People v. Alegre
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The case concerns the death of Adelina Sajo, whose body was discovered in her bathroom on July 26, 1966, showing signs of manual strangulation. Her bedroom was ransacked, indicating a robbery. No witnesses observed the crime itself. 2. Procedural History: The accused, Ramiro Alegre, Mario Comayas, Melecio Cudillan, and Jesus Medalla, were found guilty of Robbery with Homicide by the Court of First Instance of Rizal and sentenced to death. Melecio Cudillan died during the pendency of the appeal. The case was automatically elevated to the Supreme Court for review. The trial court's decision was based primarily on the extrajudicial confessions of Melecio Cudillan and the testimony of a fellow inmate, Hernando Carillo, as well as the alleged silence of the appellants when confronted by Cudillan's statements. 3. The Petition: The appellants, Ramiro Alegre, Mario Comayas, and Jesus Medalla, contend that the lower court erred in using Melecio Cudillan's extrajudicial confessions against them, in interpreting their silence during police custody as an admission of guilt, and in giving undue weight to the testimony of Hernando Carillo. They argue that Cudillan's confessions are inadmissible against them due to the principle of res inter alios acta, and that their silence is protected by their constitutional right against self-incrimination.
Issue(s)
Whether the extrajudicial confessions of Melecio Cudillan can be used as evidence against the appellants. Whether the silence of the appellants while under police custody, in the face of Melecio Cudillan's statements implicating them, constitutes a tacit admission of guilt. Whether the testimony of a detention prisoner admitting the appellants' participation in the crime is sufficient to sustain a conviction.
Ruling
The judgment appealed from is reversed, and appellants Ramiro Alegre y Cerdoncillo, Mario Comayas y Cudillan and Jesus Medalla y Cudillan are acquitted of the crime with which they are charged. Their immediate release from detention is ordered, unless they or any one of them is otherwise held for some other lawful cause.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of Melecio Cudillan's extrajudicial confessions: The extrajudicial confessions of Melecio Cudillan cannot be used as evidence against appellants Ramiro Alegre and Jesus Medalla under the principle of res inter alios acta (Section 25, Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court), there being no independent evidence of conspiracy (Section 27, Ibid.). As a general rule, the extrajudicial declaration of an accused, although deliberately made, is not admissible and does not have probative value against his co-accused; it is merely hearsay evidence as far as the other accused are concerned. The facts and circumstances attendant in this case do not bring it within the purview of recognized exceptions to this rule. Therefore, the only evidence linking the appellants to the crime would be their purported tacit admissions and/or failure to deny implications made by Melecio Cudillan, and/or their purported verbal confessions to Hernando Carillo. On the issue of tacit admission from silence: The settled rule is that the silence of an accused in criminal cases, meaning his failure or refusal to testify, may not be taken as evidence against him (Section 1(c), Rule 111, Revised Rules of Court), and that he may refuse to answer an incriminating question (Section 79, Rule 123, Ibid.). It has also been held that while an accused is under custody, his silence may not be taken as evidence against him as he has a right to remain silent; his silence when in custody may not be used as evidence against him, otherwise, his right of silence would be illusory. The Supreme Court holds that the better rule is that the silence of an accused under custody, or his failure to deny statements by another implicating him in a crime, especially when such accused is neither asked to comment or reply to such implications or accusations, cannot be considered as a tacit confession of his participation in the commission of the crime. Such an inference of acquiescence drawn from his silence or failure to deny the statement would appear incompatible with the right of an accused against self-incrimination. This privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Constitution protects, therefore, the right of a person to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will, and to suffer no penalty for such silence. On the weight of the detention prisoner's testimony: The Court held that it was error for the trial court to draw from appellants' silence while under police custody, in the face of the incriminatory statements of Melecio Cudillan, the conclusion that the aforesaid appellants had tacitly admitted their guilt. The Court further held that in view of the inadmissibility of the extrajudicial confession of Melecio Cudillan implicating herein appellants, the remaining evidence against them, consisting in the testimonies of Sgt. Mariano Isla and Hernando Carillo, is insufficient to sustain the judgment of conviction. Indeed, it is inherently improbable that herein appellants would have readily confessed their participation in the commission of a heinous crime to a casual acquaintance in a prison detention cell, considering that on the same occasion they strongly denied any involvement in such crime before the police authorities.
Main Doctrine
The silence of an accused under custody, or his failure to deny statements by another implicating him in a crime, especially when such accused is neither asked to comment or reply to such implications or accusations, cannot be considered as a tacit confession of his participation in the commission of the crime. Such an inference of acquiescence drawn from his silence or failure to deny the statement would appear incompatible with the right of an accused against self-incrimination. Furthermore, extrajudicial confessions of a co-accused cannot be used as evidence against other co-accused in the absence of independent evidence of conspiracy.