You are on page 1of 4


ADMISSION AGAINST INTEREST strong evidence, that she made the admission or, admitting
RULE 130, SEC 26 it, to prove that she was not guilty of killing her husband. As
earlier shown, the trial court characterized her story as
US V CHING PO palpably a put-up scenario .... [A] story which runs against
GR NO. 7707 the grain of ordinary reality, controverts logic and assails
common sense. The five reasons enumerated by it to
JUAN YSMAEL AND CO V HASIM support this conclusion are founded on or are inferred from
GR 26247 facts duly established by the prosecution or are otherwise
solidly based on common experience, logic, and common
2. Rule 130, Sec 26 and Sec 33 sense.

People vs. Lorenzo The testimony of the accused is not credible where he
240 SCRA 624 has adopted an attitude of indifference relative to the crime
January 26, 1995 he is accused of and where he failed to inform the police
authorities and the fiscal during the investigation that it was
FACTS: Agapito Lorenzo and accused Dolores Lorenzo were not he but somebody else who committed the crime.The
spouses. PO1 Dolores Lorenzo, a policewoman immediately appellants failure to assert, at any part of the entire event,
surrendered to Police Eclipse a blood-stained bolo and a fan from the time she went with Eclipse to the police station up to
knife and told him, "I killed my husband". the time she was committed to jail and even thereafter until
she took the witness stand, that it was not she who killed her
husband only serves to reinforce and strengthen this Courts
The two proceeded to where the victim was. In the presence
respect for the trial courts finding that her story that it was
and within the hearing of said barangay official,
not she but Robert Santos who did her husband in, is shot.
Policewoman Lorenzo again said, "I'm surrendering because I
We find it incredible that a peace officer and a wife of the
killed my husband".
victim would not forthwith denounce or reveal the identity of
the assailant if it were true that it was not she who killed her
The defense painted another picture of the incident. It's husband, This Court has held that the testimony of the
theory is that it was not Policewoman Lorenzo but a certain accused is not credible where he has adopted an attitude of
Robert Santos who killed Agapito. indifference relative to the crime he is accused of and where
he failed to inform the police authorities and the fiscal during
the investigation that it was not he but somebody else who
ISSUE: Whether the trial courts characterization of the committed the murder.
appellants declaration that she killed her husband is
an extrajudicial confession? Circumstantial Evidence; An accused could be
convicted based on circumstantial evidence where the
RULING: Parricide; Admissions and Confessions, circumstances constitute an unbroken chain which leads to
Distinguished.We do not, however, agree with the trial one fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the
courts characterization of the appellants declaration that accused to the exclusion of all others as the guilty person.
she killed her husband as an extrajudicial confession. It is only Even granting for the sake of argument that the appellant
an admission. It is clear from Sections 26 and 33, Rule 130 of only surrendered a blood-stained bolo and a fan knife but
the Rules of Court that there is a distinction between did not admit that she killed her husband, we find in this case
an admission and a confession. These sections read as several circumstances whose concordant combination and
follows: SEC. 26. Admission of a party.The act, declaration cumulative effect point to the appellant, to the exclusion of
or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in all others, as the guilty party. These circumstances constitute
evidence against him. * * * SEC. 33. Confession. an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable
The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the conclusion that points to the appellant, to the exclusion of all
offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included others, as the guilty person. The requirements then of Section
therein, may be given in evidence against him. In a 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court on the sufficiency of
confession, there is an acknowledgment of guilt. Admission is circumstantial evidence to convict the appellant are present.
usually applied in criminal cases to statements of fact by the
accused which do not directly involve an acknowledgment
of guilt of the accused or of the criminal intent to commit the CMS LOGGING V CA
offense with which he is charged. GR 41420

An admissible confession or admission which has been duly 3. CONCEPT OF SELF-SERVING EVIDENCE
proved shifts to the accused the burden of evidence to
disprove, by strong evidence, that he made the admission, or NDC V WORKSMENS COMPENSATION
admitting it, that he is not guilty of the crime.Nevertheless, GR NO. L-21724
whether it was a confession or an admission, it was admissible
against the appellant and, having been duly proved,
together with the other facts and circumstances, the burden
of the evidence was shifted to the appellant to disprove, by

PEOPLE V SOPE (1946) The repeated offer of a conspirator constitutes a strong
indication and an implied admission of guilt of said
FACTS: Dimalanta, Sope and Cruz were charged with conspirator and the 2 accused in this case.
robbery. The CFI found them guilty.
Re: It is not bribery, it is robbery! Prosecutor was right in
The testimony of Juliana Chan stated that: charging the accused of Robbery.

When she was on her way home at 6pm, a calesa stopped in They pretended to be peace officers and employed threats
front of her. From the calesa, came down Sope and Cruz. and intimidation to obtain P200, this is obviously robbery
Sope pointed a revolver at her and Cruz poked a hard object
at her back, while Dimalanta remained in the calesa. Although it seems true what the appellants testified that
Juliana Chua was carrying a bundle containing contraband
Cruz and Dimalanta pretended to be peace officers and and for fear of discovery her husband ran away and did not
that she was found violation the law unlawfully dealing in US come back, there was no evidence regarding said
Army goods. They stopped at Victory Cafe Dimalanta contraband other than the testimony of the accused WHICH
and Cruz asked her to have coffee with them, yet still IS NOT POSITIVE NOR CONVINCING.
threatening her to give them money.
Re: Self-serving testimonies
She gave P200. She reported the incident so the 3 of them
were arrested. Such testimony coming as it does from the accused who
naturally want to exculpate themselves, cannot be regarded
She claims that Dimalantas lawyer (Atty. VEGA) offered to as free from bias and desire to so intensify the details thereof
settle the case by paying back P200 on the condition that as to suit their case.
she would not testify against Dimalanta because she did not
really see him among those who held her up anyway. She The disappearance of the husband does nothing to
turned this down. unfavorable to the prosecution because he might have gone
to a policeman
Atty. RESURECION (also in behalf of Dimalanta) managed to
pay her P120

Dimalanta did not appeal. PEOPLE V OCAMPO

GR NO. 80262
Sope and Cruz appealed contending:

Their guilt beyond reasonable doubt was not proven 5. ADMISSION BY DECLARATION
That she was actually carrying contraband items and
for fear of discovery, her husband fled the scene and SISON V AMBALADA
did not come back for her (the SC, in the ratio, seem
to connote that they testified this during the trial) FACTS: Julian Ambalada and Modesta Afable lived together
Her testimony is inconsistent and contradict each as husband and wife from 1870 until July 30, 1886, when
other. The CFI convicted them on the basis of her Modesta Afable died. During their union, as Ambalada
lone testimony himself testified at the trial, eight children were born to them,
By what she testified, it should have been bribery not of whom Maria Ambalada alone survived her mother. This
robbery! Maria married Sancho Sison on September 19, 1890, having
three children, Vicente, Maria Consolacin, and Conrado, all
surnamed Sison.
OSG CONTENDS: repeated negotiations for the dropping of
the case is an admission on the part of the conspirator These three grandchildren of Ambalada and Af able
Dimalanta. have instituted the present suit against Julian Ambalada
seeking liquidation of the estate belonging to the conjugal
ISSUE: Whether they were guilty beyond reasonable doubt? partnership between Julian Ambalada and Modesta Af able,
YES! and partition of the property constituting it, so that to them
might be adjudicated the half of its products belonging to
DISPOSITIVE: Conviction. the portion of the spouse who died first, Modesta Afable. For
this purpose the plaintiffs enumerate in their complaint six
Contradictions and inconsistencies of the principal witness parcels of land as constituting the conjugal partnership
are not serious enough to affect her credibility. The trial judge property mentioned.
had opportunity to observe her demeanor while on the stand
and gave it full weight and credit as against those of the The defendant Julian Ambalada denies the existence of the
appellants. It was duly established that their lawyers conjugal partnership he is said to have had with Modesta
managed to negotiate the dropping of the case by paying Afable, to whom, he avers, he was never legally married. He
the amount allegedly taken from her acknowledges in his written answer that he had had by
Modesta Afable among other children (four altogether
Admission by conduct in this case: enumerated in the instrument) Maria Ambalada, who, he
says was born on September 11, 1875, and died on
November 12, 1902, leaving the plaintiffs as her sole Consunji and Alfonso Panganiban without prior proof
descendants. of conspiracy.

HELD: Whatever may have been the proof required by the Issue: WON the lower court is correct in excluding the
legislation prior to the Civil Code, and that required by it, prosecutionss evidence (extra-judicial confession by
which requirements were not put into force, it is a fact that in Consunji)?
Act No. 190, by which the courts must be governed, there
exists the presumption of law that a man and woman who No. We believe that the lower Court committed a grave
are living together as husband and wife have entered into a abuse of discretion in ordering the complete exclusion of the
legal contract of marriage. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 334, No. prosecution's evidence on the alleged confessions of the
28.) accused Juan Consunji at the stage of the trial when the
ruling was made.
LACK or RECORD.The mere absence of the record of the
marriage in the books of the church in which the marriage Section 14, Rule 123, Rules of Court, is specific as to the
took place does not destroy that presumption, when the admissibility of the extrajudicial confession of an accused,
husband himself acknowledges, and so testifies at the trial, freely and voluntarily made, as evidence against him.
that he and the woman to whom he was united from 1870 to
July 30, 1886, lived continuously as husband and wife, and
SEC. 14. Confession. The declaration of an accused
were regarded as such by their own parents and by public
expressly acknowledging the truth of his guilt as to the offense
opinion, it being publicly known -in the town in which they
charged, may be given in evidence against him.
lived that said woman was his lawful wife, sharing in all his
titles; and when they had during this existence as husband
and wife eight legitimate children, who were regarded by Under the rule of multiple admissibility of evidence, even if
everybody as their children. Consunji's confession may not be competent as against his
co-accused Panganiban, being hearsay as to the latter, or to
prove conspiracy between them without the conspiracy
EVIDENCE.The legal presumption is further corroborated by
being established by other evidence, the confession of
competent parol evidence, which in the present case
Consunji was, nevertheless, admissible as evidence of the
isunanimous and supports the claim with reference to the
declarant's own guilt and should be admitted.
performance of the marriage and to other points regarding
the fact, not the least of which are acts of the husband
himself, who in various documents stated that he was married WON section 12 of Rule 123 is applicable in the case at bar?
during the time he lived with the woman and an element of
proof exists in writing in various public and official instruments. No. The rule cited by the Court below in support of its
exclusion of the proffered evidence is Sec. 12 of Rule 123,
providing that the act or declaration of a conspirator relating
to the conspiracy and during its existence may be given in
PEOPLE VS. YATCO evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is
shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.
FACTS: Manifestly, the rule refers to statements made by one
conspirator during the pendency of the unlawful
1. Juan Consunji, Alfonso Panganiban, and another enterprises("during its existence") and in furtherance of its
whose identity is still unknown, were charged with object, and not to a confession made, as in this case, long
having conspired together in the murder of one Jose after the conspiracy had been brought to an end.
2. During the progress of the trial, counsel for the Besides, the prosecution had not yet offered the confessions
defendant Panganiban interposed a general to prove conspiracy between the two accused, nor as
objection to any evidence on such confession made evidence against both of them. In fact, the alleged
by defendant consunji on the ground that it was confessions (both in writing and in tape recordings) had not
hearsay and therefore incompetent as against the yet even been identified, much less formally offered in
other accused Panganiban. evidence. For all we know, the prosecution might still be able
3. The lower court ordered the exclusion of the to adduce other proof of conspiracy between Consunji and
objected evidence but on a different ground which Panganiban before their confessions are formally offered in
is the prosecution could not be permitted to evidence. Assuming, therefore, that section 12 of Rule 123
introduce the confessions of defendants Juan also applies to the confessions in question, it was premature
Consunji and Alfonso Panganiban to prove for the respondent Court to exclude them completely on the
conspiracy between them, without prior proof of ground that there was no prior proof of conspiracy.
such conspiracy by a number of definite acts,
conditions, and circumstances. WON the court has the power to disregard evidence?
4. OSG filed a petition for cetiorari before the SC for the (Related to the topic Objections)
review and annulment of the lower Court's order
completely excluding any evidence on the The court does not have the said power.
extrajudicial confessions of the accused Juan

The exclusion of the proferred confessions was not made on ISSUE: whether the trial court committed a reversible error in
the basis of the objection interposed by Panganiban's finding that there was conspiracy between the accused-
counsel, but upon an altogether different ground, which the appellant and his co-accused.
Court issued motu proprio. Panganiban's counsel objected to
Consunji's confession as evidence of the guilt of the other
accused Panganiban, on the ground that it was hearsay as
to the latter. But the Court, instead of ruling on this objection, HELD: Criminal Law; Conspiracy; When one is considered a
put up its own objection to the confessions that it could not party to a conspiracy.One is considered a party to a
be admitted to prove conspiracy between Consunji and conspiracy when he intentionally participates in an act or
Panganiban without prior evidence of such conspiracy by a deed with a view to the furtherance of common design and
number of indefinite acts, conditions, circumstances, etc. purpose. There must be unity of purpose and unity in the
and completely excluded the confessions on that ground. By execution of the unlawful objective. Mere knowledge,
so doing, the Court overlooked that the right to object is a acquiescense, or approval of the act, without cooperation or
mere privilege which the parties may waive; and if the agreement to cooperate, is not enough. Moreover,
ground for objection is known and not reasonably made, the conspiracy implies concept of design but not participation in
objection is deemed waived and the Court has no power, on every detail of execution.
its own motion, to disregard the evidence.
Same; Same; Liability ofthe conspirator.When the
conspiracy to commit the crime of robbery was conclusively
shown by the concerted acts of the accused, and homicide
was committed as a consequence thereof all those who
RULE 130, SEC 32
participated are liable as principals in the robbery with
homicide, although they did not actually take part in the
PEOPLE V PARAGSA homicide, unless it appears that they attempted to prevent
the killing. The question as to who actually robbed or who
GR NO. L-44060 actually killed is of no moment, since all of them would be
held accountable for the crime of robbery with homicide.

RULE 130, SEC 30
GR NO L-9181

GR 12794

GR L- 77964

FACTS: Alfredo C. Mabuhay and his girlfriend, as they were

conversing, two male persons approached them. One of
themlater identified as accused-appellant Edgardo
Salvadorheld Susan and pushed her to the ground in a
lying position, while the otherlater identified as accused
Ricardo Manoscadid the same to Alfredo. Manosca then
announced that it was a hold-up as both men poked knives
at their victims. Alfredo readily gave his wallet to Manosca.
Susan, who was being held by Salvador, offered some
resistance out of fear.

Thereafter, Some construction workers in the vicinity rescued

Alfredo who told them that he and his girlfriend were
attacked and robbed. The workers summoned the police
who arrived shortly and brought Alfredo to the Ospital ng
Maynila for treatment of his wounds. The peace officers told
Alfredo that his girlfriend was already dead.

The accused-appellant and his co-accused Ricardo

Manosca, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide and physical injuries.