People v. Quidato Jr.
were reduced to writing, and they signed the said
GR No. 117401 297 SCRA 1 (1998)
Romero; J:
Facts:
Bernardo Quidato Jr. was charged with the crime of
parricide in the RTC of Davao for killing his father
Bernardo Quidato Sr. together with Reynaldo Malita
and Eddie Malita. During the trial, the prosecution
presented as its witness Leo Quidato, the brother of
the accused, Gina Quidato; the wife of the accused
and Patrolman Lucerio Mara. The Prosecution also
offered in evidence the affidavits containing the
extrajudicial confessions of Eddie and Reynaldo
Malita. Instead of placing the Malita brothers on the
witness stand, the prosecution opted to present Atty.
Jonathan Jocom to attest that the Malita brothers were
accompanied by counsels when they executed their
extrajudicial confessions. Prosecution also presented
MTC judge George Omelio who attested to the due
and voluntary execution of the sworn statements by
the Malita brothers. According to the prosecution,
Bernardo Quidato Sr. owns a 16 hectare coconut
land. He had [2] sons Bernardo Quidato Jr. and Leo
Quidato. He is also a widower.
On Sept 16, 1988, Bernadro Jr. accompanied his
father to sell 41 sacks of copra in Davao. They hired
the Malita brothers. After they have sold the copras,
Bernardo Sr. paid the Malita brothers and they parted
ways. According to the testimony of Gina Quidato,
she allegedly heard that accused appellant and the
Malita brothers were planning to get money from
Bernardo Sr. and she went to sleep at around 10pm so
she did not know what transpired next. The accused
Bernardo Jr. raised the issue of marital
disqualification rule when his wife gave the
testimony against him.
According to the testimony of the Malita brothers,
they went to the house of Bernardo Sr., Bernardo Jr.
knocked on the door and when the old man opened
the door, the son pushed his father and hacked him
with his bolo.
They looked for money in the aparador but found
none so they left.
The body of Bernarndo Sr. was found by his
grandson when he called his grandfather for
breakfast. Leo Quidato then confronted his brother
and the (3) accused were arrested. During the
custodial investigation, the Malita brothers made an
extrajudicial confessionof what transpired even
without the presence of the counsel. Their testimonies
testimonies in front of Atty. Jonathan Jocom the next
morning after having been apprised of their
constitutional rights.
Issue: WON, the evidence presented by the
prosecution are admissible and sufficient to convict
the accused beyond reasonable doubt?
Held:
NO. Bernardo Quidato Jr. must be acquitted for
inadmissibility of evidence. His guilt was not proven
beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution relied
heavily on the affidavits executed by the Malita
brothers. However, the brothers were not presented
on the 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 excluded from the
judicial proceedings, being inadmissible hearsay. The
voluntary admissions of an accused made
extrajudicially are not admissible in evidence against
his co accused when the latter had not been given the
opportunity to hear him testify and cross examine
him. Solicitor General invoked Sec 30, Rule 130: this
rule is inapplicable because the confession were
made after the conspiracy. The manner by which the
affidavits were obtained by the police render the
same inadmissible in evidence 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 in the absence of counsel although they
signed the same in the presence of the counsel the
next day.
In People v. De Jesus: admissions obtained during
custodial interrogations without the benefit of counsel
although later reduced to writing a signed in the
presence of counsel are still flawed under the
constitution. As to the testimony of Gina Quidato –
the wife, she is disqualified from testifying against
her husband. What cannot be done directly cannot be
done indirectly – marital disqualification rule.
Suspicion, no matter how strong, should not sway
judgement; 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.