GERRY A. SALAPUDDIN vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, GOV. JUM AKBAR, and NOR-RHAMA J.

INDANAN

G.R. No. 184681, February 25, 2013

FACTS:

Shortly after the adjournment of the day’s session in Congress, a bomb exploded near the entrance of the
South Wing lobby of the House of Representatives (HOR) in the Batasan Complex which led to the death of
Congressman Wahab Akbar, and four others, and the inflicting of serious injuries on seven other
Representatives.

The post-blast investigation revealed that the explosion was caused by an improvised bomb planted on a
motorcycle that was parked near the entrance stairs of the South Wing lobby.

Acting on a confidential information that the person who parked the motorcycle near the South Wing
lobby of the HOR was staying with members of the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG), police officers raided an
alleged ASG safehouse in Quezon City which lead to the arrest of Aunal, Ikram and Kusain. Several items
were likewise seized from the premises.

Aunal, Ikram and Kusain gave their sworn statements. In one of the affidavits executed by Ikram, the driver
of petitioner Gerry Salapuddin, he said that he heard Salapuddin ordering Redwan to kill Rep. Akbar of
Basilan.

Salapuddin went to Camp Crame and voluntarily gave a sworn statement denying any knowledge of the
Batasan bombing. He asserted that his name was being used by the media only because of his relationship
with the persons arrested in connection with the incident: Ikram was his former driver; Aunal, his former
brother-in-law; and Kusain who once sought his assistance for employment.

Subsequently, based on the affidavits of Jamiri, Ikram and Aunal, a case was filed against Aunal, Ikram, and
Kusain. Later, Prosecutor Zuño approved the DOJ Resolution which recommended the amendment of the
Information to include respondent Salapuddin, Kusain, PO1 Bayan Judda, and Jang Hataman in the
pending case.

Salapuddin filed a Petition for Review with the Office of the Secretary of Justice (SOJ) asserting that there
is no evidence other than of Ikram’s statements that will support the finding of probable cause to indict
him for murder and multiple frustrated murder.

Hence, the SOJ issued a Resolution excluding Salapuddin from the Information after observing that the
only material evidence against Salapuddin are the statements of Ikram. The Secretary found the
statements of Ikram unworthy of belief for being laden with irreconcilable inconsistencies and
contradictions and for being obtained through force and intimidation. Moreover, it found nothing on
record that will indicate that Salapuddin performed the overt acts of the offense charged.

In a Petition for Certiorari, herein respondents Jum Akbar and Nor-Rhama Indanan questioned the SOJ
Resolution above before the CA.
The CA set aside the SOJ Resolution and held that the totality of the evidence sufficiently indicates the
probability that Salapuddin lent moral and material support or assistance to the perpetrators in the
commission of the crime. Salapuddin's motion for reconsideration was denied.

Thereafter, Salapuddin filed a petition with the SC ascribing on the CA the commission of grave error in
according full probative value to Ikram’s extrajudicial confession implicating him even if it was riddled with
serious contradictions and inconsistencies.

The SC denied the petition. However, later, his Motion for Reconsideration was granted.

ISSUE:

WON the inclusion of Salapuddin in the amended information for multiple murder and multiple frustrated
murder was proper

RULING:

NO. The inclusion of Salapuddin in the amended information was improoper because the evidence
presented against him did NOT sufficiently establish the probable cause to indict him for the offenses he
was accused of.

A review of the records showed that the only direct material evidence against Salapuddin, as he had
pointed out at every conceivable turn, was the confession made by Ikram. While the confession was
arguably relevant, it was not the evidence competent to establish the probability that Salapuddin
participated in the commission of the crime.

On the contrary, as pointed out by the SOJ, said confession cannot be considered against Salapuddin on
account of the principle of res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet expressed in Section 28 (now
Section 29), Rule 130 of the Rules of Court:

Sec. 28. Admission by third-party. – The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided.

Clearly thus, an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant. It cannot be admitted against his
or her co-accused and is considered as hearsay against them.

The exception provided under Sec. 30 (now Sec 31) of Rule 130 to the effect of allowing the admission of a
conspirator requires the prior establishment of the conspiracy by evidence other than the confession.

In this case, there was no proof demonstrating the participation of Salapuddin in a conspiracy to set off a
bomb in the Batasan grounds and thereby kill Rep. Akbar. Not one of the other persons arrested and
subjected to custodial investigation professed that Salapuddin was involved in the plan to set off a bomb
in the Batasan grounds.
This Court, however, has previously stressed that mere association with the principals by direct
participation, without more, does not suffice. Relationship, association and companionship do not prove
conspiracy. Salapuddin’s complicity to the crime, if this be the case, cannot be anchored on his
relationship, if any, with the arrested persons or his ownership of the place where they allegedly stayed
while in Manila.

It must be shown that the person concerned has performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of
the complicity. In fact, mere knowledge, acquiescence or approval of the act, without the cooperation or
approval to cooperate, is not sufficient to prove conspiracy. There must be positive and conclusive factual
evidence indicating the existence of conspiracy, and not simple inferences, conjectures and speculations
speciously sustained because “it cannot be mere coincidence.”

The investigating prosecutors themselves were aware of the need for other clear and positive evidence of
conspiracy aside from the confession of a supposed co-conspirator in charging a person with a crime
committed in conspiracy.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED and the Decision dated August 6, 2008 and Resolution dated October
16, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 103461 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Resolution of
the Secretary of Justice dated April 23, 2008 in I.S. No. 2007-992 is REINSTATED.

Accordingly, let the name of Gerry A. Salapuddin be stricken off and excluded from the Information for the complex
crime of multiple murder and frustrated murder filed in Criminal Case No. Q-07-149982, Regional Trial Court, Branch
83 in Quezon City.