Sec. 30. Admission by conspirator. – The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act of declaration.
When does conspiracy exists?
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it (Art. 8, RPC).
Once conspiracy is proven, the act of one is the act of all. The statement
therefore of one may be admitted against the other co-conspirators as an
exception to the rule of res inter alios acta.
Requisites for admissibility
For the exception to apply, the following requisites must concur:
(a) The declaration or act
be made or done during the existence of the conspiracy;
(b) The declaration or act
must relate to the conspiracy; and
(c) The conspiracy must be
shown by evidence other than the declaration or act.
Cases
People vs. Serrano
This rule applies only to extrajudicial acts or statements and not to
testimony given on the witness stand at the trial where the party adversely
affected thereby has the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.
An admission by a conspirator is admissible against his co-conspirator
if:
1. Such
conspiracy is shown by evidence aliunde
2. Admission
was made during the existence of the conspiracy
3. Admission
relates to the conspiracy itself
These are not required in admissions during the trial as the co-accused
can examine the declarant.
• Judicial
admissions - admissions after the conspiracy has ended
• Existence of
conspiracy may be inferred from
1. Acts
of the accused
2. Confessions
of the accused
3. By
prima facie proof thereof
People vs. Alegre (1976)
Where there is no independent evidence of the alleged conspiracy, the
extrajudicial confession of an accused cannot be used against his co-accused as
the res inter alios rule applies to both extrajudicial confessions and
admissions
• Extrajudicial admission made by a conspirator after the
conspiracy has ended and even before trial – not admissible against
co-conspirator
Except:
1. If made in the presence
of the co-conspirator who expressly or impliedly (tacit admission, Rule 130.32)
agreed therein
2. Where the facts
stated in the said admissions are confirmed in the individual extrajudicial
confessions made by the co-conspirators after their apprehension
3. As a circumstance
to determine the credibility of a witness
4. As circumstantial
evidence to show the probability of the co-conspirator’s participation in the
offense
People vs. Ola (1987)
In order that the extrajudicial statements of a co-accused may be taken
into consideration in judging the testimony of a witness, it is necessary that
the statements are made by several accused, the same are in all material
respects identical, and there could have been no collusion among said
co-accused in making such statements.
People v.
Cabrera, 57 SCRA 715 (1974)
Facts: Accused was convicted based on the
extra-judicial confession of his co-accused.
Held: The statement was made after, not during, the
conspiracy, hence it was inadmissible.
People v. Yatco, 97 Phil. 941 (1955) –
confession regarding conspiracy may be used against confessor (multiple
admissibility); confession regarding conspiracy should be conditionally
admitted until conspiracy is proved; statements must be made during the
conpiracy and in furtherance of its object to be admissible.
People v. Chaw
Yaw Shun, 23 SCRA 127 (1968) – conspiracy must be proved by
independent evidence other than the confession; reiterated “in furtherance”
People v.
Serrano, 105 Phil. 531 (1959) – requirement that conspiracy must be
shown 1st other than confession applies only to extra-judicial
confessions not to testimony in open court.
0
Comments
