United States vs. Manalo

Out-of-court statements of co-defendants are hearsay and inadmissible against an accused, and mere possession of revolutionary appointment papers without proof of action thereunder is insufficient to sustain conviction.

Bernardo Manalo and Francisco Cruz Asuncion lived in Manila. Certain written appointments of officials in a revolutionary army, purporting to be signed by both Manalo and Asuncion, were allegedly sent to the Province of Zambales, where they were received by Sotero Batle and Valentin Colorado.

According to the prosecution's preliminary investigation evidence, different defendants made confessions before the provincial governor, the provincial fiscal, and other persons. The provincial governor testified that Manalo at that examination denied all connection with the affair and declared that he never signed any of the documents and never authorized anyone else to sign them for him. At the trial in the Court of First Instance, none of the other defendants gave testimony indicating Manalo's guilt; the only person who testified for any of the defendants was Francisco Cruz Asuncion, who denied all connection with the affair and swore that he did not know Bernardo Manalo.

As to Valentin Colorado, one Jose Millora found four of the appointments in a trunk in Colorado's house. Before that discovery was given significance, Colorado had gone to one of the assistant councilmen of the barrio where he lived, a witness for the Government, showed him the envelope, stated that he had received the papers without knowing what they were, and requested the councilman to open them. The councilman declined to open the envelope himself but took it and sent it to councilman Jose Millora.

As to Sotero Batle, a soldier in the Constabulary stationed in Zambales, a letter from Francisco Cruz Asuncion relating to the revolutionary organization was found in his trunk in the Constabulary quarters. With it was a letter proved to be in Batle's handwriting but neither signed in his name nor addressed to any specific person. Outside of the finding of these papers, no action by Batle in connection with the matter was shown. As to Francisco Cruz Asuncion, the letter found in Batle's possession bore Asuncion's signature, referred to the proposed uprising, and bore in various places the impression of a seal indicating the military character of the organization.

The court below convicted Manalo, Asuncion, Batle, and Colorado, and all four appealed. Certain typewritten documents purporting to be examinations of the defendants were transmitted to the appellate court but had not been offered in evidence during the trial.

• Hearsay Against Manalo: Whether statements made by co-defendants outside court and proved through third persons are admissible against Bernardo Manalo.
• Mere Possession by Colorado: Whether the finding of four revolutionary appointments in Valentin Colorado's trunk suffices to convict where he promptly reported receipt to authorities and did not act under the appointment.
• Mere Receipt by Batle: Whether receipt and retention of a revolutionary letter by Sotero Batle, with an unsigned handwritten letter, suffices to convict absent proof of action.
• Authorship by Asuncion: Whether the signed letter referring to the proposed uprising and bearing a military seal suffices to sustain the conviction of Francisco Cruz Asuncion.

• Hearsay Against Manalo: No. Out-of-court statements of persons other than Manalo, proved through third persons, are hearsay and inadmissible against him, leaving no legal evidence of guilt.
• Mere Possession by Colorado: No. Mere possession of such documents is insufficient to convict, especially where receipt was immediately reported and no action was taken under the appointment.
• Mere Receipt by Batle: No. Mere receipt of the letter, without outside evidence of action in connection with the matter, cannot sustain conviction.
• Authorship by Asuncion: Yes. Authorship and sending of the signed letter referring to the proposed uprising, bearing a military seal, sufficiently supported conviction.

• Hearsay Against Manalo: The only legal evidence implicating Manalo was testimony about confessions at a preliminary investigation, at which the governor testified Manalo denied all connection, denied signing, and denied authorizing another to sign. Implication came only from statements of other defendants at that preliminary examination, but at trial no testimony by those defendants indicated his guilt, and Asuncion affirmatively swore he did not know Manalo. Because guilt was sought to be established through what others said outside court as recounted by third persons, exclusion as hearsay was required.
• Mere Possession by Colorado: Although four appointments were found in a trunk in Colorado's house by Jose Millora, mere possession of a document of that kind had already been held insufficient to convict. Moreover, the Government's own witness established that upon receipt Colorado showed the envelope to the assistant councilman, disclaimed knowledge of its contents, and asked that it be opened, after which the envelope was forwarded to Millora. The envelope was found to contain the appointments in question, and non-action under the appointment with immediate report to the authorities negated culpability.
• Mere Receipt by Batle: Proof showed Batle, while a Constabulary soldier in Zambales, received from Asuncion a letter relating to the revolutionary organization, found with an unsigned, unaddressed letter in his handwriting in his trunk. Absent any evidence outside that finding that he took action in connection with the matter, the showing amounted only to receipt and retention and was deemed inadequate for conviction.
• Authorship by Asuncion: The letter found in Batle's possession was proved to have been sent by Asuncion, bore his signature, referred to the proposed uprising, and carried impressions of a seal indicating the military character of the organization. Direct proof of sending a revolutionary communication of that character satisfied the evidentiary requirement for affirmance. Typewritten purported examinations not offered in evidence at trial were not considered against any appellant.

• Hearsay rule — Statements made by persons other than the accused outside of court, when testified to by third persons, are hearsay and not admissible against the accused. Applied to acquit Manalo, against whom the only implication came from co-defendants' statements at a preliminary investigation that were not repeated as trial testimony.
• Mere possession of revolutionary documents — The mere possession of an appointment or similar document relating to a revolutionary organization, without proof that the possessor acted under it or otherwise participated, is not sufficient to convict. Applied to acquit Colorado, whose possession was coupled with prompt disclosure to barrio authorities and inaction, and to support acquittal of Batle for mere receipt without proven action.

• "Under these circumstances statements made by persons other than Manalo outside of the court and testified to third persons are hearsay and not admissible against this appellant." — States the evidentiary basis for Manalo's acquittal and the controlling hearsay rule.
• "We have already held that the mere possession of a document of this kind is not sufficient to convict." — States the controlling rule applied to acquit Colorado for mere possession of revolutionary appointments.
• "these papers were are not offered in evidence during the trial in the Court of First Instance and can not be considered as evidence against the appellants." — Explains the exclusion of typewritten purported examinations transmitted on appeal but never formally offered below.

• United States vs. Caligagan, 2 Phil. Rep., 433 — Cited as authority that out-of-court statements of others proved through third persons are hearsay and inadmissible against the appellant Manalo.
• United States vs. Antonio de los Reyes, 3 Phil. Rep., 349 — Cited as prior holding that mere possession of a revolutionary document of this kind is insufficient to convict, applied to Colorado.
• United States vs. Nuñez, 4 Phil. Rep., 441 — Cited as additional prior holding to the same effect that mere possession is insufficient to convict.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson and Tracey, JJ., concurred.