LAW ON EVIDENCE | THE PEOPLE VS NIERRA G.R. No. L-32624 February 12, 1980

THE PEOPLE VS NIERRA

G.R. No. L-32624 February 12, 1980


FACTS Felicisimo Doblen, Vicente Rojas and the spouses Paciano Nierra and Gaudencia Nierra appealed from the decision of the CFI convicting them of murder. Gaspar Misa, who pleaded guilty to the murder charge, was also sentenced to death. Juliana Gadugdug-Nierra and Paciano Nierra, her brother-in-law, were business competitors. In order to monopolize those businesses in the locality, Paciano conceived the idea of killing his competitor, Juliana. For that purpose, Felicisimo Doblen, a cousin-in-law of Paciano, introduced him to Gaspar Misa, a convicted murderer who had escaped from prison. Misa, in the presence of Gaudencia Garrido-Nierra, the wife of Paciano, agreed to kill Juliana in consideration of Php 3,000. Misa asked his friend Vicente Rojas to act as lookout on the night of the killing. Misa killed Juliana by firing a gun into her mouth. However, Paciano only gave him Php 400 instead of Php 3,000.  When Misa was interrogated by Constabulary soldiers, he signed a confession admitting the killing of Juliana Nierra and implicating the other accused therein. The statement was sworn to before the fiscal. Misa also testified at the preliminary investigation. In his testimony, he admitted again the killing and confirmed his confession implicating Paciano Nierra, his wife Gaudencia, Doblen and Rojas. He executed another confession which was sworn to before the city judge. Misa pleaded guilty to the crime. At the trial of his co-accused, his confessions and testimony were offered by the prosecution and were the main bases of the judgment of conviction and the imposition of the death penalty. Spouses Nierra contend that Misa was not a credible witness because he was a recidivist and his testimony is riddled with inconsistencies. Whether Misa's testimony as to the alleged conspiracy is inadmissible.


HELD. No. Misa testified against his own penal interest. The basic point in his confessions and testimony was that he was hired by the Nierra spouses, through Doblen to kill Juliana for the price of three thousand pesos. That is sufficient for the conviction of the Nierra spouses as the inducers of the assassination of Juliana. The discrepancies in his testimony refer to minor details. The contention that there was no proof of conspiracy among the accused is belied by the facts shown in the record. Misa had no personal motive for killing Juliana Nierra. He was induced to do so because of the monetary consideration promised by the Nierra spouses. Appellants Nierra contend that Misa's testimony as to the alleged conspiracy is inadmissible in view of the rule that "the act or declaration of a 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 than such act or declaration" (Sec. 27, Rule 130, Rules of Court).


It is argued that before Misa's testimony could be admitted as evidence against appellants Nierra, the alleged conspiracy must first be proven by evidence other than such testimony and that there is no such independent evidence. This argument is wrong. It is not supported by action 27 of Rule 130 Section 27 "applies only to extrajudicial acts or declarations but not to testimony given on the stand at the trial where the defendant has the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant"








Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ DELOS SANTOS VS. JARRA/ G. R. NO. L-4150/ 10 FEBRUARY 1910/ 15 PHIL. 147