University of the Philippines College of Law

Topic IV. Admissions and Confessions; C. Res Inter Alios Acta

Case No. 4; G.R. No. 98494-98692 | July 17, 2003 (7 consolidated petitions)
Case Name ALVIZO v. SANDIGANBAYAN
Rogelio Alvizo, Florito Montecillo, Pompeyo Almagro and Catalino Magno, Jr.
(plus 11 others in 6 petitions) v. The Honorable Sandiganbayan and People of
the Philippines
Ponente Austria-Martinez, J.
Digester Danielle DC

Quick Facts
Cause of Action
(Complaint/ Information)
Evidence in Question
How was it raised to the SC?
Trial Court Decision
Supreme Court Decisions
397 criminal cases with the Sandiganbayan
charging certain officials and employees of the
government as well as private contractors with
violation of RA 3019
Pleas of guilt of petitioners’ alleged co-conspirators
Consolidated petitions for review
on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
filed by the accused which seek to annul the
Decision of the Sandiganbayan finding them guilty
on different counts of violation of Republic Act
No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act), and the Resolution denying their respective
motions for reconsideration.
N/A
Convictions of 11 petitioners of violation of
Section 3(e) of RA 3019 are affirmed.

RELEVANT FACTS
 In 1978, a team from the Commission on Audit (COA) was organized to verify the alleged
issuances of fake Letters of Advice of Allotments (LAAs) and Sub-Advices of Cash
Disbursement Ceilings (SACDCs) during the period of 1976-1978 in various Highway
Engineering Districts (HEDs) of Region VII.
 The Audit team found out that fake LAAs and SACDCs were indeed issued in the year
1977 leading to irregular disbursements of public funds for the payment of ghost projects.
 The investigations resulted in the filing of 397 criminal cases with the Sandiganbayan charging
certain officials and employees of the government as well as private contractors with violation of
RA 3019.
 The accused were engineers, regional directors, accountants, property custodian of Cebu 2nd
HED of Region VII of the Ministry of Public Highways (MPH)—now DPWH—and COA
auditors and private contractors and suppliers.
 University of the Philippines College of Law

 Accused Fe delos Reyes (District Auditing Examiner) and Delia Preagido (Region VII
Accountant III) were discharged and utilized as state witnesses. They testified that the
conspiracy happened and described the acts committed to facilitate the scheme.
 Upon being duly arraigned under each of the separate Informations wherein they were
charged, all the rest of the accused pleaded not guilty.
 The allegations of the COA auditors regarding their violations of Sec. 3 (e) of RA 3019 were
denied by accused, saying they had nothing to do with the preparation and simulation of the
LAAs and SACDCs which originated from the Regional Office.
 Eventually, the Sandiganbayan convicted the accused under Section 3, paragraph (e) of RA
3019 for finding all the elements of crime present.
o Except for Manuel de Veyra, who was acquitted, all the other accused, which include
herein petitioners, were convicted in all the criminal cases they were respectively
charged. They were sentenced in each of the 199 cases to an indeterminate penalty
ranging from 4 years and 1 day as the minimum, to 8 years and 1 day as the maximum
and to indemnify the Government of the amounts defrauded in each case.
 Petitioners filed their respective motions for reconsideration which were all denied by the
Sandiganbayan in a Resolution.
 Among the numerous issues by the petitioners, the one of note was “the Sandiganbayan
committed a grave error of law when it gave weight to the pleas of guilty of some of the co-
accused in the aforementioned cases and considered said pleas of guilty as competent and
admissible against the petitioners.”
 Hence, the herein consolidated petitions for review.

ISSUE/S
 Whether the pleas of guilt of their alleged co-conspirators should be given evidentiary value and
given weight in determining the petitioners’ guilt – YES

RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue
Whether the pleas of guilt
of their alleged co-
conspirators should be
given evidentiary value and
given weight in
determining the
petitioners’ guilt – YES
Ratio
YES. The Court affirms the conviction by the Sandiganbayan. The
contention of petitioners Rabayas that the court erred in giving
evidentiary value to the pleas of guilty of accused Mangubat,
Gabison and Echavez as it violated the hearsay and res inter alios
acta rule, is devoid of merit.
1. The SolGen aptly refuted the argument of petitioners:
a. The rule of res inter alios acta, mentioned by petitioners, is
embodied in Section 28 of Rule 130, Rules of Court.
However, this aforecited rule allow exceptions one of
these being Section 30 on admissions by a co-conspirator.
b. Gabison, Mangubat and Echavez were charged together with
petitioners for having acted in conspiracy with one another to
 University of the Philippines College of Law

commit the offenses. The pleas of guilty of some of the

accused are admissions of the truth of the accusations that
they committed acts of falsifications done during the
existence of the conspiracy.
c. The Sandiganbayan merely declared that the pleas of guilty
confirmed the issuance and release of fake or simulated
LAAs and SACDCs, the irregular, improper and illegal
preparation, execution and processing of the general
vouchers and their supporting documents, and the non-
delivery of materials and non-prosecution of ghost
projects. In short, the pleas of guilty were merely
confirmatory: they confirmed the facts already established
by other evidence of the prosecution.
d. Said pleas were not used by the Sandiganbayan to convict
petitioners for, as already mentioned, even if the pleas
were completely disregarded, the prosecution had
already succeeded in proving petitioners guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
e. The Sandiganbayan did not convict petitioners on the basis
of the pleas of guilty. The Sandiganbayan merely said that
the prosecution’s case had been amply supported and
strengthened by the pleas of guilty entered by the three. The
pleas of guilty are in themselves evidence that the pleaders
committed the acts mentioned in the Informations. The pleas
certainly have corroborative effect on the evidence-in-
chief of the prosecution. There is no rule violated by the
Sandiganbayan when it considered the pleas of guilty.
2. Petitioners could assert that the confessions, i.e. the pleas of guilty,
were not made during the existence of the conspiracy (Rule 130,
Sec. 30). However, it is submitted that said pleas are still
admissible against petitioners as co-conspirators because the
pleas were made in open court.
a. In other words, they are judicial confessions.
b. The rule embodied in Sec. 30 that the declaration of a
conspirator made after the termination of the conspiracy
is inadmissible against his co-conspirator applies only to
an extra-judicial confession, and not to a plea of guilty,
which is a judicial confession. In this very specific
instance, the rule of res inter alios acta does not apply
because the confessions embodied in the pleas of guilty
are judicial confessions, not extra-judicial ones.

RULING

WHEREFORE, Convictions of 11 petitioners of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 are affirmed.