PEOPLE

v. ALEGRE
November 7, 1979 | Antonio, J. | AKGL | Res Inter Alios Acta

CASE SUMMARY: Adelina Sajo was found dead in her house. There was no person who witnessed the
commission of the crime. However, Cudillan1 was apprehended because he was caught pawning a bracelet
owned by Sajo. In 2 extrajudicial confessions, he implicated Alegre, Comayas, and Medalla. When Cudillan
pointed at Alegre, Comayas and Medalla as his co-perpetrators, the three did not say anything. At the trial, a
prison detainee testified that the accused confided with him and admitted that they were the perpetrators of
the said crime. CFI convicted them based on these pieces of evidence.
DOCTRINE: As a general rule, the extra-judicial declaration of an accused, although deliberately made, is not
admissible and does not have probative value against his co-accused. It is merely hearsay evidence as far as
the other accused are concerned.
NATURE: Automatic review of a decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal

FACTS:
• This case arose from the death of Adelina Sajo y Maravilla, Spinster, 57 years old, whose body was
found in her bathroom inside her house at the Maravilla compound, Ignacio Street, Pasay City. She
died of asphyxia by manual strangulation. Her bedroom was in “shambles,” evidently indicating that
it was ransacked.
• Ramiro Alegre, who was then living in one of the rented rooms of the victim’s house, was taken to the
Pasay City police headquarters for investigation, but was later released that same day for lack of any
evidence.
• Melecio Cudillan was apprehended in Tacloban City, Leyte, in the act of pawning a bracelet, one of the
pieces of jewelry taken from the victim. In explaining how he came into possession of the stolen
pieces of jewelry, he admitted his participation in the killing and robbery of Adlina Sajo.
o In his extrajudicial confession, which was written in the English language, Cudillan
implicated a certain “Esok”; Jesus Medalla; Mario Cudillan; one “Danny” Fernandez; and one
“Rammy.”
o In his second statement, he narrated in detail the participation in the commission of the
crime of Jesus Medalla, “Celso” Fernandez, “Rami” and “Mario.”
• An Information for Robbery with Homicide was filed by the Special Counsel of Pasay City against
Celso Fernandez, alias “Esok,” Jesus Medalla y Cudillan, Ramiro Alegre y Cerdoncillo, Mario Comayas
y Cudillan, Melecio Cudillan y Arcillas, and one “John Doe.”
• Mario Comayas, Melecio Cudillan, Jesus Medalla and Ramiro Alegre entered a plea of not guilty. The
prosecution presented witnesses, but none of them testified on the actual commission of the crime.

During trial
[Prosec]
• During the testimony of Sgt. Mariano Isla, he said Alegre, Comayas, and Medalla “just stared at him
(Melecio Cudilla) and said nothing” when Cudilla pointed to them as his companions in the
commission of the crime.
• Hernando Carillo, a detention prisoner in the Pasay City jail, declared that the 3 appellants admitted
to him that they took part in the robbery and homicide committed in the residence of the deceased
[Defense]
• Cudillan repudiated both the Tacloban City and Pasay City sworn statements as the product of
compulsion and duress. He claimed that he was not assisted by counsel when he was investigated by
the police.
• Medalla and Comayas denied any involvement in the crime. They testified that at the time of the
incident in question, they were attending the internment of the deceased child of Ciriaco Abobote.
• Alegre presented Villanueva, subcontractor of the Sheraton Hotel, who testified that Alegre was
working at the site at the time of the crime.

1
During the pendency of this appeal, Melecio Cudillan died on arrival at the New Bilibid Prison Hospital, and the case
as against the said accused, insofar as his criminal liability is concerned, was dismissed

[CFI] Found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE and sentenced all of
them to suffer the penalty of death. Had the appellants “really been innocent (they) should have protested
vigorously and not merely kept their silence.”

ISSUE: W/N Alegre, Comayas, and Medalla could have been convicted based on an extrajudicial confession of
thei co-accused? NO!

RULING:
1. The extrajudicial confessions of Melecio Cudillan cannot be used as evidence and are not
competent proof against appellants Ramiro Alegre and Jesus Medalla, under the principle of “res
inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet,” there being no independent evidence of conspiracy.
• As a general rule, the extra-judicial declaration of an accused, although deliberately made, is not
admissible and does not have probative value against his co-accused. It is merely hearsay evidence as
far as the other accused are concerned. While there are recognized exceptions to this rule, the facts
and circumstances attendant in the case at bar do not bring it within the purview of such exceptions.
• The only evidence, therefore, linking the appellants to the crime would be their purported tacit
admissions and/or failure to deny their implications of the crime made by Melecio Cudillan, and/or
their purported verbal confessions to Hernando Carillo.
2. The silence of an accused in criminal cases, meaning his failure or refusal to testify, may not be taken as
evidence against him, and that he may refuse to answer an incriminating question.
• While an accused is under custody, his silence may not be taken as evidence against him as he has a
right to remain silent; his silence when in custody may not be used as evidence against him,
otherwise, his right of silence would be illusory.
• the prosecution may not use at trial the fact that an individual stood mute, or claimed his privilege
against self-incrimination, in the face of an accusation made at a police custodial interrogation.
(Miranda v. Arizona)
• The silence of an accused under custody, or his failure to deny statements by another implicating him
in a crime, especially when such accused is neither asked to comment or reply to such implications or
accusations, connot be considered as a tacit confession of his participation in the commission of the
crime. Such an inference of acquiescence drawn from his silence or failure to deny the statement
would appear incompatible with the right of an accused against self- incrimination.
• The right or privilege of a person accused of a crime against self-incrimination is a fundamental right.
It is a personal right of great importance and is given absolutely and unequivocably. The privilege
against self-incrimination is an important development in man’s struggle for liberty.
• Even under a regime of martial law, the operations of our laws governing the rights of an accused
person are not open to doubt. Under the code for the administration of detainees, all officers, civilian
and military personnel are sworn to uphold the rights of detainees.
• The privilege against self-incrimination “enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which
government may not force to surrender to its detriment.”
As applied
• It was error for the trial court to draw from appellants’ silence while under police custody, in the face
of the incriminatory statements of Cudillan, the conclusion that the aforesaid appellants had tacitly
admitted their guilt.
• in view of the inadmissibility of the extrajudicial confession of Cudillan implicating herein appellants,
the remaining evidence against them, consisting in the testimonies of Sgt. Isla and Carillo, is
insufficient to sustain the judgment of conviction.
• It is inherently improbable that herein appellants would have readily confessed their participation in
the commission of a heinous crime to a casual acquaintance in a prison detention cell, considering
that on the same occasion they strongly denied any involvement

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the judgement appealed from is reversed, and appellants Ramiro Alegre y
Cerdoncillo, Mario Comayas y Cudillan and Jesus Medalla y Cudillan are hereby ACQUITTED of the crime with
which they are charged. Their imone of them is otherwise held for some other lawful cause.