YAPYUCO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. Nos. 120744-46, June 25, 2012, Rule 130. Sec. 31. Admission by conspirator

 

Rule 130. Sec. 31. Admission by conspirator

YAPYUCO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. Nos. 120744-46, June 25, 2012

PERALTA, J.:

FACTS: In a shooting incident, Licup was killed and Villanueva was injured while aboard a car, by all public officers, being then policemen, Brgy. Captains, Brgy. Tanod and members of the Civil Home Defense Force (CHDF) and while responding to information about the presence of armed NPA member in said barangay and conducting surveillance, thus committing the offense in relation to their office. Accused were Yapyuco, Jr., Cunanan, Jr. and Euno who were members of the Integrated National Police (INP) stationed at the Sindalan Substation in San Fernando, Pampanga; Pamintuan and Reyes, were barangay captains; Puno, Andres Reyes and Manguerra, David, Lugtu, Lacson, Yu, Pabalan and David were either members of the Civil Home Defense Force (CHDF) or civilian volunteer. They were all charged with murder, multiple attempted murder and frustrated murder in 3 Informations.

Yapyuco testified and admitted that all of them, including himself, were armed. But denied that they had committed an ambuscade because otherwise, all the occupants of the car would have been killed. He said that the shots which directly hit the passenger door of the jeepney did not come from him or from his fellow police officers but rather from Cafgu members, inasmuch as said shots were fired only when the jeepney had gone past the spot on the road where they were assembled.

Sandiganbayan found Yapyuco, Cunanan, Jr., Puno, Reyes, Reyes and Manguerra GUILTY of Homicide and attempted homicide as co-principals. There is no sufficient basis to rely fully on Pamintuan’s report that the victims were armed NPA members, and they have not been able by evidence to preclude ulterior motives or gross inexcusable negligence when they acted as they did.

ISSUE: Whether or not the extrajudicial confession or admission of Yapyuco is admissible only against him and inadmissible against the other accused.

HELD: NO. Indeed, the extrajudicial confession or admission of one accused is admissible only against said accused, but is inadmissible against the other accused. But if the declarant or admitter repeats in court his extrajudicial admission, as Yapyuco did in this case, during the trial and the other accused is accorded the opportunity to cross-examine the admitter, the admission is admissible against both accused because then, it is transposed into a judicial admission.

It is thus perplexing why, despite the extrajudicial statements of Cunanan, Puno and Yapyuco, as well as the latter’s testimony implicating them in the incident, they still had chosen to waive their right to present evidence when, in fact, they could have shown detailed proof of their participation or non-participation in the offenses charged.  We, therefore, reject their claim that they had been denied due process in this regard, as they opted not to testify and be cross-examined by the prosecution as to the truthfulness in their affidavits and, accordingly, disprove the inculpatory admissions of their co-accused.