People of the Philippines vs. Zaldy Bernardo y Espiritu

An extrajudicial confession of a co‑conspirator is inadmissible against the other accused unless the conspiracy is first proved by evidence other than the confession itself; absent such independent evidence, the confession binds only the confessant and is hearsay as to the rest. Where the prosecution failed to present any independent evidence linking the other accused to the conspiracy to murder the second victim, their conviction could not rest solely on a co‑accused’s statement.

On July 2, 1998, Dr. Eliezer Andres, Sr. and retired Major Igmedio Arcega separately met with a group offering gold bars at Sta. Lucia Mall in Cainta, Rizal. Dr. Andres, Sr. did not return. His son, Dr. Eliezer Andres, Jr., received a telephone call from a woman demanding ransom; he recognized the voice as that of Mila Andres Galamay, a frequent visitor to their home who had previous dealings with his father. The police monitored the subsequent ransom payoff at España, Manila on July 4, 1998, leading to the arrest of several suspects. The bodies of Dr. Andres, Sr. and Major Arcega were later recovered in Laguna and Rizal, respectively; both had suffered fatal gunshot wounds and other injuries.

• The Kidnapping of Dr. Andres, Sr.: On July 2, 1998, Dr. Eliezer Andres, Sr. and retired Major Igmedio Arcega traveled to Sta. Lucia Mall, Cainta, Rizal, to separately meet individuals purportedly selling gold bars. Dr. Andres, Sr. did not return. His son, Dr. Eliezer Andres, Jr., alerted Major Arcega, and the two returned to the mall to search. Major Arcega described five individuals he and Dr. Andres, Sr. had met. Dr. Andres, Jr. noticed four men following him; three were later identified as Flores, Cortez, and Pacpaco. Dr. Andres, Jr. discontinued the search and went home. Major Arcega also disappeared that same day.

• Ransom Demand and Payoff: That evening, Dr. Andres, Jr. received a call from a woman claiming custody of his father and demanding a ₱10 million ransom. He recognized the voice as Galamay, a frequent visitor and business acquaintance of his father. The matter was reported to the PNP. On July 4, 1998, at the arranged payoff site in front of Aladdin Bus Terminal, España, Manila, Dr. Andres, Jr. personally handed a brown envelope containing the ransom to Bernardo, who gave it to Cabesa. Cabesa sped away on a motorcycle. PNP‑CIDG operatives, who were monitoring the scene, arrested Bernardo, Pacpaco, Time, and Ramirez on the spot. Cabesa was followed to a house in Camarin, Caloocan City, where he was found together with Flores, Antonio, and Cortez counting the marked ransom money; all were arrested.

• Death of Dr. Andres, Sr.: On July 3, 1998, the cadaver of an unidentified male was discovered at Brgy. Amuyong, Mabitac, Laguna. Autopsy revealed gunshot wound to the head and asphyxia by strangulation. Dr. Andres, Jr. positively identified the body as that of his father.

• Antonio’s Extrajudicial Confessions: With the assistance of independent counsel Atty. Nicomedes R. Martelino, Jr., Antonio executed two Sinumpaang Salaysay. In the July 6 Salaysay, he admitted his and his co‑accused’s participation in the kidnapping of Dr. Andres, Sr., disclosed that the victim was already dead, and stated that the victim’s Nissan Sentra had been burned in Norzagaray, Bulacan. In the July 8 Salaysay, Antonio narrated the killing of Major Arcega at a farm in Brgy. Jalajala, Rizal, implicating the other accused.

• Death of Major Arcega: Major Arcega’s body was recovered from a farm in Jalajala and identified by his son, Joel Arcega. Autopsy showed cause of death as gunshot wound and traumatic head injuries.

• Defenses: All accused interposed denial and alibi, claiming they were tortured, wrongly accused, and framed.

• Sufficiency of Evidence and Credibility: Accused‑appellants maintained that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, arguing that the lower courts should not have given credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and that their defenses of denial, alibi, and torture should have been accepted.

• Inadmissibility of Extrajudicial Confession: Accused‑appellants implicitly assailed the admissibility of Antonio’s extrajudicial confessions, contesting their voluntariness and the lack of independent evidence linking them to the crimes charged, especially the murder of Major Arcega.

• Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The People, as plaintiff‑appellee, argued that all elements of Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide and Murder were satisfactorily established through the positive identification of the perpetrators by Dr. Andres, Jr., the in flagrante delicto arrest of several accused, and the detailed extrajudicial confessions of Antonio, which were voluntarily executed with the assistance of counsel.

• Corroboration and Conspiracy: The prosecution contended that Antonio’s confessions were corroborated by other independent evidence—namely, the positive identifications, the monitored ransom payment, and the discovery of the victims’ bodies—and that these confessions could properly be admitted against all the accused as acts of a conspirator during the existence of the conspiracy.

• Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide: Whether the CA correctly affirmed the conviction of accused‑appellants for the special complex crime of Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide of Dr. Andres, Sr.

• Murder — Admissibility of Co‑Accused’s Confession: Whether the extrajudicial confession of co‑accused Antonio regarding the killing of Major Arcega was admissible against the other accused under the rule on admission by conspirator, given the absence of independent evidence of conspiracy.

• Murder — Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether accused‑appellants may be convicted of Murder of Major Arcega solely on the basis of Antonio’s extrajudicial confession.

• Effect of Death of Accused‑Appellant Cortez: Whether the supervening death of accused‑appellant Cortez pending appeal extinguished his criminal and civil liability arising from the offenses charged.

• Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide: All elements of the special complex crime were established. The prosecution proved that accused‑appellants and their co‑accused intended to and did actually deprive Dr. Andres, Sr. of his liberty on July 2, 1998; their motive was to extort ransom, as shown by Galamay’s ransom call, the receipt of ransom money by Bernardo and others in the presence of PNP operatives, and the discovery of Cortez, Flores, and Antonio counting the marked money; and Dr. Andres, Sr. was killed during detention. Antonio’s July 6 Salaysay was voluntary, counsel‑assisted, and merely corroborative of independent evidence already identifying the perpetrators. Thus, the conviction for this charge was affirmed.

• Murder — Admissibility of Co‑Accused’s Confession: Section 28, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court codifies the principle of res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet: the rights of a third party cannot be prejudiced by the act, declaration, or omission of another. As a general rule, an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant. While Section 30, Rule 130 provides an exception for the admission of a conspirator, the exception requires that the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the confession itself. Here, aside from Antonio’s July 8 Salaysay, no independent evidence linked accused‑appellants to a plan to abduct and kill Major Arcega. The confession was therefore inadmissible hearsay as against them.

• Murder — Sufficiency of Evidence: Given the inadmissibility of the lone evidence, the prosecution failed to prove accused‑appellants’ guilt for the murder of Major Arcega beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused‑appellants, as well as their co‑accused who did not appeal or whose appeals became final, were acquitted, with the exception of Antonio (against whom the confession was solely binding) and Cortez (who died pending appeal).

• Effect of Death of Accused‑Appellant Cortez: The death of Cortez on May 17, 2016, during the pendency of the appeal, resulted in the dismissal of the criminal actions against him. The civil liability ex delicto was likewise ipso facto dismissed, without prejudice to the filing of separate civil actions against his estate based on sources other than delict.

• Res Inter Alios Acta Rule (Section 28, Rule 130, Rules of Court): The rights of a third party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another. An extrajudicial confession is generally binding only on the confessant and cannot be used as evidence against third persons.

• Admission by Conspirator (Section 30, Rule 130, Rules of Court): By way of exception, the act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and made during its existence may be received in evidence against a co‑conspirator, provided that: (a) the conspiracy is first proved by evidence other than the admission itself; (b) the admission relates to the common object; and (c) it was made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy. The Court applied this rule to exclude Antonio’s confession as to the murder charge, because the prosecution failed to present any independent evidence of conspiracy.

• Effect of Death of Accused Pending Appeal: The death of an accused pending appeal extinguishes his criminal liability, and the civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto dismissed, although separate civil actions may be pursued against his estate on other bases.

• Extrajudicial Confession Requirements: To be admissible, a confession must be (a) voluntary; (b) made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel; (c) express; and (d) in writing. Antonio’s July 6 Salaysay was found compliant and corroborative of independent evidence, hence admissible for the kidnapping charge.

• Effect of Appeal in Criminal Cases: An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review, and a favorable judgment benefits co‑accused who did not appeal or whose appeals had become final, pursuant to Section 11(a), Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

• “On a principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a man’s own acts are binding upon himself, and are evidence against him. So are his conduct and declarations. Yet it would not only be rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers; and if a party ought not to be bound by the acts of strangers, neither ought their acts or conduct be used as evidence against him.” — The Court’s restatement of the rationale behind the res inter alios acta rule, underscoring the injustice of binding an accused by another’s confession absent independent proof.

• “[I]n order that the admission of a conspirator may be received against his or her co-conspirators, it is necessary that: (a) the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission itself; (b) the admission relates to the common object; and (c) it has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy.” — The tripartite test for the admissibility of a conspirator’s admission, which the prosecution failed to satisfy for the murder charge.

• Salapuddin v. CA, 704 Phil. 577 (2013) — Cited for the res inter alios acta principle and the rule that an extrajudicial confession binds only the confessant unless conspiracy is independently established. Followed.

• People v. Cachuela, 710 Phil. 728 (2013) — Enumerated the requisites for admitting a conspirator’s declaration against co‑conspirators. Applied.

• People v. Monroyo, G.R. No. 223708, October 9, 2019 — Cited for the rule on the effect of the accused’s death pending appeal. Followed.

• People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Relied upon for the proper amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages in homicide and murder cases. Applied.

• Benabaye v. People, 755 Phil. 144 (2015) — Applied for the principle that a favorable judgment benefits co‑accused who did not appeal.

• Article 267, Revised Penal Code (Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide): The elements are (a) intent to deprive the victim of liberty, (b) actual deprivation, (c) extortion of ransom as motive, and (d) killing of the victim during detention. All elements were found proven.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code (Murder): The prosecution was unable to prove the elements through independent evidence as to the accused‑appellants.

• Section 28, Rule 130, Rules of Court (Res Inter Alios Acta): Codifies the principle that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by the acts, declarations, or omissions of another. Applied to exclude Antonio’s extrajudicial confession against his co‑accused for the murder charge.

• Section 30, Rule 130, Rules of Court (Admission by Conspirator): Provides the exception for conspirators’ admissions. Its conditions were not met regarding the murder.

• Section 11(a), Rule 122, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure: States that an appeal by one or more accused shall benefit those who did not appeal insofar as the judgment is favorable and applicable to them. Invoked to extend the acquittal to non‑appealing co‑accused.

• Republic Act No. 9346: Prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty; relied upon in imposing reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

Associate Justices Alexander G. Gesmundo, Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, Mario V. Lopez, and Ricardo R. Rosario (designated additional member per Special Order No. 2797).

None. The decision was unanimous.