G.R. No. 125938 April 4, 2003 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs.

JOEL
JANSON and RICKY PINANTAO alias "OGCO",

An extrajudicial confession by an accused implicating another may not be utilized unless

repeated in open court or when there is an opportunity for the co-accused to cross-
examine the confessant on his extrajudicial statements. It is considered hearsay as against
said co-accused under the res inter alios acta rule, which ordains that the rights of a party
cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another.52

G.R. No. 77865 December 4, 1998 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. RAFAEL
OLIVARES, JR. and DANILO ARELLANO, appellants.

In any case, said extrajudicial confession of one accused may not be utilized against a co-
accused unless they are repeated in open court or when there is an opportunity to cross-
examine the other on his extrajudicial statements. It is considered hearsay as against said
accused under the rule on res enter alios acta rule, which ordains that the rights of a party
cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another.37

G.R. No. 102005 January 25, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
FORTUNATO PAMON, GERSON DULANG alias "Toto", AND JOHN DOE alias
"Dodo", accused-appellants

The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of

another.23 An extrajudicial confession is binding only upon the confessant and is not
admissible against his co-accused. 24 This is so because the co-accused has no opportunity
to cross-examine the confessant and thus, as against him, the confession is hearsay.

G.R. No. 187094 LIZA L. MAZA, SATURNINO C. OCAMPO, TEODORO A. CASINO,

AND RAFAEL V. MARIANO, Petitioners vs. HON. EVELYN A. TURLA, in her capacity
as Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court of Palayan City, Regional Trial Court of
Palayan City, in his capacity as Officer-in-Charge Provincial Prosecutor, ANTONIO LL.
LAPUS, JR., EDISON V. RAFANAN, and EDDIE C. GUTIERREZ, in their capacity as
members of the panel of investigating prosecutors, and RAUL M. GONZALEZ, in his
capacity as Secretary of Justice, Respondents
The admissibility of evidence cannot be ruled upon in a preliminary investigation.

In a preliminary investigation,

... the public prosecutors do not decide whether there is evidence beyond reasonable
doubt of the guilt of the person charged; they merely determine whether there is
sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and
that respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.83

To emphasize, "a preliminary investigation is merely preparatory to a trial[;] [i]t is not a

trial on the merits."84 Since "it cannot be expected that upon the filing of the information
in court the prosecutor would have already presented all the evidence necessary to secure
a conviction of the accused,"85 the admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence cannot be
ruled upon in a preliminary investigation.

G.R. No. 85204 June 18, 1990 JORGE TAER, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF
APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

the settled rule is that the rights of a party can not be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or
omission of another. 14

The testimony, being res inter alios acta, can not affect another except as provided in the
Rules of Court. This rule on res inter alios acta specifically applies when the evidence
consists of an admission in an extrajudicial confession or declaration of another because
the defendant has no opportunity to cross-examine the co-conspirator testifying against
him. 15