[Syllabus]

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 105938. September 20, 1996]

TEODORO R. REGALA, EDGARDO J. ANGARA, AVELINO V.

CRUZ, JOSE C. CONCEPCION, ROGELIO A. VINLUAN, VICTOR P.
LAZATIN, and EDUARDO U. ESCUETA, petitioners, vs. THE
HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, First Division, REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES, ACTING THROUGH THE PRESIDENTIAL
COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, and RAUL S. ROCO,
respondents.

[G.R. No. 108113. September 20, 1996]

PARAJA G. HAYUDINI, petitioner, vs. THE SANDIGANBAYAN and

THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

DECISION

KAPUNAN, J.:

These cases touch the very cornerstone of every State's judicial system,
upon which the workings of the contentious and adversarial system in the
Philippine legal process are based - the sanctity of fiduciary duty in the
client-lawyer relationship. The fiduciary duty of a counsel and advocate
is also what makes the law profession a unique position of trust and
confidence, which distinguishes it from any other calling. In this
instance, we have no recourse but to uphold and strengthen the mantle of
protection accorded to the confidentiality that proceeds from the
performance of the lawyer's duty to his client.

The facts of the case are undisputed.

The matters raised herein are an offshoot of the institution of the

Complaint on July 31, 1987 before the Sandiganbayan by the Republic of
the Philippines, through the Presidential Commission on Good
Government against Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., as one of the principal
defendants, for the recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth, which includes
shares of stocks in the named corporations in PCGG Case No. 33 (Civil
Case No. 0033), entitled "Republic of the Philippines versus Eduardo
Cojuangco, et al."i[1]

Among the defendants named in the case are herein petitioners Teodoro
Regala, Edgardo J. Angara, Avelino V. Cruz, Jose C. Concepcion,
Rogelio A. Vinluan, Victor P. Lazatin, Eduardo U. Escueta and Paraja G.
Hayudini, and herein private respondent Raul S. Roco, who all were then
partners of the law firm Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala and Cruz
Law Offices (hereinafter referred to as the ACCRA Law Firm). ACCRA
Law Firm performed legal services for its clients, which included,
among others, the organization and acquisition of business associations
and/or organizations, with the correlative and incidental services where
its members acted as incorporators, or simply, as stockholders. More
specifically, in the performance of these services, the members of the law
firm delivered to its client documents which substantiate the client's
equity holdings, i.e., stock certificates endorsed in blank representing the
shares registered in the client's name, and a blank deed of trust or
assignment covering said shares. In the course of their dealings with
their clients, the members of the law firm acquire information relative to
the assets of clients as well as their personal and business circumstances.
As members of the ACCRA Law Firm, petitioners and private
respondent Raul Roco admit that they assisted in the organization and
acquisition of the companies included in Civil Case No. 0033, and in
keeping with the office practice, ACCRA lawyers acted as nominees-
stockholders of the said corporations involved in sequestration
proceedings.ii[2]

On August 20, 1991, respondent Presidential Commission on Good

Government (hereinafter referred to as respondent PCGG) filed a
"Motion to Admit Third Amended Complaint" and "Third Amended
Complaint" which excluded private respondent Raul S. Roco from the
complaint in PCGG Case No. 33 as party-defendant.iii[3] Respondent
PCGG based its exclusion of private respondent Roco as party-defendant
on his undertaking that he will reveal the identity of the principal/s for
whom he acted as nominee/stockholder in the companies involved in
PCGG Case No. 33.iv[4]

Petitioners were included in the Third Amended Complaint on the

strength of the following allegations:

14. Defendants Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr., Edgardo J. Angara, Jose C.

Concepcion, Teodoro Regala, Avelino V. Cruz, Rogelio A. Vinluan,
Eduardo U. Escueta, Paraja G. Hayudini and Raul Roco of the Angara
Concepcion Cruz Regala and Abello law offices (ACCRA) plotted,
devised, schemed. conspired and confederated with each other in setting
up, through the use of the coconut levy funds, the financial and corporate
framework and structures that led to the establishment of UCPB,
UNICOM, COCOLIFE, COCOMARK, CIC, and more than twenty other
coconut levy funded corporations, including the acquisition of San
Miguel Corporation shares and its institutionalization through
presidential directives of the coconut monopoly. Through insidious
means and machinations, ACCRA, being the wholly-owned investment
arm, ACCRA Investments Corporation, became the holder of
approximately fifteen million shares representing roughly 3.3% of the
total outstanding capital stock of UCPB as of 31 March 1987. This ranks
ACCRA Investments Corporation number 44 among the top 100 biggest
stockholders of UCPB which has approximately 1,400,000 shareholders.
On the other hand, corporate books show the name Edgardo J. Angara as
holding approximately 3,744 shares as of February, 1984.v[5]

In their answer to the Expanded Amended Complaint, petitioners

ACCRA lawyers alleged that:

4.4. Defendants-ACCRA lawyers’ participation in the acts with which

their co-defendants are charged, was in furtherance of legitimate
lawyering.

4.4.1. In the course of rendering professional and legal services to

clients, defendants-ACCRA lawyers, Jose C. Concepcion, Teodoro D.
Regala, Rogelio A. Vinluan and Eduardo U. Escueta, became holders of
shares of stock in the corporations listed under their respective names in
Annex ‘A’ of the expanded Amended Complaint as incorporating or
acquiring stockholders only and, as such, they do not claim any
proprietary interest in the said shares of stock.

4.5. Defendant ACCRA-lawyer Avelino V. Cruz was one of the

incorporators in 1976 of Mermaid Marketing Corporation, which was
organized for legitimate business purposes not related to the allegations
of the expanded Amended Complaint. However, he has long ago
transferred any material interest therein and therefore denies that the
‘shares’ appearing in his name in Annex ‘A’ of the expanded Amended
Complaint are his assets.vi[6]
Petitioner Paraja Hayudini, who had separated from ACCRA law firm,
filed a separate answer denying the allegations in the complaint
implicating him in the alleged ill-gotten wealth.vii[7]

Petitioners ACCRA lawyers subsequently filed their "COMMENT

AND/OR OPPOSITION" dated October 8, 1991 with Counter-Motion
that respondent PCGG similarly grant the same treatment to them
(exclusion as parties-defendants) as accorded private respondent Roco.viii
[8] The Counter-Motion for dropping petitioners from the complaint was
duly set for hearing on October 18, 1991 in accordance with the
requirements of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court.

In its "Comment," respondent PCGG set the following conditions

precedent for the exclusion of petitioners, namely: (a) the disclosure of
the identity of its clients; (b) submission of documents substantiating the
lawyer-client relationship; and (c) the submission of the deeds of
assignments petitioners executed in favor of its clients covering their
respective shareholdings.ix[9]

Consequently, respondent PCGG presented supposed proof to

substantiate compliance by private respondent Roco of the conditions
precedent to warrant the latter's exclusion as party-defendant in PCGG
Case No. 33, to wit: (a) Letter to respondent PCGG of the counsel of
respondent Roco dated May 24, 1989 reiterating a previous request for
reinvestigation by the PCGG in PCGG Case No. 33; (b) Affidavit dated
March 8, 1989 executed by private respondent Roco as Attachment to the
letter aforestated in (a); and (c) Letter of the Roco, Bunag, and Kapunan
Law Offices dated September 21, 1988 to the respondent PCGG in
behalf of private respondent Roco originally requesting the
reinvestigation and/or re-examination of the evidence of the PCGG
against Roco in its Complaint in PCGG Case No. 33.x[10]

It is noteworthy that during said proceedings, private respondent Roco

did not refute petitioners' contention that he did actually not reveal the
identity of the client involved in PCGG Case No. 33, nor had he
undertaken to reveal the identity of the client for whom he acted as
nominee-stockholder.xi[11]

On March 18, 1992, respondent Sandiganbayan promulgated the

Resolution, herein questioned, denying the exclusion of petitioners in
PCGG Case No. 33, for their refusal to comply with the conditions
required by respondent PCGG. It held:
x x x.

ACCRA lawyers may take the heroic stance of not revealing the identity
of the client for whom they have acted, i.e. their principal, and that will
be their choice. But until they do identify their clients, considerations of
whether or not the privilege claimed by the ACCRA lawyers exists
cannot even begin to be debated. The ACCRA lawyers cannot excuse
themselves from the consequences of their acts until they have begun to
establish the basis for recognizing the privilege; the existence and
identity of the client.

This is what appears to be the cause for which they have been impleaded
by the PCGG as defendants herein.

5. The PCGG is satisfied that defendant Roco has demonstrated his

agency and that Roco has apparently identified his principal, which
revelation could show the lack of cause against him. This in turn has
allowed the PCGG to exercise its power both under the rules of Agency
and under Section 5 of E.O. No. 14-A in relation to the Supreme Court's
ruling in Republic v. Sandiganbayan (173 SCRA 72).

The PCGG has apparently offered to the ACCRA lawyers the same
conditions availed of by Roco; full disclosure in exchange for exclusion
from these proceedings (par. 7, PCGG's COMMENT dated November 4,
1991). The ACCRA lawyers have preferred not to make the disclosures
required by the PCGG.

The ACCRA lawyers cannot, therefore, begrudge the PCGG for keeping
them as party defendants. In the same vein, they cannot compel the
PCGG to be accorded the same treatment accorded to Roco.

Neither can this Court.

WHEREFORE, the Counter Motion dated October 8, 1991 filed by the

ACCRA lawyers and joined in by Atty. Paraja G. Hayudini for the same
treatment by the PCGG as accorded to Raul S. Roco is DENIED for lack
of merit.xii[12]

ACCRA lawyers moved for a reconsideration of the above resolution but

the same was denied by the respondent Sandiganbayan. Hence, the
ACCRA lawyers filed the petition for certiorari, docketed as G.R. No.
105938, invoking the following grounds:

The Honorable Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in subjecting

petitioners ACCRA lawyers who undisputably acted as lawyers in
serving as nominee-stockholders, to the strict application of the law of
agency.

II

The Honorable Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in

not considering petitioners ACCRA lawyers and Mr. Roco as similarly
situated and, therefore, deserving of equal treatment.

1. There is absolutely no evidence that Mr. Roco had revealed, or had

undertaken to reveal, the identities of the client(s) for whom he acted as
nominee-stockholder.

2. Even assuming that Mr. Roco had revealed, or had undertaken to

reveal, the identities of the client(s), the disclosure does not constitute a
substantial distinction as would make the classification reasonable under
the equal protection clause.

3. Respondent Sandiganbayan sanctioned favoritism and undue

preference in favor of Mr. Roco in violation of the equal protection
clause.

III

The Honorable Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in

not holding that, under the facts of this case, the attorney-client privilege
prohibits petitioners ACCRA lawyers from revealing the identity of their
client(s) and the other information requested by the PCGG.

1. Under the peculiar facts of this case, the attorney-client privilege

includes the identity of the client(s).
2. The factual disclosures required by the PCGG are not limited to the
identity of petitioners ACCRA lawyers' alleged client(s) but extend to
other privileged matters.

IV

The Honorable Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in

not requiring that the dropping of party-defendants by the PCGG must be
based on reasonable and just grounds and with due consideration to the
constitutional right of petitioners ACCRA lawyers to the equal protection
of the law.

Petitioner Paraja G. Hayudini, likewise, filed his own motion for

reconsideration of the March 18, 1991 resolution which was denied by
respondent Sandiganbayan. Thus, he filed a separate petition for
certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 108113, assailing respondent
Sandiganbayan's resolution on essentially the same grounds averred by
petitioners in G.R. No. 105938.

Petitioners contend that the exclusion of respondent Roco as party-

defendant in PCGG Case No. 33 grants him a favorable treatment, on the
pretext of his alleged undertaking to divulge the identity of his client,
giving him an advantage over them who are in the same footing as
partners in the ACCRA law firm. Petitioners further argue that even
granting that such an undertaking has been assumed by private
respondent Roco, they are prohibited from revealing the identity of their
principal under their sworn mandate and fiduciary duty as lawyers to
uphold at all times the confidentiality of information obtained during
such lawyer-client relationship.

Respondent PCGG, through its counsel, refutes petitioners' contention,

alleging that the revelation of the identity of the client is not within the
ambit of the lawyer-client confidentiality privilege, nor are the
documents it required (deeds of assignment) protected, because they are
evidence of nominee status.xiii[13]

In his comment, respondent Roco asseverates that respondent PCGG

acted correctly in excluding him as party-defendant because he "(Roco)
has not filed an Answer. PCGG had therefore the right to dismiss Civil
Case No. 0033 as to Roco `without an order of court by filing a notice of
dismissal,'"xiv[14] and he has undertaken to identify his principal.xv[15]
Petitioners' contentions are impressed with merit.

It is quite apparent that petitioners were impleaded by the PCGG as co-

defendants to force them to disclose the identity of their clients. Clearly,
respondent PCGG is not after petitioners but the “bigger fish” as they say
in street parlance. This ploy is quite clear from the PCGG’s willingness
to cut a deal with petitioners -- the names of their clients in exchange for
exclusion from the complaint. The statement of the Sandiganbayan in its
questioned resolution dated March 18, 1992 is explicit:

ACCRA lawyers may take the heroic stance of not revealing the identity
of the client for whom they have acted, i.e., their principal, and that will
be their choice. But until they do identify their clients, considerations of
whether or not the privilege claimed by the ACCRA lawyers exists
cannot even begin to be debated. The ACCRA lawyers cannot excuse
themselves from the consequences of their acts until they have begun to
establish the basis for recognizing the privilege; the existence and
identity of the client.

This is what appears to be the cause for which they have been impleaded
by the PCGG as defendants herein. (Underscoring ours)

In a closely related case, Civil Case No. 0110 of the Sandiganbayan,

Third Division, entitled “Primavera Farms, Inc., et al. vs. Presidential
Commission on Good Government” respondent PCGG, through counsel
Mario Ongkiko, manifested at the hearing on December 5, 1991 that the
PCGG wanted to establish through the ACCRA that their “so called
client is Mr. Eduardo Cojuangco”; that “it was Mr. Eduardo Cojuangco
who furnished all the monies to those subscription payments in
corporations included in Annex “A” of the Third Amended Complaint;
that the ACCRA lawyers executed deeds of trust and deeds of
assignment, some in the name of particular persons, some in blank.

We quote Atty. Ongkiko:

ATTY. ONGKIKO:

With the permission of this Hon. Court. I propose to establish through

these ACCRA lawyers that, one, their so-called client is Mr. Eduardo
Cojuangco. Second, it was Mr. Eduardo Cojuangco who furnished all
the monies to these subscription payments of these corporations who are
now the petitioners in this case. Third, that these lawyers executed deeds
of trust, some in the name of a particular person, some in blank. Now,
these blank deeds are important to our claim that some of the shares are
actually being held by the nominees for the late President Marcos.
Fourth, they also executed deeds of assignment and some of these
assignments have also blank assignees. Again, this is important to our
claim that some of the shares are for Mr. Cojuangco and some are for
Mr. Marcos. Fifth, that most of these corporations are really just paper
corporations. Why do we say that? One: There are no really fixed sets
of officers, no fixed sets of directors at the time of incorporation and
even up to 1986, which is the crucial year. And not only that, they have
no permits from the municipal authorities in Makati. Next, actually all
their addresses now are care of Villareal Law Office. They really have
no address on records. These are some of the principal things that we
would ask of these nominees stockholders, as they called themselves.xvi
[16]

It would seem that petitioners are merely standing in for their clients as
defendants in the complaint. Petitioners are being prosecuted solely on
the basis of activities and services performed in the course of their duties
as lawyers. Quite obviously, petitioners’ inclusion as co-defendants in
the complaint is merely being used as leverage to compel them to name
their clients and consequently to enable the PCGG to nail these clients.
Such being the case, respondent PCGG has no valid cause of action as
against petitioners and should exclude them from the Third Amended
Complaint.

II

The nature of lawyer-client relationship is premised on the Roman Law

concepts of locatio conductio operarum (contract of lease of services)
where one person lets his services and another hires them without
reference to the object of which the services are to be performed,
wherein lawyers' services may be compensated by honorarium or for
hire,xvii[17] and mandato (contract of agency) wherein a friend on whom
reliance could be placed makes a contract in his name, but gives up all
that he gained by the contract to the person who requested him.xviii[18]
But the lawyer-client relationship is more than that of the principal-agent
and lessor-lessee.
In modern day perception of the lawyer-client relationship, an attorney is
more than a mere agent or servant, because he possesses special powers
of trust and confidence reposed on him by his client.xix[19] A lawyer is
also as independent as the judge of the court, thus his powers are entirely
different from and superior to those of an ordinary agent.xx[20]
Moreover, an attorney also occupies what may be considered as a "quasi-
judicial office" since he is in fact an officer of the Courtxxi[21] and
exercises his judgment in the choice of courses of action to be taken
favorable to his client.

Thus, in the creation of lawyer-client relationship, there are rules, ethical

conduct and duties that breathe life into it, among those, the fiduciary
duty to his client which is of a very delicate, exacting and confidential
character, requiring a very high degree of fidelity and good faith,xxii[22]
that is required by reason of necessity and public interestxxiii[23] based on
the hypothesis that abstinence from seeking legal advice in a good cause
is an evil which is fatal to the administration of justice.xxiv[24]

It is also the strict sense of fidelity of a lawyer to his client that

distinguishes him from any other professional in society. This
conception is entrenched and embodies centuries of established and
stable tradition.xxv[25] In Stockton v. Ford,xxvi[26] the U.S. Supreme
Court held:

There are few of the business relations of life involving a higher trust and
confidence than that of attorney and client, or generally speaking, one
more honorably and faithfully discharged; few more anxiously guarded
by the law, or governed by the sterner principles of morality and justice;
and it is the duty of the court to administer them in a corresponding
spirit, and to be watchful and industrious, to see that confidence thus
reposed shall not be used to the detriment or prejudice of the rights of the
party bestowing it.xxvii[27]

In our jurisdiction, this privilege takes off from the old Code of Civil
Procedure enacted by the Philippine Commission on August 7, 1901.
Section 383 of the Code specifically “forbids counsel, without authority
of his client to reveal any communication made by the client to him or
his advice given thereon in the course of professional
employment.”xxviii[28] Passed on into various provisions of the Rules of
Court, the attorney-client privilege, as currently worded provides:
Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. - The
following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in
the following cases:

xxx

An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to

any communication made by the client to him, or his advice given
thereon in the course of, or with a view to, professional employment, can
an attorney’s secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the
consent of the client and his employer, concerning any fact the
knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity.xxix[29]

Further, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states:

Sec. 20. It is the duty of an attorney:

(e) to maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to

preserve the secrets of his client, and to accept no compensation in
connection with his client’s business except from him or with his
knowledge and approval.

This duty is explicitly mandated in Canon 17 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility which provides that:

Canon 17. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall
be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.

Canon 15 of the Canons of Professional Ethics also demands a lawyer's

fidelity to client:

The lawyer owes "entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal
in the maintenance and defense of his rights and the exertion of his
utmost learning and ability," to the end that nothing be taken or be
withheld from him, save by the rules of law, legally applied. No fear of
judicial disfavor or public popularity should restrain him from the full
discharge of his duty. In the judicial forum the client is entitled to the
benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the
law of the land, and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such
remedy or defense. But it is steadfastly to be borne in mind that the great
trust of the lawyer is to be performed within and not without the bounds
of the law. The office of attorney does not permit, much less does it
demand of him for any client, violation of law or any manner of fraud or
chicanery. He must obey his own conscience and not that of his client.

Considerations favoring confidentiality in lawyer-client relationships are

many and serve several constitutional and policy concerns. In the
constitutional sphere, the privilege gives flesh to one of the most
sacrosanct rights available to the accused, the right to counsel. If a client
were made to choose between legal representation without effective
communication and disclosure and legal representation with all his
secrets revealed then he might be compelled, in some instances, to either
opt to stay away from the judicial system or to lose the right to counsel.
If the price of disclosure is too high, or if it amounts to self
incrimination, then the flow of information would be curtailed thereby
rendering the right practically nugatory. The threat this represents
against another sacrosanct individual right, the right to be presumed
innocent is at once self-evident.

Encouraging full disclosure to a lawyer by one seeking legal services

opens the door to a whole spectrum of legal options which would
otherwise be circumscribed by limited information engendered by a fear
of disclosure. An effective lawyer-client relationship is largely
dependent upon the degree of confidence which exists between lawyer
and client which in turn requires a situation which encourages a dynamic
and fruitful exchange and flow of information. It necessarily follows that
in order to attain effective representation, the lawyer must invoke the
privilege not as a matter of option but as a matter of duty and
professional responsibility.

The question now arises whether or not this duty may be asserted in
refusing to disclose the name of petitioners' client(s) in the case at bar.
Under the facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case, the
answer must be in the affirmative.

As a matter of public policy, a client’s identity should not be shrouded in

mystery.xxx[30] Under this premise, the general rule in our jurisdiction as
well as in the United States is that a lawyer may not invoke the privilege
and refuse to divulge the name or identity of his client.xxxi[31]

The reasons advanced for the general rule are well established.
First, the court has a right to know that the client whose privileged
information is sought to be protected is flesh and blood.

Second, the privilege begins to exist only after the attorney-client

relationship has been established. The attorney-client privilege does not
attach until there is a client.

Third, the privilege generally pertains to the subject matter of the

relationship.

Finally, due process considerations require that the opposing party

should, as a general rule, know his adversary. “A party suing or sued is
entitled to know who his opponent is.”xxxii[32] He cannot be obliged to
grope in the dark against unknown forces.xxxiii[33]

Notwithstanding these considerations, the general rule is however

qualified by some important exceptions.

1) Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that

revealing the client’s name would implicate that client in the very
activity for which he sought the lawyer’s advice.

In Ex-Parte Enzor,xxxiv[34] a state supreme court reversed a lower court

order requiring a lawyer to divulge the name of her client on the ground
that the subject matter of the relationship was so closely related to the
issue of the client’s identity that the privilege actually attached to both.
In Enzor, the unidentified client, an election official, informed his
attorney in confidence that he had been offered a bribe to violate election
laws or that he had accepted a bribe to that end. In her testimony, the
attorney revealed that she had advised her client to count the votes
correctly, but averred that she could not remember whether her client had
been, in fact, bribed. The lawyer was cited for contempt for her refusal
to reveal his client’s identity before a grand jury. Reversing the lower
court’s contempt orders, the state supreme court held that under the
circumstances of the case, and under the exceptions described above,
even the name of the client was privileged.

U.S. v. Hodge and Zweig,xxxv[35] involved the same exception, i.e. that
client identity is privileged in those instances where a strong probability
exists that the disclosure of the client's identity would implicate the client
in the very criminal activity for which the lawyer’s legal advice was
obtained.

The Hodge case involved federal grand jury proceedings inquiring into
the activities of the “Sandino Gang,” a gang involved in the illegal
importation of drugs in the United States. The respondents, law partners,
represented key witnesses and suspects including the leader of the gang,
Joe Sandino.

In connection with a tax investigation in November of 1973, the IRS

issued summons to Hodge and Zweig, requiring them to produce
documents and information regarding payment received by Sandino on
behalf of any other person, and vice versa. The lawyers refused to
divulge the names. The Ninth Circuit of the United States Court of
Appeals, upholding non-disclosure under the facts and circumstances of
the case, held:

A client’s identity and the nature of that client’s fee arrangements may be
privileged where the person invoking the privilege can show that a strong
probability exists that disclosure of such information would implicate
that client in the very criminal activity for which legal advice was sought
Baird v. Koerner, 279 F.2d at 680. While in Baird Owe enunciated this
rule as a matter of California law, the rule also reflects federal law.
Appellants contend that the Baird exception applies to this case.

The Baird exception is entirely consonant with the principal policy

behind the attorney-client privilege. “In order to promote freedom of
consultation of legal advisors by clients, the apprehension of compelled
disclosure from the legal advisors must be removed; hence, the law must
prohibit such disclosure except on the client’s consent.” 8 J. Wigmore,
supra sec. 2291, at 545. In furtherance of this policy, the client’s
identity and the nature of his fee arrangements are, in exceptional cases,
protected as confidential communications.xxxvi[36]

2) Where disclosure would open the client to civil liability, his identity is
privileged. For instance, the peculiar facts and circumstances of
Neugass v. Terminal Cab Corporation,xxxvii[37] prompted the New York
Supreme Court to allow a lawyer’s claim to the effect that he could
not reveal the name of his client because this would expose the latter to
civil litigation.
In the said case, Neugass, the plaintiff, suffered injury when the taxicab
she was riding, owned by respondent corporation, collided with a second
taxicab, whose owner was unknown. Plaintiff brought action both
against defendant corporation and the owner of the second cab, identified
in the information only as John Doe. It turned out that when the attorney
of defendant corporation appeared on preliminary examination, the fact
was somehow revealed that the lawyer came to know the name of the
owner of the second cab when a man, a client of the insurance company,
prior to the institution of legal action, came to him and reported that he
was involved in a car accident. It was apparent under the circumstances
that the man was the owner of the second cab. The state supreme court
held that the reports were clearly made to the lawyer in his professional
capacity. The court said:

That his employment came about through the fact that the insurance
company had hired him to defend its policyholders seems immaterial.
The attorney in such cases is clearly the attorney for the policyholder
when the policyholder goes to him to report an occurrence contemplating
that it would be used in an action or claim against him.xxxviii[38]

xxx xxx xxx.

All communications made by a client to his counsel, for the purpose of

professional advice or assistance, are privileged, whether they relate to a
suit pending or contemplated, or to any other matter proper for such
advice or aid; x x x And whenever the communication made, relates to a
matter so connected with the employment as attorney or counsel as to
afford presumption that it was the ground of the address by the client,
then it is privileged from disclosure. xxx.

It appears... that the name and address of the owner of the second cab
came to the attorney in this case as a confidential communication. His
client is not seeking to use the courts, and his address cannot be disclosed
on that theory, nor is the present action pending against him as service of
the summons on him has not been effected. The objections on which the
court reserved decision are sustained.xxxix[39]

In the case of Matter of Shawmut Mining Company,xl[40] the lawyer

involved was required by a lower court to disclose whether he
represented certain clients in a certain transaction. The purpose of the
court’s request was to determine whether the unnamed persons as
interested parties were connected with the purchase of properties
involved in the action. The lawyer refused and brought the question to
the State Supreme Court. Upholding the lawyer’s refusal to divulge the
names of his clients the court held:

If it can compel the witness to state, as directed by the order appealed

from, that he represented certain persons in the purchase or sale of these
mines, it has made progress in establishing by such evidence their
version of the litigation. As already suggested, such testimony by the
witness would compel him to disclose not only that he was attorney for
certain people, but that, as the result of communications made to him in
the course of such employment as such attorney, he knew that they were
interested in certain transactions. We feel sure that under such
conditions no case has ever gone to the length of compelling an attorney,
at the instance of a hostile litigant, to disclose not only his retainer, but
the nature of the transactions to which it related, when such information
could be made the basis of a suit against his client.xli[41]

3) Where the government’s lawyers have no case against an attorney’s

client unless, by revealing the client’s name, the said name would furnish
the only link that would form the chain of testimony necessary to convict
an individual of a crime, the client’s name is privileged.

In Baird vs Korner,xlii[42] a lawyer was consulted by the accountants and

the lawyer of certain undisclosed taxpayers regarding steps to be taken to
place the undisclosed taxpayers in a favorable position in case criminal
charges were brought against them by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service
(IRS).

It appeared that the taxpayers’ returns of previous years were probably

incorrect and the taxes understated. The clients themselves were unsure
about whether or not they violated tax laws and sought advice from Baird
on the hypothetical possibility that they had. No investigation was then
being undertaken by the IRS of the taxpayers. Subsequently, the
attorney of the taxpayers delivered to Baird the sum of $12,706.85,
which had been previously assessed as the tax due, and another amount
of money representing his fee for the advice given. Baird then sent a
check for $12,706.85 to the IRS in Baltimore, Maryland, with a note
explaining the payment, but without naming his clients. The IRS
demanded that Baird identify the lawyers, accountants, and other clients
involved. Baird refused on the ground that he did not know their names,
and declined to name the attorney and accountants because this
constituted privileged communication. A petition was filed for the
enforcement of the IRS summons. For Baird’s repeated refusal to name
his clients he was found guilty of civil contempt. The Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals held that, a lawyer could not be forced to reveal the
names of clients who employed him to pay sums of money to the
government voluntarily in settlement of undetermined income taxes,
unsued on, and with no government audit or investigation into that
client’s income tax liability pending. The court emphasized the
exception that a client’s name is privileged when so much has been
revealed concerning the legal services rendered that the disclosure of the
client’s identity exposes him to possible investigation and sanction by
government agencies. The Court held:

The facts of the instant case bring it squarely within that exception to the
general rule. Here money was received by the government, paid by
persons who thereby admitted they had not paid a sufficient amount in
income taxes some one or more years in the past. The names of the
clients are useful to the government for but one purpose - to ascertain
which taxpayers think they were delinquent, so that it may check the
records for that one year or several years. The voluntary nature of the
payment indicates a belief by the taxpayers that more taxes or interest or
penalties are due than the sum previously paid, if any. It indicates a
feeling of guilt for nonpayment of taxes, though whether it is criminal
guilt is undisclosed. But it may well be the link that could form the chain
of testimony necessary to convict an individual of a federal crime.
Certainly the payment and the feeling of guilt are the reasons the
attorney here involved was employed - to advise his clients what, under
the circumstances, should be done.xliii[43]

Apart from these principal exceptions, there exist other situations which
could qualify as exceptions to the general rule.

For example, the content of any client communication to a lawyer lies

within the privilege if it is relevant to the subject matter of the legal
problem on which the client seeks legal assistance.xliv[44] Moreover,
where the nature of the attorney-client relationship has been previously
disclosed and it is the identity which is intended to be confidential, the
identity of the client has been held to be privileged, since such revelation
would otherwise result in disclosure of the entire transaction.xlv[45]

Summarizing these exceptions, information relating to the identity of a

client may fall within the ambit of the privilege when the client’s name
itself has an independent significance, such that disclosure would then
reveal client confidences.xlvi[46]

The circumstances involving the engagement of lawyers in the case at

bench, therefore, clearly reveal that the instant case falls under at least
two exceptions to the general rule. First, disclosure of the alleged client's
name would lead to establish said client's connection with the very fact
in issue of the case, which is privileged information, because the
privilege, as stated earlier, protects the subject matter or the substance
(without which there would be no attorney-client relationship).

The link between the alleged criminal offense and the legal advice or
legal service sought was duly established in the case at bar, by no less
than the PCGG itself. The key lies in the three specific conditions laid
down by the PCGG which constitutes petitioners’ ticket to non-
prosecution should they accede thereto:

(a) the disclosure of the identity of its clients;

(b) submission of documents substantiating the lawyer-client

relationship; and

(c) the submission of the deeds of assignment petitioners executed in

favor of their clients covering their respective shareholdings.

From these conditions, particularly the third, we can readily deduce that
the clients indeed consulted the petitioners, in their capacity as lawyers,
regarding the financial and corporate structure, framework and set-up of
the corporations in question. In turn, petitioners gave their professional
advice in the form of, among others, the aforementioned deeds of
assignment covering their clients’ shareholdings.

There is no question that the preparation of the aforestated documents

was part and parcel of petitioners’ legal service to their clients. More
important, it constituted an integral part of their duties as lawyers.
Petitioners, therefore, have a legitimate fear that identifying their clients
would implicate them in the very activity for which legal advice had
been sought, i.e., the alleged accumulation of ill-gotten wealth in the
aforementioned corporations.
Furthermore, under the third main exception, revelation of the client's
name would obviously provide the necessary link for the prosecution to
build its case, where none otherwise exists. It is the link, in the words of
Baird, “that would inevitably form the chain of testimony necessary to
convict the (client) of a... crime."xlvii[47]

An important distinction must be made between a case where a client

takes on the services of an attorney for illicit purposes, seeking advice
about how to go around the law for the purpose of committing illegal
activities and a case where a client thinks he might have previously
committed something illegal and consults his attorney about it. The first
case clearly does not fall within the privilege because the same cannot be
invoked for purposes illegal. The second case falls within the exception
because whether or not the act for which the advice turns out to be
illegal, his name cannot be used or disclosed if the disclosure leads to
evidence, not yet in the hands of the prosecution, which might lead to
possible action against him.

These cases may be readily distinguished, because the privilege cannot

be invoked or used as a shield for an illegal act, as in the first example;
while the prosecution may not have a case against the client in the
second example and cannot use the attorney client relationship to build
up a case against the latter. The reason for the first rule is that it is not
within the professional character of a lawyer to give advice on the
commission of a crime.xlviii[48] The reason for the second has been stated
in the cases above discussed and are founded on the same policy grounds
for which the attorney-client privilege, in general, exists.

In Matter of Shawmut Mining Co., supra, the appellate court therein

stated that "under such conditions no case has ever yet gone to the length
of compelling an attorney, at the instance of a hostile litigant, to disclose
not only his retainer, but the nature of the transactions to which it related,
when such information could be made the basis of a suit against his
client.”xlix[49] "Communications made to an attorney in the course of
any personal employment, relating to the subject thereof
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-28655 August 6, 1928

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
EUGENIO TOLEDO and SISENANDO HOLGADO, defendants.
EUGENIO TOLEDO, appellant.

C. V. Sanchez for appellant.

Attorney-General Jaranilla for appellee.

MALCOLM, J.:

This is an appeal taken by Eugenio Toledo from a judgment of the Court

of First Instance of Mindoro, finding him guilty of the crime of
homicide, and sentencing him therefor to imprisonment for fourteen
years, eight months, and one day, reclusion temporal, with the
corresponding accessory penalties, indemnity, and costs.

Sisenando Holgado and Filomeno Morales had disputes about the

occupation of certain land situated in the municipality of Pinamalayan,
Province of Mindoro. On the morning of June 15, 1927, the two men
happened to meet. The argument was renewed, and they agreed to fight.
They did engage in a bolo duel with a fatal result for Filomeno Morales,
who was killed almost instantly. Sisenando Holgado was also seriously
wounded but was able to proceed to a neighboring house. From there
Sisenando Holgado was taken to the municipal building where he made a
sworn statement before the municipal president, in which he declared
that only he and Filomeno Morales fought. About one month later,
Sisenando Holgado died from the wounds received in the fight.

The prosecution and the defense alike agree on the facts above outlined.
The disputable point is whether the accused Eugenio Toledo intervened
in the quarrel and dealt a mortal blow to Filomeno Morales. For the
prosecution, there was presented the witness Justina Villanueva, the
querida of Filomeno Morales, who testified to the presence and
participation of Eugenio Toledo. Her testimony was partially
corroborated by that of the witness Justina Llave. On the other hand, the
theory for the defense was that Toledo was in another place when the
fight between Morales and Holgado occurred and that his only
participation was on meeting Holgado, who was his landlord or master,
in helping him to a nearby house. To this effect is the testimony of the
accused and of Conrado Holgado, the son of Sisenando Holgado. The
defense also relied upon the affidavit of Sisenando Holgado, Exhibit 1,
which was identified by the municipal president of Pinamalayan.

Counsel de oficio in this court makes the following assignment of errors:

I. The lower court erred in not admitting in evidence Exhibit 1.

II. The lower court erred in not finding that accused-appellant

Eugenio Toledo did not take part in the fight between accused
Sisenando Holgado and deceased Filomeno Morales, resulting in
the death of the latter.

III. The lower court erred in not giving accused-appellant

Eugenio Toledo the benefit of a reasonable doubt." Exhibit 1
above-mentioned in assignment of error No. 1, made originally
in Tagalog, in translation reads as follows:

AFFIDAVIT

I. Sisenando Holgado, married, of legal age, and

resident of this municipality of Pinamalayan,
Province of Mindoro, P. I., after being sworn in
accordance with law, state the following:

My additional homestead situated in Calingag

was cleaned by me and is at present planted with
palay (rice), on which I also plant hemp, but the
hemp planted by my workers is frequently
uprooted by Filomeno Morales who claims that
said land is his, whereas when I was cleaning
said land nobody objected to it, but now that it is
already cleaned, Filomeno Morales says that
one-half of the land occupied by me is his; for
this reason I decided to see Filomeno Morales
about this matter and when I talked to him this
morning (Wednesday) at about nine o'clock, at
the hemp plantation of Victorio Saudan situated
in Calingag, he told me that if I should plant
there anything he would cut my neck, and to this
I answered that if he was going to cut my neck
we would fight and thereupon he stabbed me
with a penknife and then I slashed at him; after
this we separated, and went to Dalmacio
Manlisic's house. When we fought, there was
nobody present.

Question by president: When you went to the

house of Dalmacio Manlisic, did you not meet
anybody before reaching said house?

Answer: I met one of my workers named

Eugenio Toledo, who accompanied me to the
house of Dalmacio Manlisic.

Question by president: How do you know that

the hemp you planted on your land above-
mentioned was frequently uprooted by Filomeno
Morales?

Answer: Because he said as to my worker

named Eulogio Supleo.

Question by president: Do you have anything

more to say about the incident?

Answer: No more.

In testimony of all that I stated above, I signed

this document in the presence of two witnesses
and then swore to it in the presence of the
municipal president here at Pinamalayan,
Mindoro, this June fifteenth, nineteen hundred
twenty-seven.
 His
SISENANDO HOLGADO
Mark
In the presence of:

(Sgd.) ILLEGIBLE
HILARION NIEVA

Signed and sworn to before me, this June

fifteenth, 1927.

(Sgd.) ILLEGIBLE
Municipal President

The discussion of the case in court has revealed three different points of
view among the members participating, all leading to the same result of
acquittal. Under such circumstances, it is, course, difficult for the writer
of the opinion to do entire justice to those theories which do not conform
to his own. However, an effort will be made to present the various
opinions, leaving it for any individual member to enlarge upon the same,
if he so desires.

The Chief and Mr. Justice Villamor would disregard entirely the first
assignment of error and would, therefore, refrain from all discussion
relative to the admissibility of Exhibit 1. Confining themselves
exclusively to an analysis of the evidence other than Exhibit 1, they find
that Eugenio Toledo has not been proved guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt. The contradictions in the testimony for the prosecution pointed
out by the trial judge do not impress these members of the court so
seriously. In reality, there being but one witness for the prosecution who,
on account of her relations with Filomeno Morales, and the land troubles,
might be expected to exaggerate, and there being on the contrary
exculpatory evidence for the defense, even without Exhibit 1, the
Government has not made out its case. Consequently, on the testimonial
facts, these members vote for acquittal.

II

The second view is that for which Messrs. Justices Romualdez and Villa-
Real are responsible, and is that Exhibit 1 should have been admitted in
evidence as part of the res gestae, and that giving it effect, in relation
with the other evidence, the accused has not been proved guilty. What
has heretofore been said with reference to the state of the record need not
here be repeated. It only remains to be stated that Exhibit 1 was made by
Sisenando Holgado on the same morning that the fight occurred and
without the interval of sufficient time for reflection. The declaration of
Sisenando Holgado fulfilled the test of the facts talking through the party
and not the party talking about the facts. There was such a correlation
between the statement and the fact of which it forms part as strongly
tends to negative the suggestion of fabrication or a suspicion of
afterthought. The nature and circumstances of the statement do not
disclose intrinsic evidence of premeditation as revealed in a long,
coherent, closely connected story. The modern tendency is toward the
extension of the rule admitting spontaneous declarations to meet the
needs of justice when other evidence of the same fact cannot be
procured. (22 C. J., pp. 461 et seq.; U. S. vs. David [1903], 3 Phil., 128.)

III

The third opinion in court is that held by Messrs. Justices Street,

Malcolm, and Ostrand, who would resolve the first assignment of error
by holding that the court erred in not admitting Exhibit 1 as the statement
of a fact against penal interest. Had Exhibit 1 been received, it is
believed that its influence would have been felt by the trial court.
Without Exhibit 1, the appellate court is bound by the appreciation of the
evidence made in the trial court, and could, with little propriety, set aside
the findings made by a learned trial judge. The case calls for an
examination of the right of the courts to receive in evidence documents
of the character of Exhibit 1.

Hearsay evidence, with a few well recognized exceptions, it has been

said on high authority, is excluded by courts in the United States that
adhere to the principles of the common law. One universally recognized
exception concerns the admission of dying declarations. Another
exception permits the reception, under certain circumstances, of
declarations of third parties made contrary to their own pecuniary or
proprietary interest. But the general rule is stated to be that the
declarations of a person other than accused confessing or tending to
show that he committed the crime are not competent for accused on
account of the hearsay doctrine.
Professor Wigmore, one of the greatest living authorities on the law of
evidence, has attempted to demonstrate the false premises on which the
arbitrary limitation to the hearsay rule rests. He shows that the limitation
is inconsistent with the language originally employed in stating the
principle and is unjustified on grounds of policy. Professor Wigmore in
turn has been answered by no less a body than the Supreme Court of
Mississippi in the case of Brown vs. State of Mississippi ([1910], 37 L.
R. A., New Series, 345). The editor of the Mississippi case in L. R. A.,
however, comes to the support of Professor Wigmore saying the
unanimity of the decisions "is as complete as the shock which they give
the general sense of justice." The question has likewise in recent years
gained attention by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of
Donnelly vs. United States ([1913], 228 U. S., 243). There it was held
that the court below properly excluded hearsay evidence relating to the
confession of a third party, then deceased, of guilt of the crime with
which defendant was charged. Mr. Justice Pitney, delivering the opinion
of the court, said: "In this country there is a great and practically
unanimous weight of authority in the estate courts against admitting
evidence of confessions of third parties, made out of court, and tending
to exonerate the accused." Mr. Justice Van Devanter concurred in the
result while Mr. Justice Holmes, with whom concurred Mr. Justice
Lurton and Mr. Justice Hughes, dissented. Mr. Justice Holmes said:

. . . The rues of evidence in the main are based on experience,

logic, and common sense, less hampered by history than some
parts of the substantive law. There is no decision by this court
against the admissibility of such a confession; the English cases
since the separation of the two countries do not bind us; the
exception to the hearsay rule in the case of declarations against
interest is well known; no other statement is so much against
interest as a confession of murder; it is far more calculated to
convince than dying declarations, which would be let in to hang
a man (Mattox vs. United States, 146 U. S., 140; 36 Law. ed.,
917; 13 Sup. Ct. Rep., 50); and when we surround the accused
with so many safeguards, some of which seem to me excessive; I
think we ought to give him the benefit of a fact that, if proved,
commonly would have such weight. The history of the law and
the arguments against the English doctrine are so well and fully
stated by Mr. Wigmore that there is no need to set them forth at
greater length. (2 Wigmore, Evidence, pars. 1476, 1477.)
In the Philippine jurisdiction, we have never felt bound to follow blindly
the principles of the common law. A reexamination of some of those
principles discloses anomalies.

A dying declaration is admitted of necessity in order, as the Supreme

Court of Mississippi states, "to reach those man slayers who perpetrate
their crimes when there are no other eyewitnesses." But the person
accused of a crime, under the same principle of necessity, is not
permitted to free himself by offering in evidence the admission of
another under oath that this other committed the crime. Again admissions
are receivable against either a pecuniary or a proprietary interest, but not
against a penal interest. We fail to see why it can be believed that a man
will be presumed to tell the truth in the one instance but will not be
presumed to tell the truth in the other instance. Again the exhibit would
have been admitted against its maker at his trial, if he had not died. But
the document is held inadmissible to exonerate another. Yet the truth of
the exhibit is not different in the first case that in the second.

A study of the authorities discloses that even if given application they are
not here controlling. Most of them do not concern the confessions of
declarants shown to be deceased. Practically all of them give as the
principal reason for denying the admission of a confession of a third
person that he committed the crime with which the accused is charged,
that it was not made under oath. Here the declarant is deceased and his
statements were made under oath. They also read in such a way as to ring
with the truth. When Sisenando Holgado declared "When we fought,
there was nobody present," it was at the end of just such a rambling
statement as a wounded man would be expected to make. When
Sisenando Holgado declared "I met one of my workers named Eugenio
Toledo, who accompanied me to the house of Dalmacio Manlisic," he
did so in response to a question by the municipal president. Exhibit 1
should have been received not as conclusive evidence of innocence, but
as evidence to be taken into consideration in connection with the other
proven facts.

We cannot bring this decision to a conclusion without quoting the well

considered language of Professor Wigmore on the subject, the pertinent
part of a decision coming from a court which has gained respect
particularly in criminal cases, and an editorial note. Professor Wigmore
has said:
 PAR. 1476. History of the Exception; Statement of Fact against
Penal Interest, excluded; Confessions of Crime by a Third
Person. — It is today commonly said, and has been expressly
laid down by many judges, that the interest prejudiced by the
facts stated must be either a pecuniary or a proprietary interest,
and not a penal interest. What ground in authority there is for
this limitation may be found by examining the history of the
execution at large.

The exception appears to have taken its rise chiefly in two

separate rivulets of rulings, starting independently as a matter of
practice, but afterwards united as parts of a general principle. . . .

These lines of precedent proceeded independently till about the

beginning of the 1800s, when a unity of principle for some of
them came gradually to be perceived and argued for. This unity
lay in the circumstance that all such statements, in that they
concerned matters prejudicial to the declarant's self-interest,
were fairly trustworthy and might therefore (if he were deceased)
be treated as forming an exception to the hearsay rule.

This broad principle made its way slowly. There was some
uncertainty about its scope; but it was an uncertainty in the
direction of breadth; for it was sometimes put in the broad form
that any statement by a person "having no interest to deceive"
would be admissible. This broad form never came to prevail
(post, par. 1576). But acceptance was gained, after two decades,
for the principle that all declarations of facts against interest (by
deceased persons) were to be received. What is to be noted, then,
is that from 1800 to about 1830 this was fully understood as the
broad scope of the principle. It was thus stated without other
qualifications; and frequent passages show the development of
the principle to this point.

But in 1884, in a case in the House of Lords, not strongly argued and not
considered by the judges in the light of the precedents, a backward step
was taken and an arbitrary limit put upon the rule. It was held to exclude
the statement of a fact subjecting the declarant to a criminal liability, and
to confined to statements of facts against either pecuniary or proprietary
interest. Thenceforward this rule was accepted in England; although it
was plainly a novelty at the time of its inception; for in several rulings up
to that time such statement had been received.
The same attitude has been taken by most American courts,
excluding confessions of a crime, or other statements of facts
against penal interest, made by third persons; although there is
not wanting authority in favor of admitting such statements.

PAR. 1477. Same: Policy of this Limitation. — It is plain enough

that this limitation, besides being a fairly modern novelty, is
inconsistent with the broad language originally employed in
stating the reason and principle of the present exception (ante,
pars. 1457, 1476) as well as with the settled principle upon
which confessions are received (ante, par. 1475).

But, furthermore, it cannot be justified on grounds of policy. The

only plausible reason of policy that has ever been advanced for
such a limitation is the possibility of procuring fabricated
testimony to such a admission if oral. This is the ancient rusty
weapon that has always been drawn to oppose any reform in the
rules of evidence, viz., the argument of danger of abuse. This
would be a good argument against admitting any witnesses at all,
for it is notorious that some witnesses will lie and that it is
difficult to avoid being deceived by their lies. The truth is that
any rule which hampers an honest man in exonerating himself is
a bad rule, even if it also hampers a villain in falsely passing for
an innocent.

The only practical consequences of this unreasoning limitation

are shocking to the sense of justice; for, in its commonest
application, it requires, in a criminal trial, the rejection of a
confession, however well authenticated, of a person deceased or
insane or fled from the jurisdiction (and therefore quite
unavailable) who has avowed himself to be true culprit. The
absurdity and wrong of rejecting indiscriminately all such
evidence is patent.

The rulings already in our books cannot be thought to involve a

settled and universal acceptance of this limitation. In the first
place, in almost all of the rulings the declarant was not shown to
be deceased or otherwise unavailable as a witness, and therefore
the declaration would have been inadmissible in any view of the
present exception (ante, par. 1456). Secondly, in some of the
rulings (for example, in North Carolina) the independent
doctrine (ante, pars. 139-141) was applicable that, in order to
 prove the accused's non-commission of the offense by showing
commission by another person, not merely one casual piece of
evidence suffices but a "prima facie" case resting on several
concurring pieces of evidence must be made out. Finally, most of
the early rulings had in view, not the present exception to the
hearsay rule, but the doctrine of admissions (ante, pars. 1076,
1079) that the admissions of one who is not a co-conspirator
cannot affect others jointly charged.

It is therefore not too late to retrace our steps, and to discard this
barbarous doctrine, which would refuse to let an innocent
accused vindicate himself even by producing to the tribunal a
perfectly authenticated written confession, made on the very
gallows, by the rule culprit now beyond the reach of justice.
Those who watched (in 1899) with self-righteous indignation the
course of proceedings in Captain Dreyfus' trial should remember
that, if that trial had occurred in our own courts, the spectacle
would have been no less shameful if we, following our own
supposed precedents, had refused to admit what the French court
never for a moment hesitated to admit, — the authenticated
confession of the escaped Major Esterhazy, avowing himself the
guilty author of the treason there charged. (3 Wigmore on
Evidence, 2d ed., secs. 1476, 1477.)

In the case of Pace vs. State ([1911], Court of Criminal Appeals of

Texas, 135 Southwestern, 379), the appellant offered to prove in the trial
court by the witness Byron Kyle that on Saturday morning following the
killing of the deceased on the previous Sunday he had a conversation
with Dick Cain, one of the parties to the homicide, in which Dick Cain
admitted the he killed the deceased. The court ruled:

. . . Wherever the state seeks to fasten criminality upon the party

on trial, the accused had a right to meet and rebut any testimony
which may be offered against him in any legitimate way. If Cain
had been upon trial, his confession to the witness Kyle would
have been admissible beyond any shadow of doubt, and would
have been upon trial, his confession to the witness Kyle would
have been admissible beyond any shadow of doubt, and would
have been strong evidence to go before the jury. The estate
would have been seeking to introduce this and with great
earnestness, and correctly so. If appellant could prove that
another party or others committed the homicide, it might prove
 his innocence, and would be strong evidence to go before the
jury in his favor. Any legitimate fact or circumstance which
would meet or tend to meet the state's case and break the force of
criminative facts introduced against the accused is always
admissible. Appellant's contention was that he did not kill the
deceased, but that Cain did. The state's theory was the appellant
shot the deceased, and Cain did not shoot him. Under the rules of
evidence this testimony was clearly inadmissible.

We would like finally to turn attention to what was said by the editor of
L. R. A. in his note in volume 37 hereinbefore referred to, viz:

The purpose of all evidence is to get at the truth. The reason for
the hearsay rule is that the extrajudicial and unsworn statement
of another is not the best method of serving this purpose. In other
words, the great possibility of the fabrication of falsehoods, and
the inability to prove their untruth, requires that the doors be
closed to such evidence. So long therefore as a declarant is
available as a witness, his extrajudicial statement should not be
heard. Where, however, the declarant is dead or has disappeared,
his previous statements, out of court, if not inadmissible on other
grounds, are the best evidence. But they are not rendered
inadmissible by the mere fact that the declarant is unavailable,
— something else is necessary. One fact which will satisfy this
necessity is that the declaration is or was against the declarant's
interest, and this is because no sane person will be presumed to
tell a falsehood to his own detriment.

xxx xxx xxx

Again, if, seems indisputable, the desire to close the door to

falsehood which cannot be detected dictates the exclusion of
such testimony, the question as to the effect to be given to such a
confession is solely one of weight and credibility. . . .

Any man outside of a court and unhampered by the pressure of technical

procedure, unreasoned rules of evidence, and cumulative authority,
would say that if a man deliberately acknowledged himself to be the
perpetrator of a crime and exonerated the person charged with the crime,
and there was other evidence indicative of the truthfulness of the
statement, the accused man should not be permitted to go to prison or to
the electric chair to expiate a crime he never committed. Shall Judges
trained and experienced in the law display less discerning common sense
that the layman and allow precedent to overcome truth?

JUDGMENT

For three somewhat divergent reasons, we are all of the opinion that the
defendant-appellant Eugenio Toledo should be given the benefit of the
reasonable doubt which prevails in our minds. Accordingly, the
judgment appealed from will be reversed and the defendant and appellant
acquitted, and as it appears that he is now confined in Bilibid Prison, an
order will immediately issue directing his release, with costs de oficio.

Avanceña, C.J., Street, Villamor, Ostrand, Romualdez and Villa-Real,

JJ., concur.
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 119359 December 10, 1996

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ROBERT CLOUD, accused-appellant.

REGALADO, J.:p

The universal outcry and multinational campaign against child

abuse can draw added impetus from this extreme case of a little
boy, just barely two and a half years old, who was beaten to death
by his own father. So it was alleged in an information for parricide
filed against accused-appellant Robert Cloud in the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 103, Quezon City. 1

The case for the prosecution is presented by the Solicitor General

2
by adopting the factual findings of the trial court, with the pages
of the stenographic notes being supplied by the People. Having
painstakingly reviewed and analyzed the evidence of record, we
find that such findings merit reproduction hereunder:

At around 11:00 o'clock in the morning on August

2, 1988 while a certain Mrs. Josephine Aguilar was
at the emergency room of St. Luke's Hospital,
Quezon City to have some stitches removed from
her daughter's head her attention was called by a
limpid boy being carried by a man followed by an
old woman who was shouting hysterically. The boy
is John Albert Cloud. She noticed that the face of
the boy was swollen and bruised and his body
covered with dry blood. A nurse commented that
the little
boy — not more than three years old — must have
been hit by a truck (tsn, J. Aguilar, June 21, 1993,
pp. 7-10, 14-15, 33).

But the words of the old woman — the lola — of the

little boy, showed the cause of the injury to be
otherwise for she was repeatedly saying in a
potpourri of cries and tears: "Pinatay siya ng
sariling ama!" The old woman told the people inside
the Emergency Room that the boy's
father — Robert Cloud — wouldn't allow John
Albert to come with her and when the boy started to
cry and wouldn't stop crying his father began to
beat the boy hard, tied his hands, and made "tusok,
tusok" in his body. The father continued beating the
boy even when excrements were already coming
out from the boy's anus (tsn, J. Aguilar, June 21,
1993, pp. 12-13, 22).

The male companion of the boy said to the old

woman: "Hoy, tigil ka na!" "Wag kang maingay."
and told the people at E.R.: "Sira ang ulo ng
matanda, eh!" (tsn, J. Aguilar, July 12, 1993, pp. 8-
9) But the old woman wouldn't stop and continued
to say: "Putang-ina ang ama niya . . . Hayop siya!"

When the doctor pronounced the boy dead the old

woman knelt before him and cried like (Ix)ion (tsn,
J. Aguilar, June 21, 1993, p. 10). His baptismal
certificate says that John Albert was born on
October 2, 1987 to Janet Villagracia and John
Robert Cloud (Exh. "3").

The ear-piercing would probably have ended there

but for the fact that Mrs. Aguilar's conscience was
bothered by what she saw and heard as narrated
above and decided to do something about it. She
approached Atty. Remedios Balbin, Chairman in
Quezon City of a civil liberties organization. Atty.
Balbin, after a few weeks of research found out that
Robert Cloud and family left his house at No. 69
San Isidro Street, Barangay Sto. Niño, Quezon
 City[;] the boy's body was brought to Rey Funeral
Homes[;] Dr. E. Cacas certified that the cause of
death of John Albert Cloud is broncho pneumonia
with heart complications (Exh. D-48) [;] and that the
autopsy on the cadaver was waived by Natividad
Calpito Cloud who claimed to be the boy's mother
per her "Affidavit" dated August 3, 1988 (Exh. "D-
47"). Atty. Balbin thereafter contacted the NBI and
requested for the exhumation of the boy's cadaver
(tsn, J. Aguilar, June 21, 1994, pp. 17-21, 32, 35-
37, 42; R. Balbin, March 8, 1994, pp. 6, 17-21, 23,
25-27, 29-30, 36, 50, 54-55).

The exhumation was done on November 8, 1988 by the NBI at the

Manila South Cemetery. The exhumation report stated the
following findings:

Upper incisor, right, missing.

Contusions; face, right side, 9.0 x 6.0 cm; buttocks,
right and left sides, 20.0 x 12.0 cm;
knees, anterior aspect, right, 6.0 x 4.5 cm;
and left 8.0 x 5.0 cm.;

Contused-abrasion: face, left side, 14.0 x 6.0 cm;

arm, left, postero-lateral aspect,
6.0 x 4.0 cm;
hand, right, dorsal aspect, 7.0 x 5.0 cm;
thigh, right posterior aspect, extending to the lateral
and anterior aspects 15.0 x 7.0 cm.

Hematoma — frontto-temporal region, left side 13.0

x 6.0 cm.

Hemorrhages, subdural and subarachnoidal, left

cerebral hemisphere.

Heart chambers contain a small amount of

embalmed blood.

Brain markedly congested and edematous.

 Other visceral organs, congested.

Stomach, empty (Exhibits "E" and "E-l")

Although the crime was supposedly committed on August 2, 1988,

for reasons hereinafter explained the information dated May 10,
1990 was filed on June 5, 1990. The decision of the trial court
states that the accused was arrested only on April 15, 1993. That
is why, with the proceedings that then had to be undertaken and
the trial which had to be conducted, it was only in a decision dated
November 11, 1994 that judgment was ultimately handed down,
decreeing as follows:

ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered

finding herein accused ROBERT CLOUD GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime
of PARRICIDE for the violent death of his son
JOHN ALBERT CLOUD and he is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION
PERPETUA and ordered to pay the heirs of the
victim the sum of P50,000.00 as damages. Costs
vs. the accused. 3

That it took more than six years to obtain a verdict for the child's
death is a distressing indictment of the criminal justice system,
particularly its investigative and prosecutory pillars. How the case
managed to reach its logical denouement, however, is a tribute
and does honor to the other component of the system — the
community participation — which is the redeeming feature in this
bizarre and repulsive case of barbarity to an innocent, helpless
victim who was just a stage out of infancy.

As stated earlier, the events that later became the subject of

testimonial evidence for the prosecution unfolded before the eyes
of prosecution witness Josephine Aguilar who was then inside the
emergency room of the hospital having stitches removed from her
daughter's head. Although she was a perfect stranger to the family
involved, but haunted by the sight and memory of the lifeless and
battered child, she sought the help of Atty. Remedios Balbin,
chairperson of a civil liberties organization in Quezon City. It was
through their joint, unrelenting and selfless efforts that this case
eventually wound up in the court a quo for judicial action.
Atty. Balbin conducted an investigative research which enabled
her to coordinate with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
Her efforts led to the discovery of the following facts:(1) Robert
Cloud and his family left their house at No. 69 San Isidro Street,
Barangay Sto. Niño, Quezon City immediately after the death of
John Albert; 4 (2) John Albert's body was brought from the hospital
to the Rey Funeral Homes; 5 (3) a certain Dr. E. Gacas certified
that the cause of the death of John Albert was broncho
pneumonia with heart complications; 6 and (4) the autopsy of the
cadaver was waived by a certain Natividad Calpito Cloud who
falsely claimed to be the mother of John Albert. 7 Incidentally,
despite her active participation in various aspects of this case, she
was never called upon by appellant to testify and corroborate his
assertions therein.

Atty. Balbin thereafter requested for the exhumation of the body of

the little boy for purposes of autopsy. The exhumation was made
on November 8, 1988, almost three months after the burial of
John Albert. The exhumation report, which has been quoted by
the People in its brief and is set out in full at the start of this
opinion, revealed the grave and fatal injuries, internal and
external, which caused the boy's death and could have resulted
only from violence or strong physical force. On the strength of that
report of the NBI, the sworn statement of Josephine Aguilar and
the evidence gathered by Atty. Balbin, an information for parricide
was eventually filed against herein appellant.

A warrant for the arrest of Robert Cloud was issued on June 11,
1990 which was returned unserved. Alias warrants were issued on
June 29, 1992 and September 22, 1992 and finally on April 15,
1993. Appellant was arrested by the police at No. 22 Lourdes
Castillo Street, Galas, Quezon City and was thereafter committed
to jail. On April 26, 1993, duly assisted by counsel, he was
arraigned and he pleaded not guilty to the charge.

The prosecution built up its case on the basis of a sworn affidavit

and testimony in open court of its principal witness, Josephine
Aguilar. For a clearer appreciation of what she actually witnessed
and overheard inside the emergency room of St. Luke's Hospital,
we quote her testimony:

FISCAL PONFERRADA:
Q Madam witness, do you recall
where were you on August 2, 1988
at around 11:00 in the morning,
madam witness?

A I was in the emergency room of

St. Luke's Hospital in Quezon City,
sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q While you were there after a

couple of minutes, what happened?
Do you recall any unusual incident,
madam witness?

A An old woman came with a boy full

of dried blood, sir.

Q You said old lady with a little boy,

what happened after that, madam
witness?

A Well she came in and she was

crying, I heard the old woman, I
heard the doctor as(k) the old lady
what happened and the old lady told
the doctor that it's the father who bit
(sic) him up again and the old lady
put the kid on the table and I saw the
kid died, sir.

Q What happened next, what else

did the old lady say, madam
witness?

A The doctor told the old lady "wala

na" then the old lady sitdown (sic) on
the floor crying and crying
h(y)sterically, sir.
Q Did you come to know the old
woman, madam witness?

A No, sir.

Q How about the boy, did you come

to know the name of the boy who
died, madam witness?

A Albert Cloud, sir.

Q What happened after the boy

died, madam witness?

A The lola started shouting telling

everybody there how it happened, to
the nurses and to the doctors.

Q You said the lola started telling the

doctor what actually happened, did
you hear these what the lola tell (sic)
madam witness?

A Yes, sir.

Q Please narrate before this

Honorable Court what you hear(d)
as narrated by the lola, madam
witness?

A Yes, sir.

COURT:

Q What did you hear when she tells

(sic) everybody?

A The father of the boy who died has

burned in the skin, he was tie(d) and
thrown against the wall, punch(ed)
the boy, sir.
FISCAL PONFERRADA:

Q Did you have any occasion to see

whether there are marks in the
hands or the body of the boy,
madam witness?

A At that time the boy was full of

dried blood, sir.

Q After that?

A I see (interrupted)

Q What did you see, madam

witness?

A He had dried blood here. The boy

had dried blood in the forehead, sir.

COURT:

Q What else did you see?

A He has bruises, blood inside the

skin, "mga pasa".

Q At that time?

A I only saw full of dried blood, sir.

Q Did you see the condition of the

body of the boy?

A No, I only saw dried blood from

head to foot, sir.

FISCAL PONFERRADA:
 Q So at that time in the hospital you
did not see the boy, madam
witness?

A Only dried blood, sir. 8

The defense, on the other hand, argues that at the time of the
commission of the alleged crime, appellant was not in his house
and that the boy, John Albert, must have fallen from the stairs
leading to the second floor of the house. The defense presented
appellant and he testified that he left the house on the day in
question and only learned upon his return that his son was already
dead, thus:

Q Do you know how your son died,

Mr. Witness?

A I don't know, sir.

Q By the way where were you on

August 2, 1988 in the morning, Mr.
Witness.

A I was at home, sir.

Q Did you leave that house on that

day, August 2, 1988, Mr. Witness?

A Yes, sir.

Q What time did you leave the

house, Mr. Witness?

A Around 10:30, sir.

Q In the morning?

A Yes, sir.
Q Now, your son, where was he at
the time you left the house, Mr.
Witness?

A He was upstairs, sir.

Q Do you know what he was doing

at the time you left, Mr. Witness?

A He was sleeping, sir.

Q Also, evidence already adduced in

this case indicates that your son was
brought to the St. Lukes Hospital,
Quezon City by an old woman with a
male companion on or about 12:00
o'clock noon on August 1, 1988 and
by there (sic) your son died. Did you
know that Mr. Witness?

A No, sir.

Q Why not, Mr. Witness?

A I was not at home that night, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q Did you ever come to know on

that very day that your son, John
Albert Cloud, died, Mr. Witness?

A Yes, sir.

Q How did you come to know that

your son died Mr. Witness?

A My "tiyahin" told me "nadisgrasya

raw po ang anak ko".
Q Who is this auntie, what is her
name, Mr. Witness?

A Teresita Alconyes.

Q Was that the old woman together

with the male person (who) brought
your son to the hospital, Mr.
Witness?

A No, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q Where did this aunt of yours Ms.

Alconyes tell you that your son died,
Mr. Witness?

A I was at Paco at that time, sir.

Q Is that the place where you were

when you left your house at 10:00
o'clock in the morning?

A Yes, sir.

Q By the way, what is the address of

your house on August 2, 1988?

A In Quezon City, sir.

Q What specific address?

A No. 69 San Isidro St., Barangay

Sto. Niño, Santol, Quezon City.

Q Did your aunt tell you how she

came to know that your son died,
Mr. Witness?

A No, sir.
Q When you learned that your son
died from your aunt, what did you
do?

A I went home immediately, sir.

Q Did you see any person in your

house or did you reach your house?

A Yes, sir.

Q Whom did you meet in your house

upon your return?

A None, sir.

Q So what did you do, Mr. Witness?

A I waited there, sir.

Q For whom did you wait, Mr.

Witness?

A The one who brought my son to

the hospital.

Q Were you able to wait for them,

Mr. Witness?

A Yes, sir.

Q Who were those persons whom

you waited for, Mr. Witness?

A My Lola and our houseboy, sir.

Q What did your Lola tell you upon

their return, about your son, Mr.
Witness?
A My Lola told me that my son is
dead.

Q Did she tell you where your son

was at that time?

A That he was at the hospital, sir.

Q Did you ask her whether she was

the one who brought the child to the
hospital?

A No, sir.

Q Was she the one or was she not

the one who brought (him) to the
hospital?

A "Sila ho."

Q Your Lola, is she your

grandmother or your grandaunt?

A Grandmother, sir.

Q Mother of your mother?

A Yes, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q Did you go to the hospital, Mr.

Witness, to verify?

A No, sir.

Q Why not, Mr. Witness?

A "Masama ang loob ko" that is why

I did not go anymore to the hospital,
sir. 9
The defense also alleged that John Albert was a sickly child from
birth and was often hospitalized due to difficulty in breathing, as
shown by some medical records. 10 Further presented was the
death certificate of John Albert Cloud issued by one Dr. Gacas
and dated August 6, 1988, stating that the cause of death was
broncho pneumonia with heart complications, 11 and the report
made by Patrolman Ulep showing that he investigated the death
of the child, John Albert Cloud. 12

On this aspect, Dr. Alberto M. Reyes, the medical specialist at the

NBI who examined the exhumed body of the little boy, was
presented as a prosecution witness. His report 13 indicated
"hemorrhage, intracranial, severe, traumatic" as the cause of
death. He testified that "the upper incisor, right, was missing,
contusions on the face, right side, buttocks, knees and on the
head. And the said injuries could have been caused by a hard
blunt object, hitting by a fist or a piece of wood." He did give a
hypothetical concession "that it was also possible that it was the
result of a fall from a building and as result of said injuries the boy
suffered internal hemorrhage which was the immediate cause of
his death." 14

However, as to what would be the more credible cause of death,

this is what he had to say:

Q In your best judgment as a

physician, (h)is injury, could have
been caused by any force applied,
what about the handle of a gun?

A We do not rule out that possibility.

Q Could this finding also with (sic)

the result of the excessive of
physical hitting (sic)?

A Yes, ma'am.

COURT:
 Q Both buttocks sustained injuries
according to your findings?

A Yes, right and left side.

Q If baby boy like this boy fall on the

high building would sustain injury on
the buttocks, the injury on the
buttocks as well as the knees?

A The contusion on the buttocks are

very extensive. They are 20 by 20
centimeters. So if the buttocks first
(sic) is very different, if he falls it is
very difficult for him and also on his
knees. And the knees are anterior
portion it is highly improbable.

FISCAL RAMOS:

Q So as far as the probabilit(ies) are

concerned, are you looking for a
possibility that he fell on (sic) a high
place?

A All in all the fall of (sic) a high

place is very remot(e). 15

To recall, the court a quo rendered its decision on November 11,

1994 or six years after the death of John Albert Cloud, and we find
its observations therein to be very perceptive and significant, to
wit:

The court also considers as inculpatory,

corroborative circumstances, the following which
the prosecutor elicited from the accused himself
and which, in the court's opinion, do not constitute
normal, reasonable or compatible with innocent
behavior of a father with respect to the horrifying
death of his son;
 (a) the accused was told that his son died from a
fall and he did not even bother to go to the hospital
where his son lay dead;

(b) he did not bother to see the medical records or

the medical certificate when he knew already that
his son did not die of an ordinary, natural cause.
And corollarily, said certificate is false and even the
alleged doctor who made (it) is a false or non-
existent doctor;

(c) the accused took his entire household to Paco,

Manila away from Quezon City for years. There
must have been some other reason than his
alleged sorrow over John Albert's death. For, if it
were just his sadness over it, then the Quezon City
house could have been rented out or a caretaker
left thereat. As it is, even Herminio Acosta left and
did not return there anymore to date. Was there
cause to shudder about in the death of a
2-1/2 year old boy that the Quezon City house of
accused had to be abandoned thus like a haunted
castle? Under the circumstances, the court believes
that it could only be the hounding darts and howls
of the memory of what the accused did there rather
than what he told the court supposedly happened
there, that can furnish such a strong reason for the
sudden abandonment of the house at 69 San Isidro
St., Sto. Niño (quite an irony), Quezon City; and

(d) despite the alleged unusual cause of death of

his son, he allowed his wife Natividad who is not
the real mother of John Albert, to be the one to
waive the autopsy on his son. We thus find a father
very much afraid to face his own baby son freshly
lying cold and dead. This is another eerie but
nonetheless clear sign of circumstantial guilt. 16

The prosecution's primary evidence that it was appellant who beat

up and killed the boy was the testimony of its principal witness
Josephine Aguilar who declared that she heard appellant's
grandmother herself shouting that it was appellant who killed his
own son by beating him to death. The said grandmother, Rufina
Alconyes, was not presented in court, since at the time of the trial
she was already dead.

The Solicitor General posits the view that the outbursts of that
grandmother constituted exceptions to the hearsay rule since they
were part of the res gestae. Those inculpatory and spontaneous
statements were: (1) "Pinatay siya ng kanyang ama" (he was
killed by his own father); (2) Putang ina ang ama niya . . . walang
awa sa anak niya . . . hayop siya" (His father is a son of a bitch . . .
without pity for his son . . . he is an animal); and (3) Appellant did
not allow his son, John Albert, to accompany her and when the
boy started to cry and would not stop, appellant beat his son very
hard, tied his hands, and continued beating him until excreta came
out of his anus. 17

The trial court was of the opinion that what Ms. Aguilar heard or
saw does not merely constitute an independently relevant
statement which it considered as an "exception to the hearsay
rule, only as to the tenor rather than the intrinsic truth or falsity of
its contents." 18 We will clarify this. Insofar as the statements of
Rufina Alconyes are concerned, they are admissible as part of the
res gestae, they having been caused by and did result from the
startling, if not gruesome, occurrence that she witnessed; and
these were shortly thereafter uttered by her with spontaneity,
without prior opportunity to contrive the same. The report made
thereof by Josephine Aguilar is not hearsay since she was actually
there and personally heard the statements of Alconyes which she
recounted in court. Her account of said statements of Alconyes
are admissible under the doctrine of independently relevant
statements, with respect to the tenor and not the truth thereof,
since independent of the truth or falsity of the same they are
relevant to the issue on the cause of the death of the victim.

Against the foregoing facts which came from the lips of these two
women who had no ill motives whatsoever against appellant and
the circumstantial evidence arising from his abnormal and
inexplicable post-incident behavior, as well as the physical
evidence which will hereafter be discussed, we have merely the
bare denial of appellant and the testimony of his faithful houseboy
cum driver, Herminio Acosta. Since the latter is the star witness of
the defense, we will consider his testimony in extenso.
These are the pertinent parts of his representations in the trial
court:

Q Mr. Acosta, where were you on

August 2, 1988?

A I was at home, sir.

Q Where was your home then?

A At Santol but don't know specific

address.

Q Do you know whose house was

that?

A Mr. Robert Cloud the accused.

Q How long have you been staying

there at that time?

A About three years.

Q What was your function in that

house as a member of the family?

A I know a lot of things, cooking,

taken child in the school, driving.

Q In other words you were utility

man in that house?

A Yes, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q Let us go back to August 2, 1988,

who were member(s) of the
household present, in the morning
and afternoon?
 xxx xxx xxx

A Myself, Natividad and Abet and

Lola the old woman.

Q What is the full name of Naty?

A Natividad, the wife of Robert

Cloud.

COURT:

Q Who is this Abet?

A The one who fell in the stairs.

xxx xxx xxx

Q Who were inside that house, by

the way what time of that day when
the boy fell from the stairs?

A It was still early maybe 9:00 or

10:00 in the morning.

Q Now let us see, you said that

there were six members of the
household?

A Yes, sir.

Q Where was Naty, was Naty still

there when the boy fell in the stairs?

A She was there at that time.

Q Why?

A I did not notice that she left.

Q What about Mr. Cloud the
accused here Robert Cloud, was he
there when the child fell from the
stairs?

A He was not there also.

Q What about the Lola? Was she

there when the boy fell?

A Yes, sir.

Q What do you mean there, when

the boy fell the Lola was already
there?

A No, sir.

Q Where was she?

A She left perhaps she buy (sic)

something, sir.

Q Who were there in that house

A I was there, Jonald also.

Q What about the boy?

A He was upstairs in the room.

Q Now let us see at what time was

that boy John Robert Cloud was
upstairs?

A In the morning.

Q What was he doing there?

A I don't know because I was in the

groundfloor.
 xxx xxx xxx

Q What time were you at the

groundfloor?

A Morning when I heard something

"kalabog" that I went there.

Q What were doing there?

A I was preparing food and water for

Jonald, the old brother.

xxx xxx xxx

Q While you were doing this work,

do you know what happened.

A As I said I heard "kalabog" as if

something fell.

Q But before that you did not know

that Mr. Cloud left?

A Yes, sir.

Q What about Mr. Cloud, what time

did he leave?

A I don't remember.

Q What about the old woman what

time did she leave?

A I could not remember the time.

Q Who left ahead Mr. Cloud or the

old woman?

xxx xxx xxx

A The Lola first the one who left then
Naty then Robert Cloud.

Q Now when you said that (they) left

and you heard the "Kalabog" did you
know what kalabog is that?

A Yes, sir, I went to the stairway.

Q And what did you find out?

A I saw Abet.

Q So what did you do?

A I held him, I don't know how he fell

and I don't expect that he fall in the
stairway.

Q Can you tell the Honorable Court

the appearance of the boy if you can
still remember?

A He had blood.

Q Where?

A On the arms in the face I cannot

remember the other.

Q While you were holding that boy

what transpired next?

A Lola arrived.

Q Did the lola see what happened to

the boy while you were holding the
boy, did the lola see the boy in your
arm?

A Yes, sir.
Q Was there any remark made by
an old woman while you were
holding the boy?

A Yes, sir.

Q Please tell us as far as you can

remember?

A She was angry with the father

because according to her
"pinabayaan daw ang bata."

Q Can you represent all as you can

the statement of the lola?

A She was already angry and she

was telling a lot of things that is all, I
don't know what she said.

Q After that what happened?

A The baby was brought to the

hospital.

xxx xxx xxx

COURT:

Q Who brought the boy to the

hospital?

A The two of us, lola and I.

ATTY. MADAMBA:

Q What time?

A Pas(t) ten o'clock in the morning.

Q Do you know what happened in
the hospital?

A I don't know I just left there.

Q I am calling your attention to the

testimony of one Ms. Aguilar,
according to her while she was
attending to her child for treatment
inside the hospital she saw John
Albert Cloud and the old woman and
according to her the old woman
(was) hysterical and she was stating
aloud the following words or
expression "Pinatay siya ng sariling
ama, pinatay siya ng sariling ama,"
did you hear that?

xxx xxx xxx

A I did not hear that because I left

already.

Q There is also here a statement by,

I think this is alluded to you, you said
while the old woman (was) shouting
you said "Hoy tumigil ka na at
huwag kang maingay?"

A Yes, your Honor because she was

saying a lot of thing that is why I left
already.

Q When you said he was telling a lot

of thing, what do you mean?

A "Parang ano ho iyung matanda,

kasi may pagkaulyanin iyun."

Q Now after that you left, where did

you go?
 A I went home to Santol.

Q Whom did you see there?

A Mr. Robert Cloud.

Q Did you notice what he was doing

at that time?

A He was already crying.

Q Did you ask him why he was

crying?

A No, sir.

Q Did he talk to you?

A He just asked me what happened

to the child.

Q What did you tell him?

A I told him that the child was dead.

19

Standing out in bold relief from this orchestrated story narrated by

Acosta for the first time after six years of silence is his clearly
deliberate effort to make it appear that appellant, his wife and
grandmother were not in the house at the time of the incident, thus
paving the way for him to claim that he alone saw and could testify
to what happened to the victim. Yet, comparing his declarations
thereon and those of appellant, they could not even agree or be
specific as to when appellant supposedly left the house and
stayed away in Paco, Manila. There was not even an attempt on
their part to explain why it took more than two hours from the
alleged accidental fall from the stairs to take the boy to the
hospital which was not a considerable distance away.

The second floor could not be more than four meters from the
ground floor, not so highly elevated even for a straight fall
therefrom. In fact, as the trial court elicited from appellant, the
stairs from which the boy allegedly fell had only nine steps. It did
not even go straight down but went four steps to the first landing
then turned right where another five steps led to the ground floor.
20
Evidently, if one merely fell down such stairs, that fall would be
broken at the landing where the stairs turned at a right angle, and
even if he still continued rolling in that new direction, the
momentum would have been greatly reduced. That would be true
even if that person did not merely slip or fall, but was pushed or
thrown, down the stairs.

And this brings us to the irrefutable physical evidence which, as

medico-legal experts say, belies the adage that dead men tell no
tales. Indeed, to the trained eye, the inanimate remains of the
dead give testimony of their own and, in the present case, that is
true even of the young victim who in life could not have been as
articulate. We refer to the report of the NBI after the exhumation
and autopsy which we have taken pains to completely set out
here.

It would be the nadir of gullibility to believe that a small boy with

his nominal weight could fall down the stairs above described with
such velocity as to result in the injuries which even the
experienced hospital staff initially believed were caused by his
being run over by a truck. One needs to merely look at the
description of the contusions on his face, buttocks and knees; the
contused abrasions on his face, hand and thigh; the hematoma on
the temporal region of his head; the severe hemorrhages on the
cerebral hemisphere of his skull; and the congestion in his brain
and visceral organs, to see that appellant and his star witness are
gravely imposing upon the patience and credulity of this Court.

That is why when the victim was brought to the hospital, Acosta
never even mentioned at all that the boy merely fell down the
stairs. The normal action of any person bringing a patient to a
hospital, especially a medico-legal case, is to give information
even tentatively as to how the injuries were sustained. Yet,
although the grandmother was announcing to everybody that the
boy was killed through violent maltreatment by his own father,
Acosta says he merely told her to keep quiet, and he forthwith left
the hospital. He never dared to tell his present cock-and-bull story
or mention the conjured accident on the stairs, especially to the
medical staff whom he knew he could not delude, and yet he has
the effrontery to do so before this Court.

The circumstances which the court below considered as reactions

betraying a sense and knowledge of guilt on the part of appellant
and his cohorts have already been catalogued. One of them is the
fact that immediately after the death of the victim in the hospital,
appellant took his entire household to Paco, Manila, abandoned
their house in Quezon City and never came back until several
years later. This is admitted by appellant 21 and Acosta. 22 In fact,
appellant admitted that, while investigations into the death of his
son were going on, he left for Japan in 1990 and returned in 1993,
23
only to be arrested since the investigation had by then zeroed in
on his culpability. This circumstance was even sought by the trial
court to be clarified by Acosta, but this is what transpired:

Q Do you know or did you come to

know why after the death of this boy
in the house at Santol everybody left
the house and did not return
anymore for a long time?

A I don't know. 24

The Court is not unaware of the caution to be observed when

circumstantial evidence is to be considered as inculpatory indicia
in a criminal prosecution. That is why it has spent unusual time
and effort to reflect upon all facets of the circumstances which the
lower court accepted as an unbroken chain of events, reinforced
by corroboration and yielding a conclusion of guilt, all consonant
with the requisites therefor. 25 But, from whatever angle we take
the view, the catena of facts cannot but produce an inference
consistent with guilt and not with innocence. All these, even aside
from the tenet that flight bespeaks guilt, a further strike against
appellant in addition to the cover-up running the gamut from
falsification to false testimony.

From such ruminations, we are fully convinced that the

conscience of the Court can rest easy only by doing justice to an
innocent child whose parents had heartlessly failed him.
Somehow, a mystical cause may have called upon two good
Samaritans — mother with a sense of humanity and a lady lawyer
with a passion for justice — to seek redress for his untimely death.
On this consoling thought, we write finis to this case.

ACCORDINGLY, the appealed judgment of the court a quo in

Criminal Case No. Q-90-12660 convicting accused-appellant
Robert Cloud of parricide is hereby AFFIRMED in toto, with costs
in both instances.

SO ORDERED.

Romero, Puno, Mendoza and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.

i

ii

iii

iv

vi

vii

viii

ix

xi
xii

xiii

xiv

xv

xvi

xvii

xviii

xix

xx

xxi

xxii
xxiii

xxiv

xxv

xxvi

xxvii

xxviii

xxix

xxx

xxxi

xxxii

xxxiii
xxxiv

xxxv

xxxvi

xxxvii

xxxviii

xxxix

xl

xli

xlii

xliii

xliv
xlv

xlvi

xlvii

xlviii

xlix