Ppl vs janjalani Elmer Andales- conductor Baharan and Trinidad- two men who planted bomb in bus Asali-bomb

maker Facts: On feb 14 2005, a bus was going from Navotas to Alabang. Two men got on the bus. Both seemed suspicious according to Elmer Andales, the conductor. The two men alighted in Ayala Ave. and the bus exploded. After the explosion, the spokesperson for abu sayyaff announced over radio that the explosion was a valentines gift. Accused Asali, member of abu sayaff, gave a television interview, confessing that he had supplied the explosive devices for the 14 February 2005 bombing. The bus conductor identified the accused Baharan and Trinidad, and confirmed that they were the two men who had entered the RRCG bus on the evening of 14 February. Asali testified that he had given accused Baharan and Trinidad the TNT used in the bombing incident in Makati City. Accused contend that the testimony of Asali is inadmissible pursuant to Sec. 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. Issue: w/n Asalis testimony admissible? Yes Held: It is true that under the rule, statements made by a conspirator against a coconspirator are admissible only when made during the existence of the conspiracy. However, as the Court ruled in People v. Buntag, if the declarant repeats the statement in court, his extrajudicial confession becomes a judicial admission, making the testimony admissible as to both conspirators.[27] Thus, in People v. Palijon, the Court held the following: [W]e must make a distinction between extrajudicial and judicial confessions. An extrajudicial confession may be given in evidence against the confessant but not against his co-accused as they are deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine him. A judicial confession is admissible against the declarants coaccused since the latter are afforded opportunity to cross-examine the former. Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court applies only to extrajudicial acts or admissions and not to testimony at trial where the party adversely affected has the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. Mercenes admission implicating his co-accused was given on the witness stand. It is admissible in evidence against appellant Palijon. Moreover, where several accused are tried together for the same offense, the testimony of a co-accused implicating his co-accused is competent evidence against the latter.[28]