Taer v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On December 5, 1981, Emilio Namocatcat and Mario Cago arrived at Jorge Taer's house at dawn with two carabaos, which Namocatcat asked Taer to tend. The carabaos, owned by Tirso Dalde and Eladio Palaca, were discovered missing the following morning. Ten days later, Dalde and Palaca found their carabaos tied near Taer's house. Taer claimed the carabaos arrived tied together without anyone accompanying them, and that Namocatcat had asked him to say they had strayed. Dalde and Palaca recovered the carabaos from Taer's possession. Procedural History: An information was filed charging Emilio Namocatcat, Mario Cago, Jorge Taer, and Cerilo Saludes with Theft of Large Cattle. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Namocatcat and Taer, sentencing them to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years, ten (10) months, and twenty-one (21) days, with the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity. Cago and Saludes were acquitted due to insufficiency of evidence. Only Taer appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC's decision in toto. Taer then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Jorge Taer argued that his participation did not exceed that of the acquitted co-accused, Cago and Saludes, and thus he should also be acquitted. He further contended that the sole evidence of conspiracy was the extrajudicial confession of his co-accused Namocatcat, which should be inadmissible as hearsay under the rule of res inter alios acta.
Issue(s)
Whether the acquittal of co-accused Mario Cago and Cirilo Saludes should lead to the acquittal of petitioner Jorge Taer. Whether the extrajudicial confession of co-accused Emilio Namocatcat is admissible to prove conspiracy against Jorge Taer. Whether Jorge Taer is guilty of cattle rustling as a principal or as an accessory after the fact.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the Court of Appeals. Jorge Taer was convicted not as a principal in cattle rustling, but as an accessory after the fact. He was sentenced to suffer the minimum penalty within the range of arresto mayor medium, fixed at four (4) months imprisonment, and the maximum penalty of prision correccional minimum, fixed at two (2) years.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of acquittal based on co-accused's acquittal: The Court found that the participation of Taer was distinct from that of Cago and Saludes. While Cago and Saludes were acquitted for insufficiency of evidence, the evidence against Taer, though insufficient to prove conspiracy as a principal, pointed to his involvement after the commission of the crime. The Court emphasized that the extent of participation in conspiracy can vary, and the acquittal of some does not automatically lead to the acquittal of others if the evidence against them establishes a different level of culpability. On the admissibility of the co-accused's confession: The Court held that the confession of Emilio Namocatcat was inadmissible to prove conspiracy against Jorge Taer. The Court reiterated the rule of res inter alios acta, stating that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by the act, declaration, or omission of another. Since Taer had no opportunity to cross-examine Namocatcat regarding his extrajudicial confession, it was considered hearsay and could not, by itself, be sufficient to convict Taer of conspiracy. The Court stressed that conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive evidence, not conjectures. On Taer's culpability: The Court found that the evidence did not establish conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. While Taer admitted to tending the carabaos and profiting from their use, his participation occurred after the commission of the theft. The Court applied Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code, defining accessories as those who, with knowledge of the crime's commission and without participating as principal or accomplice, assist the offender to profit by the effects of the crime. Taer's act of tending the carabaos and employing them in his farm, knowing they were stolen, constituted profiting by the effects of the crime, thus making him an accessory after the fact. The Court noted that his actions, such as not immediately reporting the suspicious arrival of the carabaos and not revealing Namocatcat's identity promptly, indicated knowledge and subsequent involvement, but not conspiracy in the taking of the carabaos.
Main Doctrine
The confession of a co-accused, being hearsay and covered by the rule of res inter alios acta, is inadmissible to prove conspiracy against another accused, absent corroborating evidence. Mere knowledge or acquiescence to a crime, without cooperation or agreement to cooperate, does not constitute conspiracy. An individual who profits from the effects of a crime after its commission, without having participated as principal or accomplice, is considered an accessory after the fact.