VIDENCE: “RES INTER ALIOS ACTA ALTERI NOCERE NON DEBET” RULE IN RELATION TO THE RULE ON

EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION

The rule on res inter alios acta provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an
act, declaration, or omission of another. Consequently, an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the
confessant, is not admissible against his or her co-accused and is considered as hearsay against them.
The reason for this rule is that:

“On a principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a man’s own acts are binding upon
himself, and are evidence against him. So are his conduct and declarations. Yet it would not only be
rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts of mere
unauthorized strangers; and if a party ought not to be bound by the acts of strangers, neither ought their
acts or conduct be used as evidence against him” (HAROLD V. TAMARGO vs. ROMULO AWINGAN, et al.
G.R. No. 177727, January 19, 2010, Third Division, Corona, J.).

An exception to the res inter alios acta rule is an admission made by a conspirator under
Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court:

“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” (emphasis supplied).

This rule prescribes that the act or declaration of the conspirator relating to the conspiracy and
during its existence may be given in evidence against co-conspirators provided that the conspiracy is
shown by independent evidence aside from the extrajudicial confession. Thus, in order that the
admission of a conspirator may be received against his or her co-conspirators, it is necessary that (a) the
conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission itself (b) the admission relates to the
common object and (c) it has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the
conspiracy.Otherwise, it cannot be used against the alleged co-conspirators without violating their
constitutional right to be confronted with the witnesses against them and to cross-examine them.

In Harold Tamargo vs. Romulo Awingan, et. al., aside from the extrajudicial confession, which
was later on recanted, no other piece of evidence was presented to prove the alleged conspiracy. There
was no other prosecution evidence, direct or circumstantial, which the extrajudicial confession could
corroborate. Therefore, the recanted confession, which was the sole evidence against respondents, had
no probative value and was inadmissible as evidence against them (HAROLD V. TAMARGO vs. ROMULO
AWINGAN, et al. G.R. No. 177727, January 19, 2010, Third Division, Corona, J.).