GR 48185; (August, 1941) (Digest)
G.R. No. 48185 ; August 18, 1941
FELICIANO B. GARDINER, as Acting Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE PEDRO MAGSALIN, Judge of First Instance of Pampanga, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
On October 30, 1940, the petitioner, as Acting Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga, filed an information against Catalino Fernandez and the respondents (Pedro Yalung, Eugenio Villegas, Maximo Manlapid, Magno Icban, and Rufino Maun) for conspiring to kill and killing Gaudencio Vivar with evident premeditation. Catalino Fernandez pleaded guilty, while his five co-accused pleaded not guilty. During the trial of the five co-accused, the fiscal called Catalino Fernandez as the first witness to testify about the alleged conspiracy. Counsel for the defense objected. The respondent judge sustained the objection and did not permit Fernandez to testify against his co-accused, ruling that under Section 12, Rule 123 of the Rules of Court, the act or declaration of a conspirator is not admissible against his co-conspirators until the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The fiscal’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for mandamus to compel the judge to admit Fernandez’s testimony.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge correctly interpreted Section 12, Rule 123 of the Rules of Court (the rule on admission by a conspirator) in excluding the testimony of a co-conspirator (Catalino Fernandez) who was called as a witness to prove the conspiracy.
RULING
No. The respondent judge erred in excluding the testimony. The Supreme Court granted the writ of mandamus.
The rule under Section 12, Rule 123 (a re-enactment of a provision in the old Code of Civil Procedure) is an exception to the res inter alios rule. It provides that the act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and made during its existence may be given in evidence against a co-conspirator only after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The Court clarified that this rule applies specifically to extrajudicial declarations or acts of a conspirator (e.g., an out-of-court statement or act made during the conspiracy), not to the direct testimony of a conspirator given as a witness in court. The rule requires independent proof of the conspiracy before an extrajudicial declaration of one conspirator can be used against the others. However, the testimony of a conspirator as a witness in court is direct evidence of the facts to which he testifies. It is competent evidence, subject only to credibility challenges as an accomplice, and is not governed by the prerequisite of first proving the conspiracy by independent evidence. Therefore, the respondent judge should have admitted the testimony of Catalino Fernandez.