People v. Quidato Jr. GR No. 117401 297 SCRA 1 (1998) Ro ero! J" Facts: Bernardo Quidato Jr.

was charged with the crime of parricide in the RTC of Davao for killing his father Bernardo Quidato r. together with Re!naldo "alita and #ddie "alita. During the trial$ the prosecution presented as its witness %eo Quidato$ the &rother of the accused$ 'ina Quidato( the wife of the accused and )atrolman %ucerio "ara. The )rosecution also offered in evidence the affidavits containing the e*tra+udicial confessions of #ddie and Re!naldo "alita. ,nstead of placing the "alita &rothers on the witness stand$ the prosecution opted to present -tt!. Jonathan Jocom to attest that the "alita &rothers were accompanied &! counsels when the! e*ecuted their e*tra+udicial confessions. )rosecution also presented "TC +udge 'eorge .melio who attested to the due and voluntar! e*ecution of the sworn statements &! the "alita &rothers. -ccording to the prosecution$ Bernardo Quidato r. owns a /0 hectare coconut land. 1e had 234 sons Bernardo Quidato Jr. and %eo Quidato. 1e is also a widower. .n ept /0$ /566$ Bernadro Jr. accompanied his father to sell 7/ sacks of copra in Davao. The! hired the "alita &rothers. -fter the! have sold the copras$ Bernardo r. paid the "alita &rothers and the! parted wa!s. -ccording to the testimon! of 'ina Quidato$ she allegedl! heard that accused appellant and the "alita &rothers were planning to get mone! from Bernardo r. and she went to sleep at around /8pm so she did not know what transpired ne*t. The accused Bernardo Jr. raised the issue of marital dis9ualification rule when his wife gave the testimon! against him. -ccording to the testimon! of the "alita &rothers$ the! went to the house of Bernardo r.$ Bernardo Jr. knocked on the door and when the old man opened the door$ the son pushed his father and hacked him with his &olo.

The! looked for mone! in the aparador &ut found none so the! left. The &od! of Bernarndo r. was found &! his grandson when he called his grandfather for &reakfast. %eo Quidato then confronted his &rother and the :;< accused were arrested. During the custodial investigation$ the "alita &rothers made an e*tra+udicial confessionof what transpired even without the presence of the counsel. Their testimonies were reduced to writing$ and the! signed the said testimonies in front of -tt!. Jonathan Jocom the ne*t morning after having &een apprised of their constitutional rights. ,ssue: =.>$ the evidence presented &! the prosecution are admissi&le and sufficient to convict the accused &e!ond reasona&le dou&t? 1eld: >.. Bernardo Quidato Jr. must &e ac9uitted for inadmissi&ilit! of evidence. 1is guilt was not proven &e!ond reasona&le dou&t. The prosecution relied heavil! on the affidavits e*ecuted &! the "alita &rothers. 1owever$ the &rothers were not presented on the witness stand to testif! on their e*tra+udicial confessions. The failure to present the two gives these affidavits the character of hearsa!. ,t is horn&ook doctrine that unless the affiants themselves take the witness stand to affirm the averments in their affidavits$ the affidavits must &e e*cluded from the +udicial proceedings$ &eing inadmissi&le hearsa!. The voluntar! admissions of an accused made e*tra+udiciall! are not admissi&le in evidence against his co accused when the latter had not &een given the opportunit! to hear him testif! and cross e*amine him. olicitor 'eneral invoked ec ;8$ Rule /;8: this rule is inapplica&le &ecause the confession were made after the conspirac!. The manner &! which the affidavits were o&tained &! the police render the same inadmissi&le in evidence if the! were voluntaril! given. The settled rule is that an uncounseled e*tra+udicial confession without a valid waiver of the right to counsel that is in writing and in

the presence of counsel @ is inadmissi&le in evidence. ,t is undisputed that the "alita &rothers gave their statements in the a&sence of counsel although the! signed the same in the presence of the counsel the ne*t da!. ,n )eople v. De Jesus: admissions o&tained during custodial interrogations without the &enefit of counsel although later reduced to writing a signed in the presence of counsel are still flawed under the constitution. -s to the testimon! of 'ina Quidato @ the wife$ she is dis9ualified from testif!ing against her hus&and. =hat cannot &e done directl! cannot &e done indirectl! @ marital dis9ualification rule. uspicion$ no matter how strong$ should not swa! +udgement( it &eing an accepted a*iom that the prosecution cannot rel! on the weakness of the defense to gain a conviction$ &ut must esta&lish &e!ond reasona&le dou&t ever! circumstance essential to the guilt of the accused.