the complainant and has
convict petitioners. never set foot in the brgy. of the crime scene. RTC Dumaguete found
Held: accused guilty of the crime of rape against Casido and sentenced him
Yes. According to the particulars of this case, both witnesses know of to the penalty of reclusion perpetua, pay damages of Php 12,000 and
petitioner Malig by virtue of previous construction contracts which costs, stating that the defense stood on an alibi which is easy to
114
contrive and therefore weak. Accused appealed, especially bemoaning Petitioner and Respondent Flores entered into a contract for the
the inclusion of his former conviction for rape as evidence, hence the conditional sale of real property, with purchase price fixed at Php
petition at bench. 140,000 divided as Php 26,000 upon the execution of the deed and the
Issue: balance of Php 113,000 to be paid not later than May 77. Parties also
WON court erred in disregarding the defense of alibi of the accused. agreed that the balance shall bear an interest of 1% per month
WON inclusion of former conviction as evidence of a crime is proper. commencing on December 76 until payment of full purchase price. In
Held: 79, petitioner filed a complaint for the rescission of the deed of
1. No. For the defense of alibi to prosper, two things must concur: 1. conditional sale due to the failure of the private respondent to pay the
Accused was not at the crime scene when it was committed and 2. balance due on May 31 77. Later the parties submitted a compromise
That it is physically impossible for the accused to be at the crime scene agreement where the private respondent acknowledged indebtedness
at the time of the crimes commission. Witness testimonies of the to the petitioner under the deed of conditional sale in the amount of
prosecution, especially of Capt. Lacpao and the victim herself belies Php 119,000 and parties agreed that said amount would be payable as
the suspects claim that he has never set foot in Alangilan as they have follows: 1. Php 50,000 upon signing of the agreement and the 2.
positively identified him as resident of Alangilan. Accused himself Balance of Php 69,000 in 2 equal installments on June & December
mooted his own defense when in claiming he did not know the victim, 80. As agreed upon, private respondent paid the Php 50,000 as well
failed to provide a reason why the victim instituted an action against as an escalation cost of Php 25,000. In Par. 3 of the compromise
him and why the former can positively identify him. The other defense agreement, private respondent agreed to pay Php 1,000 monthly rental
witnesses were informed that they will testify for the accused, but did from December 79 until obligation is fully paid, for the use of the
not know that it was for rape. property subject matter of the deed of conditional sale, while Pars. 6 &
2. Yes. Rule 130, Sec. 34 of the Rules of Court states that evidence 7 states that in the event the defendant fails to comply with his
that one did or omitted to a thing at one time is inadmissible to prove obligation herein provided, plaintiff will be entitled to the issuance of a
that he did one thing/omitted to do one thing at another time, it may be writ of execution rescinding the deed of conditional sale. Defendant
received to prove a specific intent, knowledge, identity, plan, scheme, hereby waives the right to appeal from the order of rescission and the
habit, custom or usage, and the like. In the case at bench, this piece of writ of execution which the court shall render in accordance to the
evidence was not the sole basis of conviction, rather, it was the stipulations herein provided for. In the event of execution, all payments
concurrence of established facts as well as weak alibi, which coupled made by defendant will be forfeited in favor of plaintiff as liquidated
with the previous conviction formed the basis of the suspects present damages. In October 80, petitioner demanded payment of the
conviction. remaining balance of Php 69,000, which includes the installments for
both June and December 80. Private respondent signified his intent to
RA 8505, Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of 1998 pay the full balance while demanding to see the Certificate of Title and
RA 10364, Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012 tax payment receipts. Private respondent then tendered payment, but
Child Witness, A.M. No. 004-07-SC, December 15, 2000 was not accepted by petitioner, who then filed a motion for writ of
execution alleging that private respondent failed to pay installment due
Sec. 35. Unaccepted offer on June 80 and that he has not been paying the monthly rentals. RTC
granted the motion for writ of execution, issuing the writ in November
[MELCHOR] Mclaughlin v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-57552, 80. RTC also granted petitioners ex-parte motion for clarification of
[October 10, 1986 the order of execution rescinding the deed of conditional sale of real
Facts:
115
property. MR was denied. Upon appeal to CA, it nullified and set aside
the orders of the RTC, hence this petition.
Issue:
WON tender of payment by respondent, which was not accepted by
petitioner, made him not liable to pay his obligations and rentals in the
arrear.
Held:
No. Rule 130, Sec 35 of the Rules of Court provide that an offer in
writing to pay a particular sum of money or deliver a written instrument
or specific property is, if rejected, is equivalent to actual production and
tender of the money, instrument or property, further emphasized by
Art. 1256 of the New Civil Code stating that if the creditor to whom
tender of payment was made refuses without just cause to accept it,
debtor shall be released from responsibility by the consignation of the
sum due, and that consignation alone shall produce the same effect in
the cases enumerated therein (refer to Art. 1256, NCC); Art. 1257
provides that in order that consignation of the sum due may release
the obligor, it must first be announced to the person interested in the
fulfillment of the obligation and Art. 1258 provides that consignation
shall be made by depositing sum due at the disposal of the judicial
authority and that interested parties shall be notified thereof. Tender of
payment must be distinguished from consignation. Tender is the
antecedent of consignation; a preparatory act to the consignation, from
which are derived the immediate consequences which the debtor
desires. Tender of payment may be extrajudicial while consignation is
necessarily judicial, and priority of tender is attempt to make a private
settlement before proceeding with the solemnities of consignation. In
this case, although private respondent has preserved his rights as a
vendee by timely tender of payment of the balance of his obligation
which was unjustly refused by petitioner, he remains liable for the
payment of his obligation because of his failure to deposit such amount
with the court. Due to private respondents failure to deposit the
amount, his obligation remains unpaid along with the monthly rentals,
to which he is liable. Upon full payment of the amount of Php 76,059
and the rentals, respondent shall be entitled to a deed of absolute sale
in his favor of the real property in contention.

116