People vs. Cui

Extra-judicial statements of an accused implicating a co-accused are inadmissible hearsay against the latter unless repeated in open court, and the co-conspirator exception under Section 30, Rule 130 requires that conspiracy be first proven by independent evidence, the admission relate to the common objects, and the declaration be made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy. Conviction as an accessory under Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code requires proof of (1) knowledge of the commission of the crime, and (2) taking part subsequent to its commission by profiting from its effects.

On the evening of December 5, 1990, approximately ten armed robbers raided the compound of Johnny and Rose Lim on Edison Street, Lahug, Cebu City. The robbers took cash and jewelry worth P20,000.00 and abducted seventeen-year-old Stephanie Lim, the Lims’ youngest daughter. A ransom of P1,000,000.00 was demanded and paid the following day. Stephanie was released to her father thereafter. The Lims initially kept the crime secret but reported it three days later to the Philippine National Police Cebu Metropolitan District Command. Johnny Lim identified Wilfredo “Toto” Garcia from approximately ninety photographs. The police learned that the Lims’ house guard, Eduardo Basingan, hailed from Quiot, Pardo, Cebu City — the same area where Toto Garcia’s group, the Baong Gang, operated.

• The Kidnapping and Ransom: On December 5, 1990, at approximately 9:00 p.m., about ten armed robbers entered the compound of Johnny and Rose Lim in Lahug, Cebu City. The Lims, their three children, and employees of William’s Educational Supply witnessed the robbery. Wilfredo “Toto” Garcia, Mawi Garcia, and a certain Edgar did not wear masks; other robbers wore flour sacks over their heads. The robbers took cash and jewelry worth P20,000.00 and forcibly abducted seventeen-year-old Stephanie Lim. A ransom of P1,000,000.00 was demanded. Johnny Lim delivered the amount to Toto Garcia the following afternoon, and Stephanie was released.

• Investigation and Basingan’s Statements: The Lims reported the crime on the third day. Johnny Lim identified Toto Garcia from approximately ninety photographs. Police learned that the Lims’ house guard, Eduardo Basingan, was from Quiot, Pardo, Cebu City — the base of Toto Garcia’s group, the Baong Gang. Basingan, upon interrogation, identified Toto Garcia, Mawi Garcia, and Edgar as the three unmasked robbers; Sadam and Rey as those who held him and the Lims at gunpoint; and Tata Garcia, Yul Alvarez, Benjie, Leos, and Laring as lookouts outside the compound. He named Toto Garcia as the chief plotter and revealed that his neighbors and close family friends, spouses Leonilo and Beverly Cui, participated in planning the crime. Basingan alleged that during a December 2, 1990 meeting at the Cuis’ residence attended by Toto Garcia, Mawi Garcia, Edgar, Rey, Sadam, and the Cuis, he was asked to join the plot but refused. He executed a sworn statement on December 18, 1990 and a second statement on April 1, 1991 detailing the Cuis’ role.

• The Cuis’ Receipt of Ransom Proceeds: In their Joint Affidavit dated December 18, 1990, members of the Metrodiscom Intelligence Security Team (MIST) stated that the Cuis turned over P10,000.00 representing money given to them by Toto Garcia from the ransom. The Cuis did not deny this in their initial Counter-Affidavits. Leonilo Cui admitted knowing that Toto Garcia and Basingan held secret meetings in his house. Myrna M. Limbagan, Beverly Cui’s niece and a defense witness, stated in her February 15, 1991 affidavit that on December 7, 1990, Toto Garcia, Basingan, and others visited the Cuis and handed them amounts of money. The Cuis later executed a Supplement Counter-Affidavit denying they profited, claiming the P10,000.00 was a bribe to stop police from harming Leonilo Cui. Sgt. Narciso Ouano and Sgt. Catalino Ybanez testified that Beverly Cui voluntarily turned over the P10,000.00 while her husband was in custody, stating it was their share of the ransom money from Toto Garcia.

• Obeso and Sarte’s Alibi: Obeso and Sarte, live-in partners, claimed they left their rented house in Linao, Minglanilla, Cebu in late November 1990 and went to Bacong, Dumaguete City where Sarte’s parents lived. They were arrested there in March 1991. No prosecution witness identified them. Stephanie Lim testified she was blindfolded and never saw her captors; she only learned the name “Laring” from police officers.

The Office of the Solicitor General, in lieu of an Appellee’s Brief, filed a Manifestation recommending acquittal. The People’s original position at trial was that all accused participated as principals or accomplices in the kidnapping, but the OSG conceded error on appeal.

• Hearsay: The only evidence linking appellants to the kidnapping was Basingan’s sworn statements, which were hearsay because Basingan escaped and was never presented as a witness subject to cross-examination.

• Inadmissibility of Sgt. Ouano’s Testimony: Sgt. Ouano’s testimony recounting Basingan’s extra-judicial confession was based not on personal knowledge but on Basingan’s out-of-court statements and therefore constituted hearsay without probative value.

Obeso and Sarte argued:

• Hearsay Evidence: Their conviction was based solely on Basingan’s extra-judicial statements and Sgt. Ouano’s hearsay testimony.

• Lack of Proof of Conspiracy: No competent evidence established their participation as principals by conspiracy.

The Cuis argued:

• Constitutional Rights Violation: Their rights to remain silent, to counsel, and against self-incrimination were violated during custodial investigation.

• Hearsay Evidence: The trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence to prove conspiracy and their participation as accomplices.

• Admissibility of Basingan’s Extra-Judicial Statements: Whether the extra-judicial sworn statements of escaped accused Eduardo Basingan implicating his co-accused were admissible against the latter.

• Criminal Liability of the Cuis: Whether Leonilo and Beverly Cui could be held criminally liable absent Basingan’s testimony, and if so, under what degree of participation.

• Sufficiency of Evidence Against Obeso and Sarte: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of Luis Obeso and Hilaria Sarte beyond reasonable doubt.

• Admissibility of Basingan’s Extra-Judicial Statements: Basingan’s sworn statements and Sgt. Ouano’s testimony confirming them were held inadmissible as hearsay. The extra-judicial statements of an accused implicating a co-accused may not be utilized against the latter unless repeated in open court where the co-accused can cross-examine. The res inter alios rule ordains that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another. While Section 30, Rule 130 provides an exception for declarations of a conspirator made during the conspiracy’s existence, three requisites must concur: (a) conspiracy must first be proved by evidence other than the admission itself; (b) the admission must relate to the common objects; and (c) it must have been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy. Here, conspiracy was not priorly established by independent evidence, nor were Basingan’s statements made during the conspiracy’s existence — they were made after the crime’s consummation. The extra-judicial statements bound only Basingan and were inadmissible against his co-accused.

• Criminal Liability of the Cuis: Absent Basingan’s testimony, the evidence was insufficient to convict the Cuis as accomplices under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code. However, independent evidence proved they were accessories under Article 19. The twin elements were satisfied: (1) knowledge of the commission of the crime, shown by Leonilo Cui’s admission that he knew Toto Garcia and Basingan held secret meetings in his house and his suspicion of their acts; and (2) profiting from the effects of the crime, established by the Joint Affidavit of MIST members, the affidavit of defense witness Myrna Limbagan, and the Cuis’ own initial admission that they received P10,000.00 from Toto Garcia as their share of the ransom. The Cuis’ later claim that the P10,000.00 was a bribe was rejected; Sgt. Ouano and Sgt. Ybanez testified that Beverly Cui freely turned over the money, stating it was their ransom share. As accessories, the penalty was fixed at two degrees lower than that prescribed for kidnapping with ransom — death (commuted to reclusion perpetua under the 1987 Constitution). The indeterminate sentence of 2 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision correccional as minimum to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as maximum was imposed.

• Sufficiency of Evidence Against Obeso and Sarte: The sole evidence linking Obeso and Sarte to the crime was Basingan’s hearsay sworn statements. No prosecution witness identified them. Stephanie Lim never saw them. Their alibi — that they left Cebu for Dumaguete City in November 1990 — was unrebutted. The prosecution proffered no direct evidence placing them at the scene. Acquittal was ordered.

• Res Inter Alios Acta (Hearsay Rule as to Co-Accused) — The extra-judicial statements of an accused implicating a co-accused are inadmissible against the latter unless repeated in open court where the co-accused can exercise the right of confrontation and cross-examination. An extra-judicial confession binds only the confessant. As against the co-accused, it is hearsay. (Citing People v. Raquel, 265 SCRA 248 [1996]; People v. Badilla, 48 Phil. 718 [1926]; Section 30, Rule 130.)

• Co-Conspirator Exception (Section 30, Rule 130) — The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence may be given in evidence against a co-conspirator only after conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. Three requisites: (1) conspiracy must first be proved by independent evidence; (2) the admission must relate to the common objects; and (3) the declaration must have been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy. Extra-judicial declarations made before the formation or after the accomplishment of the conspiracy are inadmissible against co-conspirators.

• Accessory Liability Under Article 19, Revised Penal Code — A person is liable as an accessory who, subsequent to the commission of the crime, takes part by profiting or assisting the offender to profit from the effects of the crime, without having participated as principal or accomplice. Two elements: (1) knowledge of the commission of the crime; and (2) taking part subsequent to its commission by any of the modes enumerated in Article 19. The penalty is two degrees lower than that prescribed for the principal offense. (Citing People v. Maluenda, 288 SCRA 225 [1998].)

• “The extra-judicial statements of an accused implicating a co-accused may not be utilized against the latter, unless these are repeated in open court. If the accused never had the opportunity to cross-examine his co-accused on the extra-judicial statements, it is elementary that the same are hearsay as against said accused.” — Articulating the core hearsay principle governing co-accused admissions.

• “The res inter alios rule ordains that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another. An extra-judicial confession is binding only upon the confessant and is not admissible against his co-accused.” — Stating the foundational rationale for excluding extra-judicial confessions against co-accused.

• “Extreme caution should be exercised by the courts in dealing with the confession of an accused which implicates his co-accused. A distinction, obviously, should be made between extra-judicial and judicial confessions. The former deprives the other accused of the opportunity to cross-examine the confessant, while in the latter his confession is thrown wide open for cross-examination and rebuttal.” — Distinguishing between extra-judicial and judicial confessions for purposes of admissibility against co-accused.

• People v. Raquel, 265 SCRA 248 (1996) — Controlling precedent. Identical factual scenario where an escaped accused’s extra-judicial statements implicating co-accused were held hearsay and inadmissible. Followed and applied.

• People v. Surigawan, 228 SCRA 458 (1993) — Cited for the three requisites under Section 30, Rule 130 for the co-conspirator exception to apply. Followed.

• People v. Badilla, 48 Phil. 718 (1926) — Cited for the rule that extra-judicial declarations of a co-conspirator made after the conspiracy’s object is accomplished are inadmissible against other co-conspirators. Followed.

• People v. Maluenda, 288 SCRA 225 (1998) — Cited for the elements of accessory liability under Article 19 and the penalty two degrees lower than the principal offense. Followed.

• Article 19, Revised Penal Code — Defines accessories as those who, subsequent to the commission of the crime, take part by profiting or assisting offenders to profit from the effects of the crime. Applied to convict the Cuis as accessories for receiving P10,000.00 from the ransom.

• Article 53, Revised Penal Code — Prescribes the penalty for accessories as two degrees lower than that for principals. Applied to determine the indeterminate sentence.

• Section 30, Rule 130, Rules of Court — Codifies the co-conspirator exception: declarations of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and made during its existence are admissible against co-conspirators once conspiracy is shown by independent evidence. Held inapplicable because conspiracy was not independently proved and declarations were made after the crime.

Kapunan, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concurred. Davide, Jr., C.J., was on official leave.

N/A — The decision was unanimous among those participating.