Issue: WON the conviction of Sabas and Valeriano based on the
testimony of Amado Ponce, the alleged conspirator. Facts: 1. Spouses Juliet and Agapito Gambalan, Jr., Agapito thinking that their Held: neighbor is in need, attended to the person knocking at the backdoor of their kitchen. Much to his surprise, heavily armed men 1. NO. Both Juliet Gambalan and George Jovillano testified that they were not able to identify the 2 other persons who fled the scene of the emerged at the door, declared a hold-up and fired their guns at crime. The extrajudicial statements of an accused implicating a co- him. His wife Juliet after hearing the gun shots went out of their accused may not be utilized against the latter, unless these are repeated room and saw his dead husband while a masked man took her in open court. If the accused never had the opportunity to cross- husband’s gun and fled. She called out for help at their window and examine his co-accused on the latters extrajudicial statements, it is saw a man fall beside their water pump while2 other men ran away. elementary that the same are hearsay as against said accused.That is George Jovillano came and reported the incident to the police. They exactly the situation, and the disadvantaged plight of appellants, in the case at bar. arrested one of the accused wounded and identified as Amado Ponce. 2. Extreme caution should be exercised by the courts in dealing with 2.The latter then revealed that the other 2 perpetrators were Sabas and the confession of an accused which implicates his co-accused. A Valeriano Raquel. The 2 were then arrested in separate occasions. distinction, obviously, should be made between extrajudicial and judicial confessions. The former deprives the other accused of the Valeriano alleged that he was staying in Maguindanao staying at his opportunity to cross-examine the confessant, while in the latter his sister’s wife when the incident happened. He admitted that the said confession is thrown wide open for cross-examination and rebuttal.[ house was on the same Barangay as that of the victim. Sabas on the 3. The res inter alios rule ordains that the rights of a party cannot be other hand was a soldier and T/Sgt. Natalio Zafra, his superior testified prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another. An that he was on duty at the time the incident happened. The trial court extrajudicial confession is binding only upon the confessant and is not held them guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of robbery with admissible against his co-accused. The reason for the rule is that, on a homicide based on the testimony of Amado Ponce, their alleged principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a mans own acts are conspirator. Amado unfortunately escaped from prison and was not binding upon himself, and are evidence against him. So are his conduct cross-examined. and declarations. Yet it would not only be rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts of mere 3. They also alleged that Sabas went to the clinic and used the name unauthorized strangers; and if a party ought not to be bound by the acts Dante Clemente to hide his true identity. of strangers, neither ought their acts or conduct be used as evidence against him. 4. Except for that extrajudicial statement of accused Amado Ponce, there exists no evidence whatsoever linking appellants to the crime. In fact, the testimony of police Sgt. Andal S. Pangato that appellant Sabas Raquel was wounded and went to the clinic of Dr. Anulao for treatment using the name Dante Clemente,[18] was negated by Dr. Anulao himself who testified that he treated no person by the name of Danny Clemente. Also, The extrajudicial statements made by Amado violated his Constitutional Rights since Extrajudicial statements made during custodial investigation without the assistance of counsel are inadmissible and cannot be considered in the adjudication of the case. While the right to counsel may be waived, such waiver must be made with the assistance of counsel.