People of the Philippines v. Palijon, et al.

G.R. No. 123545 – Oct. 18, 2000

Second Division| J. Quisumbing

Topic: Evidence – Rule 130 Sec. 31. Admission by conspirator

Case Summary: On the night of August 27, 1993, Rodelo Palijon, Carlos Decena, and Jim Mercene broke into
the house of Sps. Reyes and Mellorequina Reyes. The three accused took cash and jewelry. While committing
the felonious act, they assaulted Mr. and Mrs. Reyes. Mr. Reyes was repeatedly struck by a steel-edged stool,
causing him to faint. When they brought to the hospital, Mr. Reyes died due to his injuries. The prosecution
presented conspirator Jim Mercene as one of the witnesses. In his testimony, Mercene stated that Palijon and
Pria were also co-conspirators of the crime. Mercene alleged that while Myra Pria was not part of the group
who actually went to the house, it was her who initiated the plan. Moreover, it was mentioned that Pria and
Decena were live-in partners. The RTC found Pria and Palijon guilty. Hence, this appeal. Palijon contends that
he did not conspire with the others. According to Palijon, the trial court erred in convicting him on the basis of
the testimonies of his alleged conspirators, and that the testimonies of Mercen and Decena could not be taken
against him under the principle of res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet (things done between strangers
must not cause an injury to others who are not part of it). Both Palijon and Pria submit that the prosecution
failed to establish the existence of conspiracy and overcome the presumption of innocence.

Issue No. 1: Whether there is conspiracy to commit a crime.—YES. There is conspiracy to commit a crime,
where at the time the malefactors of the crime, their actions impliedly showed a unity of purpose to attain their
illicit ends. One who joins a criminal conspiracy adopts in effect the criminal design of his co-conspirators and
can no longer repudiate the conspiracy once it has materialized.

Issue No. 2: Whether the trial court erred in convicting Palijon on the basis of the confession of his co-accused.
– NO. Section 30, Rule 130 (now Section 31) of the Rules of Court applies only to extrajudicial acts or
admissions and not to testimony at trial where the party adversely affected has the opportunity to cross-examine
the declarant. An extrajudicial confession may be given in evidence against the confessant but not against his
co-accused as they are deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine him. A judicial confession, on the other
hand, is admissible against the declarant’s co-accused since the latter are afforded the opportunity to cross-
examine the former. Moreover, where several accused are tried together for the same offense, the testimony of
a co-accused implicating his co-accused is competent evidence against the latter. In this case, Mercene’s
admission implicated his co-accused Palijon was given on the witness stand. Thus, it is admissible evience
against appellant Palijon.

Doctrines/Laws Involved:
There is conspiracy to commit a crime, where at the time the malefactors of the crime, their actions impliedly
showed a unity of purpose to attain their illicit ends. One who joins a criminal conspiracy adopts in effect the
criminal design of his co-conspirators and can no longer repudiate the conspiracy once it has materialized.
Section 30, Rule 130 (now Section 31) of the Rules of Court applies only to extrajudicial acts or
admissions and not to testimony at trial where the party adversely affected has the opportunity to cross-
examine the declarant. An extrajudicial confession may be given in evidence against the confessant but not
against his co-accused as they are deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine him. A judicial
confession, on the other hand, is admissible against the declarant’s co-accused since the latter are afforded
 the opportunity to cross-examine the former.
[Old version of rule] Sec. 30 Admission by conspirator. – The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to
the conspiracy and during its existence may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the
conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.

[Current version] Sec. 31. Admission by conspirator. – The act or declaration of a conspirator in furtherance
of the conspiracy and during its existence may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the
conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act of declaration.

FACTS:
1. On the night of August 27, 1993, Rodelo Palijon, Carlos Decena, and Jim Mercene broke into the house
of Sps. Reyes and Mellorequina Reyes. The three accused took cash and jewelry. While committing the
felonious act, they assaulted Mr. and Mrs. Reyes. Mr. Reyes was repeatedly struck by a steel-edged
stool, causing him to faint. When they brought to the hospital, Mr. Reyes died due to his injuries.
2. An Information was filed against the accused Rodelo Palijon, Jim Mercene, Carlos Decena, Myra Pria,
and several John Does for the crime of robbery with homicide.
3. Initially, all the accused pleaded “Not Guilty.” Pre-trial was waived, and so trial on the merits ensued. In
the course of the trial, accused Carlos Decena and Jim Mercene moved to change their plea from “Not
Guilty” to “Guilty” for the lesser offense of homicide. The court granted the plea. Trial, however,
continued against the remaining co-accused Rodelo Palijon and Myra Pria.
4. The prosecution presented conspirator Jim Mercene as one of the witnesses. In his testimony, Mercene
stated that Palijon and Pria were also co-conspirators of the crime. Mercene alleged that while Myra Pria
was not part of the group who actually went to the house, it was her who initiated the plan. Moreover, it
was mentioned that Pria and Decena were live-in partners.
5. Palijon interposed a defense of alibi. Pria, on the other hand, denied involvement in the incident.
According to Pria, Mrs. Reyes was her mother’s second cousin. Pria stated that when she found out
about her live-in partner Decena’s, involvement, she mentioned it to Mrs. Reyes who asked her to help
arrest Decena. However, at the police headquarters, she was investigated and asked to sign a waiver,
without the assistance of counsel. Pria avers that she was only implicated because she was Decena’s
live-in partner.
6. Decena testified for Pria. According to Decena, Pria did not know anything about the plan to rob the
Reyes couple. She was asleep when the robbery happened. Decena stated that he only told Pria about his
involvement after the incident, and that he initially kept silent about Pria’s non-involvement because he
was angry at her for causing his arrest.
7. The RTC found Pria and Palijon guilty. Hence, this appeal.
8. The accused appellant’s arguments are as follows:
a. Pria – the prosecution’s evidence (Mercene’s testimony) implicating her is weak and shaky.
When the plan was hatched, she was some distance away from the conspirators and could not
have heard the scheme. She was also sleeping when the robbery happened.
b. Palijon – He did not conspire with the others. The trial court erred in convicting him on the basis
of the testimonies of his alleged conspirators. The testimonies of Mercen and Decena could not
be taken against him under the principle of res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet (things
done between strangers must not cause an injury to others who are not part of it).
c. Both of them submit that the prosecution failed to establish the existence of conspiracy and
overcome the presumption of innocence.
ISSUES + HELD:1
1. Whether the prosecution’s evidence implicating Pria was weak and shaky. – NO.
o Both prosecution witnesses admitted the existence of conspiracy. However, their testimonies
vary as to Pria’s involvement.
i. Mercene testified that Pria initiated the plan because it was she who informed them of the
fact that the Sps. Reyes just returned from abroad, that the sps. had a lot of money, and on
how to enter the house.
ii. Decena admitted that Pria was present. However, he vehemently denied her participation.
Decena claims that Pria was only attending to their child.
o However, the Supreme Court found that the facts clearly show that Pria could easily participate
in the discussion of the conspirators. The house there were in was small and Pria was only 1-1/2
meters away from the other accused when they were plotting the robbery. Mercene’s declaration
of Pria’s participation outweighs Pria’s denial. Denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing
evidence, deserves no weight in law and cannot be given grater evidentiary weight over the
testimony of a credible witness who testifies on affirmative matters.
o Therefore, Pria was also correctly convicted.
2. Whether there is conspiracy to commit a crime.—YES.
o There is conspiracy to commit a crime, where at the time the malefactors of the crime, their
actions impliedly showed a unity of purpose to attain their illicit ends. One who joins a criminal
conspiracy adopts in effect the criminal design of his co-conspirators and can no longer repudiate
the conspiracy once it has materialized.
o No SC discussion on how the doctrine is applied to this case.
3. Whether the trial court erred in convicting Palijon on the basis of the confession of his co-accused. –
NO.
o The Supreme Court first discussed the two types of confessions—extrajudicial confession and
judicial confession.
▪ An extrajudicial confession may be given in evidence against the confessant but not
against his co-accused as they are deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine him.
▪ A judicial confession is admissible against the declarant’s co-accused since the latter are
afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the former.
o Section 30, Rule 130 (now Section 31) of the Rules of Court applies only to extrajudicial acts or
admissions and not to testimony at trial where the party adversely affected has the opportunity to
cross-examine the declarant.
o Moreover, where several accused are tried together for the same offense, the testimony of a co-
accused implicating his co-accused is competent evidence against the latter.
o In this case, Mercene’s admission implicated his co-accused Palijon was given on the witness
stand. Thus, it is admissible evience against appellant Palijon.

RULING: WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of the RTC is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION
(modification as to penalty).

DISSENT (if required):

1
Issues and discussion pertaining to preliminary investigation, waiver of illegal arrest, and complex crime have been omitted since
they are unrelated to the topic in the syllabus.
NOTES: