6/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297

 
*
G.R. No. 117401. October 1, 1998.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff­appellee, vs.

BERNARDO QUIDATO, JR., accused­appellant.

Criminal Law; Evidence; Extrajudicial Confessions;

Witnesses; Hearsay Rule; Affidavits; It is hornbook doctrine that
unless the affiants themselves take the witness stand to affirm the
averments in their affidavits, the affidavits must be excluded from
the judicial proceeding, being inadmissible hearsay.—In indicting
accused­appellant, the prosecution relied heavily on the affidavits
executed by Reynaldo and Eddie. The two brothers were, however,
not presented on the witness stand to testify on their extra­
judicial confessions. The failure to present the two gives these
affidavits the character of hearsay. It is hornbook doctrine that
unless the affiants themselves take the witness stand to affirm
the averments in their affidavits, the affidavits must be excluded
from the judicial proceeding, being inadmissible hearsay. The
voluntary admissions of an

________________

* THIRD DIVISION.

2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Quidato, Jr.

accused made extrajudicially are not admissible in evidence

against his co­accused when the latter had not been given an
opportunity to hear him testify and cross­examine him.

Same; Same; Same; Constitutional Law; Custodial

Investigations; Right to Counsel; The settled rule is that an
uncounseled extrajudicial confession without a valid waiver of the
right to counsel—that is, in writing and in the presence of counsel
—is inadmissible in evidence.—Likewise, the manner by which
the affidavits were obtained by the police render the same
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b61235c63e255195a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/11
6/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297

inadmissible in evidence even if they were voluntarily given. The

settled rule is that an uncounseled extrajudicial confession
without a valid waiver of the right to counsel—that is, in writing
and in the presence of counsel—is inadmissible in evidence. It is
undisputed that the Malita brothers gave their statements to
Patrolman Mara in the absence of counsel, although they signed
the same in the presence of counsel the next day. As ruled in
People vs. Compil: [T]he belated arrival of a CLAO (now PAO)
lawyer the following day even if prior to the actual signing of the
uncounseled confession does not cure the defect (of lack of
counsel) for the investigators were already able to extract
incriminatory statements from accused­appellant . . . Thus, in
People vs. De Jesus (213 SCRA 345 [1992]) we said that
admissions obtained during custodial interrogations without the
benefit of counsel although later reduced to writing and signed in
the presence of counsel are still flawed under the Constitution.

Same; Same; Witnesses; Marital Disqualification Rule;

Murder; Under the marital disqualification rule, the
disqualification is between husband and wife, the law not
precluding the wife from testifying when it involves other parties
or accused.—With regard to Gina Quidato’s testimony, the same
must also be disregarded, accused­appellant having timely
objected thereto under the marital disqualification rule. As
correctly observed by the court a quo, the disqualification is
between husband and wife, the law not precluding the wife from
testifying when it involves other parties or accused. Hence, Gina
Quidato could testify in the murder case against Reynaldo and
Eddie, which was jointly tried with accused­appellant’s case. This
testimony cannot, however, be used against accused­appellant
directly or through the guise of taking judicial notice of the
proceedings in the murder case without violating the marital
disqualification rule. “What cannot be done directly cannot be
done indirectly” is a rule familiar even to law students.

VOL. 297, OCTOBER 1, 1998 3

People vs. Quidato, Jr.

Same; Same; Same; Suspicion, no matter how strong, should

not sway judgment, it being an accepted axiom that the
prosecution cannot rely on the weakness of the defense to gain a
conviction, but must establish beyond reasonable doubt every
circumstance essential to the guilt of the accused.—Given the
inadmissibility in evidence of Gina Quidato’s testimony, as well as
of Reynaldo and Eddie’s extrajudicial confessions, nothing
remains on record with which to justify a judgment unfavorable to
accused­appellant. Admittedly, accused­appellant’s defense, to put
it mildly, is dubious. His alleged acquiescence to the demand of
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b61235c63e255195a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/11
6/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297

the Malita brothers to accompany them to his father’s house on

the strength of the latter’s verbal threats, his incredulous escape
from the clutches of the two, his inexplicable failure to return
home immediately, his failure to seek assistance from the
authorities, the fact that Eddie stayed with him immediately after
the incident, and the nine­day lacuna between the killing and his
pointing to the Malita brothers as the culprits, all suggest a
complicity more than that of an unwilling participant. Yet,
suspicion, no matter how strong, should not sway judgment, it
being an accepted axiom that the prosecution cannot rely on the
weakness of the defense to gain a conviction, but must establish
beyond reasonable doubt every circumstance essential to the guilt
of the accused. This the prosecution has failed to demonstrate.

APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of

Panabo, Davao, Br. 4.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     The Solicitor General for plaintiff­appellee.
     Public Attorney’s Office for accused­appellant.

ROMERO, J.:

Before us is an appeal from the judgment of the Regional

Trial Court of Davao, Branch 4, dated March 2, 1994,
finding accused­appellant Bernardo Quidato, Jr. guilty of
the crime of parricide.
On January 17, 1989, accused­appellant was charged
with the crime of parricide before the Regional Trial Court
of Davao. The information reads as follows:
4

4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Quidato, Jr.

The undersigned accuses BERNARDO QUIDATO, JR. of the

crime of Parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code,
committed as follows:
That on or about September 17, 1988, in the Municipality of
Kaputian, Province of Davao, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above­named accused,
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping with Reynaldo
Malita and Eddie Malita, who are charged for (sic) Murder in a
separate information, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
criminally, with the use of a bolo and an iron bar, assault, hack
and stab his father, Bernardo Quidato, Sr., on the different parts
of his body, thereby inflicting upon him wounds which caused his
death, and further causing actual, moral and compensatory
damage to the heirs of the victim.
1
Contrary to law.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b61235c63e255195a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/11
6/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297

Accused­appellant’s case was tried jointly with the murder

case filed against his co­accused, Reynaldo Malita and
Eddie Malita who, however, withdrew their “not guilty”
plea during the trial and were accordingly sentenced. Thus,
only accused­appellant’s case was tried on the merits.
The prosecution, in offering its version of the facts,
presented as its witnesses accused­appellant’s brother Leo
Quidato, appellant’s wife Gina Quidato, as well as
Patrolman Lucrecio Mara. Likewise, the prosecution
offered in evidence affidavits containing the extra­judicial
confessions of Eddie Malita and Reynaldo Malita. The two
brothers were, however, not presented by the prosecution
on the witness stand. Instead, it presented Atty. Jonathan
Jocom to prove that the two were assisted by counsel when
they made their confessions. Similarly, the prosecution
presented MTC Judge George Omelio who attested to the
due and voluntary execution of the sworn statements by
the Malita brothers.
Based on the foregoing pieces of evidence, the
prosecution’s version of the facts is as follows:

________________

1 Original Record, p. 2.

VOL. 297, OCTOBER 1, 1998 5

People vs. Quidato, Jr.

Bernardo Quidato, Sr. was the father of accused­appellant

Bernardo Quidato, Jr. and Leo Quidato. Being a widower,
Bernardo lived alone in his house at Sitio Libod, Brgy.
Tagbaobo, Kaputian, Davao. He owned sixteen hectares of
coconut land in the area.
On September 16, 1988, Bernardo, accompanied by his
son, herein accused­appellant, and two hired hands,
Reynaldo Malita and Eddie Malita, went to Davao City to
sell 41 sacks of copra. After selling the copra, Bernardo
paid the Malita brothers for their labor, who thereafter left.
Bernardo and 2accused­appellant went back to Sitio Libod
that same day.
According to Gina Quidato, on the evening of the next
day, September 17, 1988, accused­appellant and the Malita
brothers were drinking tuba at their house. She overheard
the trio planning to go to her father­in­law’s house to get
money from the latter. She had no idea, however, as to
what later 3transpired because she had fallen asleep before
10:00 p.m. Accused­appellant objected to Gina Quidato’s
testimony on the ground that the same was prohibited by
the marital disqualification rule found in Section 22 of Rule
4
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b61235c63e255195a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/11
6/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297
4
130 of the Rules of Court. The judge, acknowledging the
applicability of the socalled rule, allowed said testimony
only against accused­appellant’s co­accused, Reynaldo and
Eddie.
As adverted to earlier, the Malita brothers confessed to
their participation in the crime, executing affidavits
detailing how Bernardo was killed. Their version shows
that Eddie had been living with accused­appellant for the
past four years. At around 6:00 p.m. of September 17, 1988,
accused­appellant asked Reynaldo to come to the former’s
house to discuss an

________________

2 TSN, September 30, 1993, pp. 6­7.

3 TSN, November 28, 1991, pp. 10­11.
4 Section 22. Disqualification by reason of marriage.—During their
marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the
other without the consent of the affected spouse, except in a civil case by
one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one
against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants.

6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Quidato, Jr.

important matter. Upon Reynaldo’s arrival at accused­

appellant’s house, he saw that his brother Eddie was
already there. They started drinking beer. The Malita
brothers alleged that it was at this juncture that accused­
appellant proposed that they rob and kill his father. They
went to Bernardo’s house only at 10:00 p.m., after the rain
had stopped. Reynaldo brought along a bolo. Upon reaching
the house, accused­appellant knocked on the door, asking
his father to let them in. When Bernardo opened the door,
Eddie rushed in and knocked the old man down. Reynaldo
then hacked Bernardo on the nape and neck. Accused­
appellant and Eddie ransacked Bernardo’s aparador
looking for money but they found none; so, the three of
them left.
The body of Bernardo was discovered the next day by
accused­appellant’s son, who had gone there to call his Lolo
for breakfast. The cause of death, as stated in Bernardo’s
death certificate was “hypovolemic shock secondary
5
to fatal
hacking wound on the posterior neck area.”
On September 27, 1988, Leo Quidato confronted his
brother regarding the incident and learned that Reynaldo
and Eddie Malita were the ones responsible for Bernardo’s
death. The two were promptly arrested by the police. Aside

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b61235c63e255195a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/11
6/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297

from arresting the latter two, however, the police also

arrested accused­appellant.
On September 29, 1988, the Malita brothers were
interrogated by Patrolman Lucrecio Mara at the Kaputian
Police Station. When Mara apprised them of their
constitutional rights, including their right to counsel, they
signified their intent to confess even in the absence of
counsel. Aware that the same would be useless if given in
the absence of counsel, Mara took down the testimony of
the two but refrained from requiring the latter to sign their
affidavits. Instead, he escorted the Malita brothers to
Davao City and presented them,

________________

5 Original Record, p. 68.

VOL. 297, OCTOBER 1, 1998 7

People vs. Quidato, Jr.

along with their unsigned 6

affidavits, to a CLAO (now PAO)
lawyer, Jonathan Jocom.
Informed of the situation, Atty. Jocom conferred with
Reynaldo and Eddie, again advising the two of their
constitutional rights. The CLAO lawyer explained the
contents of the affidavits, in Visayan, to the Malita
brothers, who affirmed the veracity and voluntary
execution of the same. Only then did 7Reynaldo and Eddie
affix their signatures on the affidavits.
In his defense, accused­appellant denied the allegations
of the Malita brothers. He claimed that the Malita brothers
were not at his house on the evening of September 17,
1988. They, however, passed by his house at around 10:00
p.m. and asked him to come with them to his father’s
house, threatening him with harm if he refused. Out of
fear, he led the way to Bernardo’s house and even knocked
on the latter’s door until Bernardo opened the same. In the
ensuing commotion, he scampered away, but in his
confusion, reached his house only at around 11:00 p.m.,
although the same was only about one hundred fifty meters
away from Bernardo’s house. He did not call for help. Eddie
arrived a while later. Accused­appellant claimed not to
have seen the actual killing, having run away earlier. He,
however, admitted finding a bolo, encrusted with blood, at
his house. He turned the same over to his brother, who, in
turn, surrendered the same to the police. Accused­
appellant did not feel uneasy having Eddie around 8
even if
he knew of the latter’s participation in the crime.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b61235c63e255195a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/11
6/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297

After due trial, the court a quo rendered the following

judgment:

WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the court

finds the accused, Bernardo Quidato, Jr., guilty beyond
reasonable doubt as a co­principal in the offense of Parricide
which falls under Article 246 (of the Revised Penal Code), for the
death of his

________________

6 TSN, April 26, 1990, pp. 35­44.

7 TSN, August 28, 1991, pp. 12­17.
8 TSN, September 30, 1993, pp. 6­26.

8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Quidato, Jr.

father, Bernardo Quidato, Sr., and accordingly, is hereby

sentenced by this court to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION
PERPETUA, with all the accessory penalties provided by law and
to indemnify the other heirs of Bernardo Quidato, Sr., the amount
of P50,000.00, in accordance with current case doctrines of the
Supreme Court, and to pay the costs.
9
SO ORDERED.

From the aforesaid judgment of conviction, appellant

interposed the present appeal, assigning the following
errors:

1. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING

CREDENCE TO THE EXTRAJUDICIAL
CONFESSIONS OF REYNALDO MALITA (EXH.
C) AND EDDIE MALITA (EXH. D) IN CLEAR
VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED­APPELLANT TO
CONFRONT WITNESSES.
2. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING (THE)
EXISTENCE OF CONSPIRACY IN THE CASE AT
BAR.
3. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING
THE DEFENSE RAISED BY THE ACCUSED AND
DISREGARDING (ANY) ILL­MOTIVE OF
REYNALDO AND EDDIE MALITA IN KILLING
THE VICTIM.

Accused­appellant must be acquitted.

In indicting accused­appellant, the prosecution relied
heavily on the affidavits executed by Reynaldo and Eddie.
The two brothers were, however, not presented on the
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b61235c63e255195a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/11
6/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297

witness stand to testify on their extra­judicial confessions.

The failure to present the two gives these affidavits the
character of hearsay. It is hornbook doctrine that unless
the affiants themselves take the witness stand to affirm
the averments in their affidavits, the affidavits must be
excluded10from the judicial proceeding, being inadmissible
hearsay. The voluntary admissions of an accused made
extrajudicially are not admissible in evidence against his
co­accused when the latter had not

________________

9 Original Record, pp. 159­160.

10 People vs. Manhuyod, G.R. No. 124676, May 20, 1998.

VOL. 297, OCTOBER 1, 1998 9

People vs. Quidato, Jr.

been given an11 opportunity to hear him testify and cross­

examine him.
The Solicitor General, in advocating the admissibility of
the sworn statements of the Malita brothers, cites Section
30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court which provides that
“[t]he act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the
conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in
evidence against the co­conspirator after the conspiracy is
shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.” The
inapplicability of this provision is clearly apparent. The
confessions were made after the conspiracy had ended and
after the consummation of the crime. Hence, it cannot be
said that the execution of the affidavits were acts or
declarations made during the conspiracy’s existence.
Likewise, the manner by which the affidavits were
obtained by the police render the same inadmissible in
evidence even if they were voluntarily given. The settled
rule is that an un­counseled extrajudicial confession
without a valid waiver of the right to counsel—that is, in
writing and
12
in the presence of counsel—is inadmissible in
evidence. It is undisputed that the Malita brothers gave
their statements to Patrolman Mara in the absence of
counsel, although they signed the same in the presence
13
of
counsel the next day. As ruled in People vs. Compil:

[T]he belated arrival of a CLAO (now PAO) lawyer the following

day even if prior to the actual signing of the uncounseled
confession does not cure the defect (of lack of counsel) for the
investigators were already able to extract incriminatory
statements from accused­appellant . . . Thus, in People vs. De
Jesus (213 SCRA 345 [1992]) we said that admissions obtained

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b61235c63e255195a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/11
6/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297

during custodial interrogations without the benefit of counsel

although later reduced to writing and

________________

11 People vs. Surigawan, 228 SCRA 458 (1993); People vs. Ferry, 66 Phil. 310
(1938); People vs. Badilla, 48 Phil. 718 (1926).
12 Constitution, Article III, Sec. 12(1) and (3); People vs. Cabintoy, 247 SCRA
442 (1995).
13 244 SCRA 135 (1995).

10

10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Quidato, Jr.

signed in the presence of counsel are still flawed under the

Constitution.

With regard to Gina Quidato’s testimony, the same must

also be disregarded, accused­appellant having timely
objected thereto under the marital disqualification rule. As
correctly observed by the court a quo, the disqualification is
between husband and wife, the law not precluding the wife 14
from testifying when it involves other parties or accused.
Hence, Gina Quidato could testify in the murder case
against Reynaldo and Eddie, which was jointly tried with
accused­appellant’s case. This testimony cannot, however,
be used against accused­appellant directly or through the
guise of taking judicial notice of the proceedings in the
murder case without violating the marital disqualification
rule. “What cannot be done directly cannot be done
indirectly” is a rule familiar even to law students.
Given the inadmissibility in evidence of Gina Quidato’s
testimony, as well as of Reynaldo and Eddie’s extrajudicial
confessions, nothing remains on record with which to
justify a judgment unfavorable to accused­appellant.
Admittedly, accused­appellant’s defense, to put it mildly, is
dubious. His alleged acquiescence to the demand of the
Malita brothers to accompany them to his father’s house on
the strength of the latter’s verbal threats, his incredulous
escape from the clutches of the two, his inexplicable failure
to return home immediately, his failure to seek assistance
from the authorities, the fact that Eddie stayed with him
immediately after the incident, and the nine­day lacuna
between the killing and his pointing to the Malita brothers
as the culprits, all suggest a complicity more than that of
an unwilling participant. Yet, suspicion, no matter how
strong, should not sway judgment, it being an accepted
axiom that the prosecution cannot rely on the weakness of
the defense to gain a conviction, but must establish beyond
reasonable doubt every circumstance essen­
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b61235c63e255195a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/11
6/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297

________________

14 TSN, November 28, 1991, p. 5.

11

VOL. 297, OCTOBER 1, 1998 11

People vs. Quidato, Jr.
15
tial to the guilt of the accused. This the prosecution has
failed to demonstrate.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED and the
decision of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City in
Criminal Case No. 89­9 dated March 2, 1994, is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused­appellant Bernardo
Quidato, Jr. is hereby ACQUITTED on ground of
reasonable doubt. Consequently, let the accused be
immediately released from his place of confinement unless
there is reason to detain him further for any other legal or
valid cause. With costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.

     Kapunan and Purisima, JJ., concur.

     Narvasa (C.J., Chairman), On leave.

Appeal granted, judgment reversed and set aside.

Accused­appellant acquitted.

Notes.—Hearsay evidence alone may be insufficient to

establish a fact in an injunction suit but, when no objection
is made thereto, it is, like any other evidence, to be
considered and given the importance it deserves. (Top­Weld
Manufacturing, Inc. vs. ECED, S.A., 138 SCRA 118 [1985])
To give weight to a letter written by a person who was
not presented as a witness is to deny due process to the
party adversely affected. (Ciudad Realty & Development
Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 229 SCRA 71 [1994])
Inconsistent extrajudicial statement of a person not
presented as a witness cannot be appreciated as evidence.
(Narciso vs. Sandiganbayan, 229 SCRA 229 [1994])

——o0o——

________________

15 Duran vs. CA, 71 SCRA 68 (1976).

12

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b61235c63e255195a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/11
6/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 297

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b61235c63e255195a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/11