Title
People vs. Tena
Case
G.R. No. 100909
Decision Date
Oct 21, 1992
An 82-year-old man was killed in a robbery; a co-accused's extrajudicial confession implicated Solito Tena, but the Supreme Court acquitted him, ruling the confession inadmissible under *res inter alios acta* due to lack of independent evidence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 209146)

Facts of the Killing and Post-mortem Findings

On June 19, 1988, Alfredo Altamarino, Sr. was found dead in his bedroom. His body exhibited multiple injuries: eight stab wounds (two to the neck and six to the chest), a depressed fracture on the right portion of the head, and a laceration on the right eyebrow. Dr. Victorino Q. Arana performed a post-mortem and declared cardiac tamponade the immediate cause of death. The deceased’s bedroom was ransacked, with drawers opened and property missing.

Stolen Items and Initial Investigation

Emma Altamarino Ibana, the deceased’s eldest child, identified missing items including a diamond ring (P20,000), a Rolex watch (P8,000), a Seiko watch (P3,000), a tie clip with 18 diamonds (P50,000), two men’s rings (P25,000), cash (about P7,000–P8,000), and an unspecified amount of U.S. dollars. Initial suspicion fell upon the caretakers, William Verzo and Ofelia Ritual, but the Mauban police investigation produced no evidence sufficient to file charges against them. Emma sought assistance from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).

NBI Inquiry, Polygraph Examination, and Extrajudicial Confession

NBI Agents Manzanero and Ginga arrived in Mauban on January 11, 1989, learned of a suspected syndicate, and interrogated Adelberto Camota (a detained syndicate member). The agents requested a polygraph examination; on February 1, 1989, Camota allegedly underwent a polygraph administered by Polygraph Examiner II Ernesto A. Lucena at the Mauban Chief of Police’s office. On the same day, confronted with the polygraph results, Camota executed an extrajudicial confession in the presence of Atty. Albert Siquijor, admitting participation in the robbery-killing and naming Virgilio Conde, Jose de Jesus, Solito Tena and an unidentified person as companions.

Charging and Trial-Court Proceedings

An information for robbery with homicide was filed against Virgilio Conde, Jose de Jesus Jr., Adelberto Camota, Solito Tena and John Doe. Arraignments: Virgilio Conde and Solito Tena pleaded not guilty on November 12, 1989; Camota pleaded not guilty upon arraignment on January 17, 1990. Jose de Jesus and John Doe remained at large; Virgilio Conde later escaped and was tried in absentia. On February 26, 1991, the trial court found Virgilio Conde, Adelberto Camota and Solito Tena guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide, imposing reclusion perpetua and ordering indemnity of P120,000 jointly and severally. The trial court later issued an amended judgment (April 10, 1991) purportedly correcting a typographical error by changing the indicated number of years for reclusion perpetua from twenty (20) to thirty (30) years. Only Solito Tena appealed.

Principal Issue on Appeal and the Evidentiary Rule Invoked

The central issue on appeal concerned the use and admissibility of Camota’s extrajudicial confession and whether Tena’s conviction could rest on that confession. Although the trial court found the confession voluntary and constitutionally valid (finding that Camota’s rights to remain silent and to counsel were observed and that there was no coercion), the Supreme Court’s disposition focused on the doctrine res inter alios acta and Rule 130, Section 28 (formerly Section 25): “The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided.” This rule embodies the principle that acts or declarations of strangers ordinarily may not be used as evidence against a party.

Conspirator Exception and Its Legal Requirements

The Rules recognize an exception: the admission by a conspirator may be given in evidence against a co-conspirator (Rule 130, Section 30). For that exception to apply, three elements must be satisfied: (a) the conspiracy must be first proved by evidence other than the admission itself; (b) the admission must relate to the common object of the conspiracy; and (c) the admission must have been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy.

Why the Conspirator Exception Did Not Apply Here

The Court found multiple dispositive deficiencies preventing application of the conspirator exception. There was no independent evidence, apart from Camota’s extrajudicial confession (Exh. K), establishing a conspiracy between Camota and accused-appellant Tena. No eyewitness testimony linked Tena to the crime; the circumstantial facts the trial court considered did not establish a conspiracy between Camota and Tena. The extrajudicial confession was executed on February 1, 1989—after the commission of the crime—and thus not necessarily made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy. Critically, Camota repudiated the extrajudicial confession in open court, denied knowledge of the offense, and denied knowing Solito Tena; his in-court repudiation further undermined use of Exh. K against co-accused Tena.

Legal Conclusion and Appli

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.