galicia 2

G.R. No. 119005 December 2, 1996

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
SABAS RAQUEL, VALERIANO RAQUEL and AMADO PONCE, accused.

SABAS RAQUEL and VALERIANO RAQUEL, accused-appellants.

FACTS:

At midnight of July 4, 1986, AgapitoGambalan answered the door, thinking of a neighbor in need. Instead, heavily armed men came through the door, declared a hold-up and fired their guns at him. Upon hearing the gunshots, Agapito’s wife, Juliet, went out of their room and found his lifeless body while a man took Agapito’s gun and left hurriedly with the others. George Jovillano responded to Juliet’s plea for help and reported the incident to the police, who found Amado Ponce, one of the accused, wounded and lying near the Gambalan’s house. Ponce revealed to the police that Sabas and Valeriano Raquel were the perpetrators of the crime and that they may be found in their residence. The Raquels were later apprehended on different occasions.

The trial court found all the accused guilty of the crime.

ISSUE:

Can the extrajudicial statement of Ponce pointing at the Raquels as his co-perpetrators of the crime be used as a basis to convict them?

RULING:

No. The lone eyewitness, Juliet, was not able to identify the assailants of her husband. The identification of the accused as the culprits was based chiefly on the extrajudicial statement of Ponce pointing to them as his co-perpetrators of the crime. Ponce himself had escaped from jail before he could testify in court and has been at large since.

The extrajudicial statements of an accused implicating a co-accused may not be utilized against the latter, unless they are repeated in open court. If the accused never had the opportunity to cross-examine his co-accused on the latter’s extrajudicial statements, the same are hearsay as against said accused. Extreme caution should be exercised by the courts in dealing with the confession of an accused which implicates his co-accused. A distinction should be made between extrajudicial and judicial confessions. The former deprives the accused of the opportunity to cross-examine the confessant, while in the latter, his confession is thrown wide open for cross-examination and rebuttal.

Except for Ponce’s extrajudicial statement, there exists no evidence linking the Raquels to the crime. Said statement was also made in violation of the constitutional rights of Ponce, as admitted in the testimony of the investigating officer. Extrajudicial statements made during custodial investigations without the assistance of counsel are inadmissible and cannot be considered in the adjudication of the case.

Doctrine: The res inter alios rule ordains that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced an act, declaration, or omission of another. An extrajudicial confession is binding only upon the confessant and is not admissible against his co-accused.