People v.

Tena, 215 SCRA 43 (1992)

Facts: Accused was convicted of robbery with homicide on the basis of an extra-judicial confession of
another admitting his participation in the offense. Held: This is not a co-conspirator’s statement because
there was no evidence of conspiracy independent of the extra-judicial confession. Furthermore, the
confession was executed long after the supposed conspiracy had ended.
Escolin: Had the co-conspirator taken the witness stand and pointed to his co-accused, the testimony
would have been admissible. In this case, what was presented was a merely his affidavit.
People v. Alegre, 94 SCRA 109 (1979) – absent independent evidence of conspiracy, extra-judicial
confession of the accused is not admissible against others
People v. Raquel, 265 SCRA 248 (1996) – extra-judicial confession of accused cannot be used to implicate
co-accused unless repeated in open court.
People vs. Valero (1982)
Facts: Michael and Annabel, children of Ceferino Velasco, died of poisoning after eating bread containing
endrin, a commercial insecticide. Their sister Imelda would have also died if not for the timely medical
assistance given to her. At about the same time, 3 puppies of Velasco under the balcony where the
children ate the bread also died of poisoning. Earlier that morning, Velasco was seen throwing poisoned
rats in the river near his house.
The evidence of the prosecution shows that the poisoned bread was given to the children by Alfonso
Valero alias Pipe, deaf-mute brother of accused Lucila Valero, and that it was Lucila who gave Alfonso the
bread to be delivered to the children. Lucila denies the allegation. The evidence of the defense tends to
show that the children might have eaten one of the sliced poisoned bread used by their father in poisoning
the rats.

witnesses for the prosecution:

1. Rodolfo Quilang – testified that he saw Lucila deliver something wrapped in a piece of paper to Alfonso
and instructed him by sign language to deliver the same to the Velasco children. He never saw what was
inside the piece of paper. His testimony as to WON he saw the parcel delivered to the children was a series
of contradictions. He is what the defense counsel calls and “eleventh-hour witness
2. Federico Jaime and Ceferino Velasco – did not see Lucila deliver to Alfonso the alleged parcel, as well
as the alleged instruction. Both claimed that they learned the information from Pipe after interviewing
him by means of sign language. Testimony of Jaime was confusing. There is nothing in the testimony of
Velasco indicating that Alfonso pointed to Lucila as the source of the poisoned bread.
Issue: WON the testimonies of Jaime and Velasco may be admitted
Held: No. The evidence is pure hearsay. It violates the principle of res inter alios acta. Alfonso, who was
the source of the information, was never presented as a witness either for the defense or the prosecution.
Testimony of Velasco cannot be considered as part of res gestae because when the information was
allegedly obtained by Velasco from Alfonso, nobody was poisoned yet. With regard to the testimony of
Jaime, there is no showing that the revelation was made by Alfonso under the influence of a startling
occurrence.
The failure of the defense counsel to object to the presentation of incompetent evidence does not give
such evidence probative value. The lack of objection may make any incompetent evidence admissible. But
admissibility of evidence should not be equated with weight of evidence. Hearsay evidence whether
objected to or not has no probative value.