Sec. 28. Admission by third party. – The rights of
a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another,
except as hereinafter provided.
Res inter alios acta
The expression if fully expressed reads: res
inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet which literally means that
“things done to strangers ought not to injure those who are not parties to
them” (Black’s, 5th Ed., 1178).
Branches
The res inter alios acta rule has
two branches, namely:
(a) The rule that the rights of a
party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission or another (Sec.
28, Rule 130, Rules of Court)
(b) The rule that evidence
of previous conduct or similar acts at one time is not admissible to prove that
one did or did not do the same act at another time (Sec. 34, Rule 132, Rules
of Court).
● The first branch is a very simple and logical rule
which holds that whatever one says or does or omits to do should only affect
him but should not affect or prejudice others. In other words, both common
reason and fairness demand that a man’s actions and declarations should affect
him alone and should not affect others. Thus, if X makes a statement before the
media admitting his participation in a previous murder, his statement is
admissible against him under Sec. 26 of Rule 130. The rest of his statement pointing
to Y and Z as co-participants in the murder are not admissible against Y and Z
under the first branch of the res inter alios acta rule in
Sec. 28 of Rule 130. Under this rule, the statement of X should not affect or
prejudice Y and Z.
Rule refers to extrajudicial declaration
The rule has reference to extrajudicial declarations.
Hence, statements made in open court by a witness implicating
persons aside from his own judicial admissions, are admissible as declarations
from one who has personal knowledge of the facts testified to.
Exceptions to the res inter alios acta rule
The first branch of the rule admits of certain
exception, to wit:
(a) admission by a co-partner or
agent (Sec. 29, Rule 130);
(b) admission by a co-conspirator (Sec.
30, Rule 130; and
(c) admission by privies (Sec.
31, Rule 130).
● Note that all the exceptions to res inter alios
acta require that the relationship be proven by evidence independent of the act
or declaration sought to be admitted.
Basis
The basis for admitting the above admissions is
that the person making the statements is under the same circumstances as the
person against whom it is offered. Such circumstances give him substantially
the same interest and the same motive to make a statement about certain matters (4
Wigmore Sec. 1080a, 140).
Cases
People v. Tena, 215 SCRA 43 (1992)
Facts: Accused was convicted of robbery with
homicide on the basis of an extra-judicial confession of another admitting his
participation in the offense. Held:
This is not a co-conspirator’s statement because there was no evidence of
conspiracy independent of the extra-judicial confession. Furthermore, the
confession was executed long after the supposed conspiracy had ended.
Escolin: Had the co-conspirator taken the witness
stand and pointed to his co-accused, the testimony would have been admissible.
In this case, what was presented was a merely his affidavit.
People v. Alegre, 94 SCRA 109 (1979) –
absent independent evidence of conspiracy, extra-judicial confession of the
accused is not admissible against others
People v. Raquel, 265 SCRA 248 (1996) –
extra-judicial confession of accused can not be used to implicate co-accused
unless repeated in open court.
People vs. Valero (1982)
Facts:
Michael and Annabel, children of Ceferino Velasco, died of poisoning after
eating bread containing endrin, a commercial insecticide. Their sister Imelda
would have also died if not for the timely medical assistance given to her. At
about the same time, 3 puppies of Velasco under the balcony where the children
ate the bread also died of poisoning. Earlier that morning, Velasco was seen
throwing poisoned rats in the river near his house.
The
evidence of the prosecution shows that the poisoned bread was given to the
children by Alfonso Valero alias Pipe, deaf-mute brother of accused Lucila
Valero, and that it was Lucila who gave Alfonso the bread to be delivered to
the children. Lucila denies the allegation. The evidence of the defense tends
to show that the children might have eaten one of the sliced poisoned bread
used by their father in poisoning the rats.
3/9
witnesses for the prosecution:
1. Rodolfo Quilang –
testified that he saw Lucila deliver something wrapped in a piece of paper to
Alfonso and instructed him by sign language to deliver the same to the Velasco
children. He never saw what was inside the piece of paper. His testimony as to
WON he saw the parcel delivered to the children was a series of contradictions.
He is what the defense counsel calls and “eleventh-hour witness
2. Federico Jaime and
Ceferino Velasco – did not see Lucila deliver to Alfonso the alleged parcel, as
well as the alleged instruction. Both claimed that they learned the information
from Pipe after interviewing him by means of sign language. Testimony of Jaime
was confusing. There is nothing in the testimony of Velasco indicating that
Alfonso pointed to Lucila as the source of the poisoned bread.
Issue: WON the
testimonies of Jaime and Velasco may be admitted
Held: No. The evidence
is pure hearsay. It violates the principle of res inter alios acta. Alfonso,
who was the source of the information, was never presented as a witness either
for the defense or the prosecution. Testimony of Velasco cannot be considered
as part of res gestae because when the information was allegedly obtained by
Velasco from Alfonso, nobody was poisoned yet. With regard to the testimony of
Jaime, there is no showing that the revelation was made by Alfonso under the
influence of a startling occurrence.
The
failure of the defense counsel to object to the presentation of incompetent
evidence does not give such evidence probative value. The lack of objection may
make any incompetent evidence admissible. But admissibility of evidence should
not be equated with weight of evidence. Hearsay evidence whether objected to or
not has no probative value
0
Comments
