PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BERNARDO QUIDATO, JR.

, accused-
appellant.

FACTS:

Accused Bernardo Quidato Jr was accused of parricide. He and two co-conspirators allegedly attacked
with a bolo and iron bars hack and stab the victim, Bernardo Quidato Sr., appellant’s father and
namesake, which caused the victim’s untimely demise.

Among those presented as witness were accused’s wife and brother. Also presented were the
extrajudicial confessions of appellant’s two other co-accused. Appellant’s wife testified that while the
accused were drinking tuba she overheard them saying that they were planning to go to the victim’s
house on the night of the incident in order to “get money” and that she had no idea of what later
transpired. Appellant objected to his wife’s testimony as it was prohibited by the rule on marital
disqualification. Appellant likewise denies the allegations of his co-accused who in their extrajudicial
confession pointed to the participation of appellant.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the extrajudicial confessions should be given credence as they were obtained in
violation of the constitutional right of appellant to confront witnesses.

2. Whether or not the testimony of appellant’s wife is disqualified.

HELD:

1. NO. They should not be given credence, and indeed, appellant should be acquitted. The prosecution
relied heavily on appellant’s co-accused’s affidavits. However, the failure to present the affiants in the
witness stand 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
accused made extrajudicially are not admissible in evidence against his co-accused when the latter had
not been given an opportunity to hear him testify and cross-examine him.”

Section 30, Rule 130 is not applicable in this case because it refers to confessions made during the
existence of the conspiracy. In this case, the conspiracy had clearly ended by the time the confession
was made.

2. YES. The testimony of appellant’s wife must be disregarded. 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, but not where the testimony will be used against the accused-
husband directly or indirectly.

DECISION:

Given the inadmissibility of accused’s wife’s testimony and the extrajudicial confession of co-accused,
the appellant is hereby ACQUITTED.