Again, the entire Philippine nation was shocked by the recent exposes and revelations related to the anomalous flood control projects. The pictures of millions, if not billions, of pesos just lying on the table – purportedly someone’s cut or share – agitated every taxpayer in the country. Perhaps the cherry on top was when two Senators, several members of the House of Representatives, DPWH officials and other high ranking government official were named during the congressional hearings last September 8 and 9, respectively, as having participated or having received their cut in the said projects.
With the said admissions by the main actors of the congressional hearings regarding anomalous flood control projects, one may ask if the same may be used and shall be admissible in our courts. In this week’s column, we will try to answer if such admissions may be used against (1) the person who made such statements; and (2) the person/s against whom such statements are directed against.
At the outset, it should be pointed out first that all the statements or admissions made during the congressional hearings are deemed as extrajudicial admissions having been made outside of a court proceedings. Judicial admissions are only those made in the course of a court proceeding such as those made in open court thru testimonies and those declared in a party’s pleadings and motions.
Now, let’s start with the person/s who made the extrajudicial admission. Section 27, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court states that the action, declaration, or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him or her. This rule is based on the motion that no person would make any declaration against himself or herself unless it is true. It has long been settled that these admissions are admissible even if they are hearsay.[1]
Admission against interest are those made by a party to a litigation or by one in privity with or identified in a legal interest with such party and are admissible whether or not the declarant is available. Thus, a man’s acts, conduct, and declaration, wherever made, if voluntary, are admissible against him, for the reason that it is fair to presume that they correspond with the truth, and it is his fault they do not.[2]
Having settled that the admission made by the party himself/herself against his/her may be used against him/her, let us now answer whether such statements or admissions may bind or be used against the person/s against whom it was directed against.
Res Inter Alios Acta Rule fully expressed as res inter alios act alteri nocere non debet which literally means that things done to strangers ought not to injure those who are not parties to them.[3] Section 28, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court states that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided.
The res inter allos acta rule provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another.14 Consequently, an extrajudicial confession is binding only upon the confessant and is not admissible against his co-accused. The reason for the rule is that, on a principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a man’s own acts are binding upon himself, and are evidence against him. So are his conduct and declarations. Yet it would not only be rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers; and if a party ought not to be bound by the acts of strangers, neither ought their acts or conduct be used as evidence against him.
Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, however, provides an exception to this rule – The act or declaration of a co-conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other that such act or declaration.
In order for such admission to be admissible against a co-accused, Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court requires that there must be independent evidence aside from the extrajudicial confession to prove conspiracy. The implication of this rule is that there must be a finding of other circumstantial evidence which, when taken together with the confession, establishes the guilt of a co-accused beyond reasonable doubt.[4]
——————————————————-
¹G.R. No. 260731, February 13, 2023
²Idem
³Black’s 5th Ed., 1178
G.R. No. 144621, May 09, 2003