People vs. Tena

The extrajudicial confession of one accused is not admissible against his co-accused unless the conspiracy is first proved by evidence other than the confession, the admission relates to the common object, and it was made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy. Absent such independent proof, a conviction cannot rest on the co-accused's confession alone.

On June 19, 1988, 82-year-old Alfredo Altamarino, Sr. was found dead inside the bedroom of his house at corner Gardner and Regidor Streets, Barangay Sadsaran, Mauban, Quezon. His body was laid out in an "orderly" manner on his bed and bore eight stab wounds, two in the neck and six in the chest; he also had a depressed fracture on the right portion of his head and a lacerated wound on his right eyebrow. Dr. Victorino G. Arana, then resident physician of the Mauban District Hospital, conducted a post mortem examination and declared "cardiac tamponade" as the immediate cause of death. The bedroom was in a topsy-turvy state; the cabinet's drawers had been opened and ransacked. According to the victim's eldest child, Emma Altamarino Ibana, who traveled from Manila to Mauban upon hearing of her father's death, missing from the room were a diamond ring valued at P20,000.00, a Rolex watch worth P8,000.00, a Seiko watch costing P3,000.00, a tie clip with 18 diamonds worth P50,000.00, two men's rings costing P25,000.00, cash of about P7,000 to P8,000, and an undetermined amount of dollars.

Suspicion fell on the deceased's caretakers, the spouses William Verzo and Ofelia Ritual, but investigation by the Mauban Police Force yielded no evidence to warrant the filing of charges against them. Emma sought the help of the NBI. On January 11, 1989, NBI Agents Reynaldo Manzanero and Celso Singa arrived at Mauban, Quezon, to conduct their own investigation. Mauban Police Station Commander Lt. Gironimo de Gala informed them that suspicion as to the authorship of the crime had shifted to a syndicate operating in Lucena City and nearby municipalities. This syndicate was reportedly involved in the robbery of a Petron Gas Station owned by Benjamin Lim, and a member, Adelberto Camota, was then in detention. The NBI agents interrogated Camota. Sensing that Camota knew more about the incident than he was letting on, the NBI agents requested the services of an NBI polygraph examiner.

On February 1, 1989, Camota, allegedly with his consent, underwent a polygraph examination conducted by Polygraph Examiner II Ernesto A. Lucena at the office of the Mauban Chief of Police. When confronted on the same day with the results of his polygraph test, Camota executed an extrajudicial confession in the presence of Atty. Albert Siquijor, admitting participation in the robbery-killing of Alfredo Altamarino, Sr. and pointing to Virgilio Conde, Jose de Jesus, Solito Tena, and an unidentified person as his companions in the crime. An Information for Robbery with Homicide was subsequently filed by the Assistant Provincial Fiscal against Virgilio Conde, Jose de Jesus Jr., Adelberto Camota, Solito Tena, and John Doe. Virgilio Conde and Solito Tena pleaded not guilty upon arraignment on November 12, 1989, as did Adelberto Camota when arraigned on January 17, 1990. Jose de Jesus and John Doe were never apprehended and remained at large; Virgilio Conde later escaped from detention and was tried in absentia.

At trial, there was no eyewitness to the commission of the crime. The prosecution's case against Tena rested chiefly on Camota's extrajudicial confession. Camota, however, repudiated the confession in open court, denied knowledge of the crime charged, and denied knowing Tena. He testified that he did not know what was contained in the document and was just forced to sign it, and that he did not know the persons named in the confession, including Tena. The RTC stressed that there was no eyewitness to the commission of the crime and that none of the circumstantial proofs it considered pointed to a conspiracy between Camota and Tena.

• Extrajudicial Confession: Accused-appellant Solito Tena assigned as errors the RTC's admission in evidence of the extrajudicial confession of Adelberto Camota and his conviction on the sole basis thereof; he centered his attack on that confession in the appeal.

• Res Inter Alios Acta: The Solicitor General, in a Manifestation in lieu of Appellee's Brief, maintained that the competency of Camota's extrajudicial confession need not be delved into because the issue of accused-appellant's guilt or innocence may be resolved by application of the doctrine res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet.

• Admissibility of Co-Accused's Extrajudicial Confession: Whether the extrajudicial confession of Adelberto Camota is admissible in evidence against Solito Tena.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether Solito Tena's conviction can stand on the sole basis of Camota's extrajudicial confession absent evidence independent of the confession linking Tena to the crime.
• Duration of Reclusion Perpetua: Whether the RTC correctly specified thirty years as the duration of the penalty of reclusion perpetua in its amended judgment.

• Admissibility of Co-Accused's Extrajudicial Confession: No. Under Section 28, Rule 130, a party's rights cannot be prejudiced by another's act, declaration, or omission; the Section 30 admission-by-conspirator exception did not apply because conspiracy was not proved by evidence independent of the confession, the confession did not relate to a common object during the conspiracy's existence, and it was made after the alleged conspiracy ended.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: No. With the confession inadmissible against Tena and no evidence independently linking him to the crime, the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the SC acquitted him.
• Duration of Reclusion Perpetua: No. The RTC should not specify a duration in years for reclusion perpetua; the thirty-year period in Articles 27 and 70 of the Revised Penal Code is only for determining pardon eligibility or applying the three-fold rule.

• Admissibility of Co-Accused's Extrajudicial Confession: The SC framed the issue not so much as the admissibility in evidence of Camota's extrajudicial confession but as its use against a person other than the confessant. Section 25, now Section 28, Rule 130 provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as provided. The reason is that a man's own acts are binding upon himself and are evidence against him, but it would be inconvenient and unjust to bind a man by the acts of unauthorized strangers. The exception under Section 27, now Section 30, Rule 130 permits an act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence to be given in evidence against a co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The requisites are 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 SC held that the exception did not apply: independently of Camota's extrajudicial confession, Exhibit K, there was no evidence of conspiracy between Camota and Tena; there was no eyewitness, and none of the circumstantial proofs considered by the trial court pointed to a conspiracy between them. The confession was executed only on February 1, 1989, long after the supposed conspiracy had come to an end. More importantly, Camota repudiated the confession in court, denied knowledge of the crime charged, and denied knowing Tena. The confession was therefore inadmissible against Tena.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The SC held that the extrajudicial confession of Camota being inadmissible against his co-accused, and there being no evidence independently of said confession linking Tena to the crime, Tena must be declared not guilty of the complex crime of robbery with homicide. The prosecution's case against Tena rested chiefly on the confession, and without it there was no evidence sufficient to prove his participation beyond reasonable doubt.

• Duration of Reclusion Perpetua: The SC held that there is no need for a trial court to specify the duration in years of reclusion perpetua whenever it is imposed. Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code sets forth the minimum and maximum ranges of penalties except as regards reclusion perpetua; it simply declares that any person sentenced to any perpetual penalty shall be pardoned after undergoing the penalty for thirty years, unless the Chief Executive considers him unworthy of pardon. The intendment is that a person condemned to reclusion perpetua shall remain in prison perpetually, or for the rest of his natural life, but becomes eligible for pardon after at least thirty years, unless deemed unworthy. Article 70 reiterates the thirty-year period for perpetual penalties in applying the three-fold rule, but the SC held that the imputation of a thirty-year duration to reclusion perpetua in Articles 27 and 70 is only to serve as the basis for determining the convict's eligibility for pardon or for applying the three-fold rule in the service of multiple penalties. It was therefore incorrect for the RTC to specify thirty years in relation to the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

• Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet — "Things done between strangers ought not to injure those who are not parties to them." This is embodied in Section 28, Rule 130, which provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by the act, declaration, or omission of another, except as provided by law. The SC applied it to exclude Camota's extrajudicial confession against Tena, who was not the confessant.
• Admission by conspirator — Under 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 after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The requisites are: (a) the conspiracy must first be proved by evidence other than the admission itself; (b) the admission must relate to the common object; and (c) it must have been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy. The SC held the exception inapplicable because there was no independent evidence of conspiracy, the confession was made after the alleged conspiracy ended, and Camota repudiated it.
• Reclusion perpetua — A perpetual penalty under which the convict remains in prison perpetually or for the rest of his natural life, but becomes eligible for pardon by the Chief Executive after at least thirty years unless deemed unworthy. The thirty-year period in Articles 27 and 70 of the Revised Penal Code is only for determining pardon eligibility or applying the three-fold rule; courts should not specify the duration of reclusion perpetua in years. The SC applied this to hold the RTC's amended judgment incorrect.
• Co-accused's extrajudicial confession — The extrajudicial confession of one accused is not admissible against a co-accused unless the admission-by-conspirator exception is satisfied. Without evidence independent of the confession, it cannot be the sole basis for conviction. The SC applied this to acquit Tena.

• "In order that the admission of a conspirator may be received against his co-conspirator, 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 SC used this three-part test to hold that Camota's confession could not be used against Tena.
• "The extrajudicial confession of Camota thus being inadmissible against his co-accused, and there being no evidence independently of said confession, (Exh. K) linking accused-appellant Solito Tena to the crime, this Court declares Tena not guilty of the complex crime of robbery with homicide with which he is charged." — This is the SC's ratio for Tena's acquittal.
• "It was thus incorrect for the Trial Court to specify the duration of thirty (30) years in relation to the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by it on the, accused in this case." — The SC corrected the RTC's amended judgment.
• "The provision's intendment is that a person condemned to undergo the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall remain in prison perpetually, or for the rest of his natural life; however, he becomes eligible for pardon by the Chief Executive after he shall have been imprisoned for at least thirty years, unless he is deemed unworthy of such a pardon." — The SC explained why reclusion perpetua is perpetual and why its duration should not be fixed in years.

• Montoya, et al. vs. Baun, 44 O.G. 4382 — Cited for the requisites of the admission-by-conspirator exception.
• People vs. Saldua, 87 SCRA 167 — Cited as support for the rule that an extrajudicial confession is inadmissible against a co-accused.
• People vs. Sosing, 111 SCRA 368 — Cited as support for the same rule.
• People vs. Valerio, Jr., 112 SCRA 208 — Cited as support for the same rule.
• People vs. Rojo, 114 SCRA 304 — Cited as support for the same rule.
• People vs. Plaza, 140 SCRA 277 — Cited for the reason behind the res inter alios acta rule and as support for the rule that a co-accused's extrajudicial confession is inadmissible against another accused.
• People vs. Guillermo, 93 SCRA 168 — Cited in connection with the SC's declaration of acquittal.
• People vs. Cresencia C. Reyes, G.R. Nos. 101127-31, August 7, 1992 — Cited for the rule that the thirty-year period for reclusion perpetua is only for pardon eligibility or the three-fold rule.

• Section 25 (now Section 28), Rule 130, Rules of Court — A party's rights cannot be prejudiced by the act, declaration, or omission of another, except as provided; applied to exclude Camota's extrajudicial confession against Tena.
• Section 27 (now Section 30), Rule 130, Rules of Court — Admission by conspirator; the act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence may be given in evidence against a co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration; held inapplicable.
• Article 27, Revised Penal Code — Provides that persons sentenced to perpetual penalties shall be pardoned after undergoing the penalty for thirty years unless considered unworthy; the SC used it to explain that reclusion perpetua is perpetual and its duration should not be specified in years.
• Article 70, Revised Penal Code — Three-fold rule; the duration of perpetual penalties is computed at thirty years; the SC held this computation is only for pardon eligibility or application of the three-fold rule, not to fix the duration of reclusion perpetua.