PEOPLE v. NIEVES CONSTANCIO G.R. No. 206226, April 04, 2016, RULE 130. Sec. 29. Admission by third party.

 

RULE 130. Sec. 29. Admission by third party.

PEOPLE v. NIEVES CONSTANCIO G.R. No. 206226, April 04, 2016

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

FACTS: "AAA" went to Alabang Town Center with her friends. After parting ways with them, "AAA" was about to board her car when she found herself confronted by Berry then armed with a knife, who was with Constancio, Pagkalinawan, Darden and "Burog." These five forcibly seized "AAA's" car and drove her to Constancio' house where she was raped and killed.

In an interview with ABS-CBN, Berry revealed that while "AAA's" car was parked in Constancio' garage, the said car was moving and shaking with "AAA" inside. This led him to suspect that something was already happening; that when the door of the car was opened, (Berry) saw that "AAA" was without her underwear; and that Constancio then uttered the words, "wala na," indicating that "AAA" was already dead. "AAA's" body was then placed inside the trunk of her car. Adarna, a tricycle driver, saw Berry, Constancio, and their other companions, throw something over a bridge which turned out to be "AAA's body upon investigation by the authorities.
Constancio et. Al were charged with the crime of Rape with Homicide

During the custodial investigation, Berry executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay and confessed that he did take part in the execution of the crime. At the trial, Berry denounced the Sinumpaang Salaysay as false, and claimed that he was coerced into signing the same. Both denied the charges against them. These two also asserted that Berry's extrajudicial confession was inadmissible in evidence.

RTC found Constancio and Berry guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape with Homicide. RTC acquitted Pagkalinawan for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. CA affirmed the RTC. CA gave credence to Berry's extrajudicial confession as contained in the Sinumpaang Salaysay which he executed with the assistance of an attorney. Berry's extrajudicial confession was admitted as corroborative evidence of facts that likewise tend to establish the guilt of his co-accused and cousin, Constancio as shown by the circumstantial evidence extant in the records.
ISSUE: Whether or not Berry's confession is inadmissible in evidence against him under the principle of res inter alios acta found in Section 28.

HELD: No. Sec. 28, which provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,declaration, or omission of another. In Tamargo v. Awingan, the general rule is that an extra-judicial confession is binding only on the confessant and is inadmissible in evidence against his co-accused since it is considered hearsay against them. However, as an exception to this rule, an extra-judicial confession is admissible against a co-accused when it is used as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of participation of said co-accused in the crime. In order that an extra-judicial confession may be used against a co-accused of the confessant, "there must be a finding of other circumstantial evidence which when taken together with the confession would establish the guilt of a co-accused beyond reasonable doubt." Applying the rule to Constancio's case, the prosecution was able to show circumstantial evidence to implicate him in the crime. Berry's confession is admissible because it was voluntarily executed with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel in the person of Atty. Suarez. In point of fact Atty. Suarez testified that he thoroughly explained to Berry his constitutional rights and the consequences of any statements he would give. In default of proof that Atty. Suarez- was remiss in his duties, as in this case, this Court must hold that the custodial investigation of Berry was regularly conducted. For this reason, Berry's extrajudicial confession is admissible in evidence against him.

Statements spontaneously made by a suspect to news reporters on a televised interview are deemed voluntary and are admissible in evidence. In this case, there was no ample proof to show that Berry's narration of events to ABS-CBN was the product of intimidation or coercion, thus making the same admissible in evidence.