G.R. No. 157684 - Department of Health vs. Camposano

On the evening of December 5, 1990, about ten armed robbers raided the compound of Johnny and Rose Lim at Edison Street, Lahug, Cebu City.
The assailants, among whom the leader Wilfredo “Toto” Garcia and two others (Mawe Garcia and a certain Edgar) were positively identified by the Lims and employees, committed the robbery while some of the perpetrators wore flour sacks over their heads, masking their identities.
The robbery involved not only the taking of cash and jewelry amounting to ₱20,000.00 but also the kidnapping of Stephanie Lim, the 17-year-old daughter of the Lims, who was blindfolded and forcibly abducted during the incident.
A ransom demand of ₱1,000,000.00 was made for Stephanie’s release; Johnny Lim delivered the sum at an arranged meeting, leading to her eventual release.

The Lims initially kept the crime secret but reported it on the third day to the Philippine National Police – Cebu Metrodiscom at Camp Sotero, Cabahug, Cebu City.
The Metrodiscom Intelligence Security Team (MIST) employed an investigation strategy which included presenting roughly 90 photographs to Johnny Lim, who identified Toto Garcia.
Eduardo Basingan, a house guard from the Lim compound and a person from Quiot, Pardo, Cebu City, was interrogated and provided substantial details linking various individuals to the crime.
In his sworn statement, Basingan identified not only the primary robbers but also provided a list of persons—including the spouses Leonilo Cui and Beverly Cui—alleged to have been involved in the planning and execution of the crime as well as in receiving a portion of the ransom.

Based on Basingan’s revelations and subsequent evidence, arrests were effected: Basingan and Leonilo Cui were apprehended on December 18, 1990, while Beverly Cui was taken into custody on January 17, 1991.
Further arrests ensued (including Obeso and Sarte in March 1991), although Tata Garcia subsequently died from complications due to a gunshot wound, leading to his deletion from the information.
The preliminary investigation led to an amended information wherein the charge against the Cui spouses was downgraded, characterizing their participation as that of accomplices in the crime rather than direct perpetrators.

The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the extra-judicial sworn statements of Eduardo Basingan and the testimony of members of the MIST, such as Sgt. Narciso Ouano, Jr., among others.
Basingan’s statements, which were recounted by other witnesses, constituted a principal piece of evidence implicating the accused; however, these statements were made outside court and were not subject to cross-examination.
The trial court ultimately convicted the accused—including the Cuis, Obeso, Sarte, Basingan (tried in absentia), and another accused (Bienvenido Nacario)—assigning penalties based on their roles.

Following the conviction on December 6, 1993, appeals were filed: Obeso and Sarte on May 19, 1994, and the Cui spouses on May 31, 1994.
The appellants contended that the trial court erred by relying on hearsay evidence; particularly, they argued that Basingan’s extra-judicial statements were inadmissible as he was not available for cross-examination.
The defense further argued that the constitutional rights of the accused (the right to remain silent, to counsel, and against self-incrimination) were violated, and that there was a lack of competent and convincing proof linking them directly to the crime beyond reasonable doubt.
Additionally, obiter observations by police witnesses (including detailed recounting of the events during the kidnapping and subsequent interactions with the Cui couple) were scrutinized for their reliability, especially concerning the identification and placement of the accused at the scene.

Whether Basingan’s extra-judicial sworn statements—which implicated the accused—could be admitted as substantive evidence without his testimony in open court and without the opportunity for cross-examination.
Whether the reliance on such hearsay evidence, including recitations by Sgt. Ouano and other members of MIST, violates the constitutional right to confrontation.

Whether there was independent proof of the conspiracy among the accused beyond Basingan’s statements, particularly under the res inter alios doctrine.
Whether the participation of the accused as principals, accomplices, or accessories was adequately proven by the corroborative evidence on record.

Whether the evidence sufficiently demonstrated that the Cui spouses merely acted as accessories (by profiting from the ransom money) rather than as direct accomplices or principals in the actual commission of the crime.
Whether the alibi presented by Obeso and Sarte—that they were in Bacong, Dumaguete City at the time of the crime—negates the hearsay evidence linking them to the event.

Whether the failure to subject Basingan to cross-examination (because he had escaped custody) and the subsequent judicial reliance on his statements infringes upon the procedural rights of the accused.
Whether such reliance deprived the accused of an adequate opportunity to challenge the testimonies against them, thereby resulting in a miscarriage of justice.