People vs. Raquel.
Issue: WON the conviction of Sabas and Valeriano based on the
Facts:
1. Spouses Juliet and Agapito Gambalan, Jr., Agapito thinking that their
neighbor is in need, attended to the person knocking at the
backdoor of their kitchen. Much to his surprise, heavily armed men
emerged at the door, declared a hold-up and fired their guns at
him. His wife Juliet after hearing the gun shots went out of their
room and saw his dead husband while a masked man took her
husband’s gun and fled. She called out for help at their window and
saw a man fall beside their water pump while2 other men ran away.
George Jovillano came and reported the incident to the police. They
arrested one of the accused wounded and identified as Amado
Ponce.
2.The latter then revealed that the other 2 perpetrators were Sabas and
Valeriano Raquel. The 2 were then arrested in separate occasions.
Valeriano alleged that he was staying in Maguindanao staying at his
sister’s wife when the incident happened. He admitted that the said
house was on the same Barangay as that of the victim. Sabas on the
other hand was a soldier and T/Sgt. Natalio Zafra, his superior testified
that he was on duty at the time the incident happened. The trial court
held them guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of robbery with
homicide based on the testimony of Amado Ponce, their alleged
conspirator. Amado unfortunately escaped from prison and was not
cross-examined.
3. They also alleged that Sabas went to the clinic and used the name
Dante Clemente to hide his true identity.
testimony of Amado Ponce, the alleged conspirator.
Held:
1. NO. Both Juliet Gambalan and George Jovillano testified that they
were not able to identify the 2 other persons who fled the scene of the
crime. The extrajudicial 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 latters extrajudicial statements, it is
elementary that the same are hearsay as against said accused.That is
exactly the situation, and the disadvantaged plight of appellants, in the
case at bar.
2. 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 extrajudicial 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.[
3. The res inter alios rule ordains that the rights of a party cannot be
prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another. An
extrajudicial confession is binding only upon the confessant and is not
admissible against his co-accused. The reason for the rule is that, on a
principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a mans own acts are
binding upon himself, and are evidence against him. So are his conduct
and declarations. Yet it would not only be rightly inconvenient, but also
manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts of mere
unauthorized strangers; and if a party ought not to be bound by the acts
of strangers, neither ought their acts or conduct be used as evidence
against him.
 4. Except for that extrajudicial statement of accused Amado Ponce,
there exists no evidence whatsoever linking appellants to the crime. In
fact, the testimony of police Sgt. Andal S. Pangato that appellant Sabas
Raquel was wounded and went to the clinic of Dr. Anulao for treatment
using the name Dante Clemente,[18] was negated by Dr. Anulao himself
who testified that he treated no person by the name of Danny
Clemente. Also, The extrajudicial statements made by Amado violated
his Constitutional Rights since Extrajudicial statements made during
custodial investigation without the assistance of counsel are
inadmissible and cannot be considered in the adjudication of the case.
While the right to counsel may be waived, such waiver must be made
with the assistance of counsel.