G.R. No. L-42791, January 30, 1982
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PORFERIO SOSING, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The case involves the review of a death sentence imposed on Porferio Sosing for the crime of robbery with homicide. The victim, Emilia Tinaya, was found slain in her home in Julita, Leyte, in the early morning of August 28, 1974. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimonies of two witnesses: Filomena Maurillo, the victim’s 14-year-old ward who was in the house, and Romeo Javier, the victim’s son-in-law. Maurillo testified she saw Sosing emerge from the victim’s room holding a bloody bolo and a pouch, recognizing him by the light of a dim lamp. Javier claimed he saw Sosing jump over the victim’s fence while holding a bolo and a bag, recognizing him by flashlight beam.
However, the Supreme Court’s review uncovered critical inconsistencies. NBI agents who investigated immediately after the crime testified that during their initial interviews, Maurillo stated she only saw the lower portion, like the pants and feet, of the assailant and could not identify him. Javier, conversely, gave the NBI no substantial information and did not mention witnessing Sosing at the scene. The prosecution also relied on an extrajudicial confession (Exhibit “L”) by co-accused Cresencio Culaban implicating Sosing, but Culaban repudiated this confession in open court.

ISSUE

The central issue is whether the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to prove the guilt of Porferio Sosing beyond a reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court acquitted Porferio Sosing. The legal logic hinges on the insufficiency and unreliability of the evidence. First, the Court found the testimonies of the principal witnesses, Maurillo and Javier, to be seriously impaired in credibility. Their sworn court testimonies directly contradicted their earlier statements to NBI investigators, who were impartial officers acting promptly after the event. The NBI agents’ accounts, admitted without objection, were deemed more credible, fatally undermining the positive identification of Sosing.
Second, the extrajudicial confession of co-accused Culaban was ruled inadmissible against Sosing. The principle of res inter alios acta (or res inter alios nocere non debet) under Section 27, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court dictates that a confession is only admissible against the confessant, not against co-accused, unless conspiracy is independently proven. Here, no other evidence established conspiracy between Culaban and Sosing. Furthermore, Culaban’s repudiation of the confession in open court rendered it useless against Sosing, as it deprived Sosing of the constitutional right to confront and cross-examine the declarant. With the eyewitness accounts discredited and the extrajudicial confession inadmissible, the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof required for a criminal conviction.