Bai Fairodz A.

Imam
EVIDENCE LLB4301

ALVIZO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:

Sometime in 1978, a team from the Commission on Audit was organized by Sofronio Flores, Jr.,
the COA Region VII Director, to verify the alleged issuances of fake Letters of Advice of
Allotments (LAAs) and Sub-Advices of Cash Disbursement Ceilings (SACDCs) during the period
of 1976-1978 in various Highway Engineering Districts (HEDs) of Region VII. Then President
Marcos also created a Special Cabinet Committee to investigate the fund anomalies. The Audit
team found out that fake LAAs and SACDCs were issued in the year 1977 leading to irregular
disbursements of public funds for the payment of ghost projects.
The investigations resulted in the filing of 397 criminal cases with the Sandiganbayan charging
petitioners (officials and employees of the Cebu 2 nd HED) as well as private contractors with
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
During the trial, accused Rolando Mangubat (Region VII Accountant) who signed all the fake
LAAs and SACDCs, and co-accused contractors/ suppliers Erasmo Gabison and Feliciano
Echavez who delivered the materials and prosecuted the ghost projects, changed their previous
pleas of not guilty to guilty to the crimes charged against them.
According to petitioners, the admission or confession of a party may be presented as evidence
only against himself pursuant to Sec. 33 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court and under Sec. 26 of
the same Rule; that, therefore, admission of the pleas of guilty of Mangubat, Gabison and
Echavez against petitioners violated the hearsay and res inter alios acta rules.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Sandiganbayan violated the rule of res inter alios acta when said Court made
reference to the pleas of guilty of Mangubat, Gabison and Echavez.

RULING:
No, this contention is untenable.
Gabison, Mangubat and Echavez were charged together with petitioners for having acted in
conspiracy with one another to commit the offenses. The pleas of guilty of some of the accused are
admissions of the truth of the accusations that they committed acts of falsifications done during the
existence of the conspiracy.
The Sandiganbayan merely declared that the pleas of guilty confirmed the issuance and release
of fake or simulated LAAs ( Letters of Advice of Allotments) and SACDCs (Sub-Advices of Cash
Disbursement Ceilings), the irregular, improper and illegal preparation, execution and processing the
general vouchers and their supporting documents, and the non-delivery of materials and non-prosecution
of ghost projects. In short, the pleas of guilty were merely confirmatory: they confirmed the facts already
established by other evidence of the prosecution. Said pleas were not used by the Sandiganbayan to
convict petitioners for, as already mentioned, even if the pleas were completely disregarded, the
prosecution had already succeeded in proving petitioners guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
It could be conceded as petitioners assert, that the confession, i.e., the pleas of guilty, were not
made during the existence of the conspiracy (Rules of Court, Rule 130, Sec. 30). However, it is submitted
that said pleas are nonetheless admissible against petitioners as co-conspirators because the pleas were

made in open court. In other words, they are judicial confessions. The rule embodied in Sec. 30 that the
declaration of a conspirator made after the termination of the conspiracy is inadmissible against his conconspirator applies only to an extra-judicial confession, and not to a plea of guilty, which is a judicial
confession. In this very specific instance, the rule res inter alios acta does not apply because the
confessions embodied in the pleas of guilty are judicial confessions, not extra-judicial ones.
Nevertheless, it should be stressed that the portion of the Decision referring to the pleas of guilty
of Gabison, Mangubat and Echavez is not the basis for the conviction of petitioners. Even if said portion
is disregarded, the decision is still supported by evidence which proved petitioners guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. In other words, even if there were no pleas of guilty by Mangubat, Gabison and
Echavez, the prosecution was able to prove petitioners guilt beyond reasonable doubt.