People v. Domondon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The People of the Philippines filed an original action for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against respondent Judge Sixto A. Domondon. Three private respondents, Filomena Gabriel, Jose C. Arenas, and Estela Macam-Nicanor, were accused of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019) in connection with the alleged leakage of test questions in the Teachers' Selective Examination held on June 18, 1966. A fourth defendant, Jessie S. Siapno, was discharged to be a state witness. Procedural History: During the joint trial, discharged defendant Jessie S. Siapno confirmed her extrajudicial confession (Exhibit "V"). The defense objected when the prosecution asked her to identify her signature on Exhibit "V", claiming it would incriminate her as she was now a public school teacher. The respondent Judge sustained the objection. The defense also objected to Siapno describing the test booklet she allegedly purchased from Estela Macam-Nicanor, citing the best evidence rule, which the respondent Judge also sustained. The cases were being heard by Judge Domondon even after he was appointed to another branch, and a new judge was appointed to the San Carlos City Branch where the cases were originally filed. The Petition: The People prayed for a preliminary injunction to restrain the respondent Judge from proceeding until the admissibility of Siapno's confession was ruled upon. They also sought an order compelling the Judge to allow Siapno to identify her confession and to admit it as evidence, and to allow her to describe the test booklet. A supplemental petition asked that the cases be turned over to the new presiding judge of the San Carlos City Branch.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge erred in sustaining the objection against the witness identifying her own extrajudicial confession on the ground of self-incrimination. Whether the extrajudicial confession of a discharged defendant is admissible against the other co-accused. Whether the witness can testify regarding the description and contents of a test booklet that has been destroyed without violating the Best Evidence Rule. Whether a judge who has been transferred to another branch may retain and continue to try cases belonging to his former branch without Supreme Court authorization.
Ruling
The petition is granted. Respondent Judge is directed to turn over the records of Criminal Cases Nos. SCC-128, 129, and 130 to the presiding judge of the San Carlos City Branch of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, who is directed to proceed accordingly.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that the right against self-incrimination is a purely personal right that can be waived by the witness. In this case, Jessie S. Siapno, despite being reminded of her rights and the potential for administrative repercussions, chose to waive the privilege and testify. Under the doctrine in Beltran v. Samson, the privilege is absolute when claimed but may be waived by the person entitled to it. Furthermore, Siapno's discharge as a defendant to be a witness for the State amounts to an acquittal under Rule 119, Section 11 of the Rules of Court. This discharge serves as a bar to future prosecution for the same offense, thereby largely neutralizing the risk of criminal self-incrimination. Consequently, the defense had no standing to invoke the privilege on her behalf, and the trial judge committed an error in sustaining the objection. On Issue 2: The Court held that while an extrajudicial confession is generally evidence only against the declarant, it may be considered as a circumstance in assessing the credibility of an accomplice's testimony. Citing People v. Narciso, the Court noted that such confessions could serve as corroborative evidence if other facts show the participation of the implicated persons. Since Gabriel and Arenas also executed similar confessions that were corroborated by other witness testimony, the confessions are admissible as circumstantial evidence. The absence of collusion among the various confessants reinforces the probability of the criminal participation described therein. Thus, Siapno's confession is admissible to assess the weight of her testimony and to show the probability of the respondents' participation. On Issue 3: Regarding the Best Evidence Rule, the Court clarified that secondary evidence is admissible when the original document is unavailable or has been destroyed. In this case, another witness, Minas Gabertan, had already testified that the test booklet had been burned, with the exception of one page already marked as an exhibit. Under Rule 130, Sections 2 and 4, once the destruction of the original is established, the contents or description may be proven by the recollection of witnesses. Siapno's testimony describing the booklet is necessary to establish the corpus delicti, which refers to the fact that a crime was committed. Such testimony is distinct from her confession and is subject to cross-examination by the private respondents, satisfying the requirements of due process. On Issue 4: The Court frowned upon the Judge's refusal to turn over the records to the new presiding judge of the San Carlos City Branch, stating it was not conducive to the orderly administration of justice. Citing Luque v. Kayanan, the Court emphasized that a judge of one branch taking a case belonging to another branch without justifiable reason breeds confusion and suspicion. While a judge may have partially heard a case, the normal procedure requires obtaining permission from the Supreme Court to continue hearing the cases after a transfer. The principle of judicial stability and order dictates that cases belong to the branch where they were filed, ensuring that the administration of justice remains transparent and predictable.
Main Doctrine
The right against self-incrimination is a personal right that may be waived. An extrajudicial confession, while generally admissible only against the confessor, may serve as corroborative evidence against co-accused if independently made without collusion and corroborated by other evidence. Testimony describing a missing object, which is the subject of an extrajudicial confession, is admissible to prove corpus delicti, especially when the object itself is unavailable.