Marital Disqualification Rule

People v. Quidato Jr.

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.

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.