G.R. No. 117401 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. BERNARDO QUIDATO, JR., ACCUSED-.

Ruling

accordingly sentenced. Thus, only accused-appellants case was tried on the merits. The prosecution, in offering its version of the facts, presented as its witnesses accused-appellants brother Leo Quidato, appellants wife Gina Quidato, as well as Patrolman Lucrecio Mara. Likewise, the prosecution offered in evidence affidavits containing the extra-judicial confessions of Eddie Malita and Reynaldo Malita. The two brothers were, however, not presented by the prosecution on the witness stand. Instead, it presented Atty. Jonathan Jocom to prove that the two were assisted by counsel when they made their confessions. Similarly, the prosecution presented MTC Judge George Omelio who attested to the due and voluntary execution of the sworn statements by the Malita brothers. Based on the foregoing pieces of evidence, the prosecutions version of the facts is as follows: Bernardo Quidato, Sr. was the father of accused-appellant Bernardo Quidato, Jr. and Leo Quidato. Being a widower, Bernardo lived alone in his house at Sitio Libod, Brgy. Tagbaobo, Kaputian, Davao. He owned sixteen hectares of coconut land in the area. On September 16, 1988, Bernardo, accompanied by his son, herein accused-appellant, and two hired hands, Reynaldo Malita and Eddie Malita, went to Davao City to sell 41 sacks of copra. After selling the copra, Bernardo paid the Malita brothers for their labor, who thereafter left. Bernardo and accused-appellant went back to Sitio Libod that same day. [2] According to Gina Quidato, on the evening of the next day, September 17, 1988, accused-appellant and the Malita brothers were drinking tuba at their house. She overheard the trio planning to go to her father-in-laws house to get money from the latter. She had no idea, however, as to what later transpired because she had fallen asleep before 10:00 p.m. [3] Accused-appellant objected to Gina Quidatos testimony on the ground that the same was prohibited by the marital disqualification rule found in Section 22 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. [4] The judge, acknowledging the applicability of the so-called rule, allowed said testimony only against accused-appellants co-accused, Reynaldo and Eddie. As adverted to earlier, the Malita brothers confessed to their participation in the crime, executing affidavits detailing how Bernardo was killed. Their version shows that Eddie had been living with accused-appellant for the past four years. At around 6:00 p.m. of September 17, 1988, accused-appellant asked Reynaldo to come to the formers house to discuss an important matter. Upon Reynaldos arrival at accused-appellants house, he saw that his brother Eddie was already there. They started drinking beer. The Malita brothers alleged that it was at this juncture that accused-appellant proposed that they rob and kill his father. They went to Bernardos house only at 10:00 p.m., after the rain had stopped. Reynaldo brought along a bolo. Upon reaching the house, accused-appellant knocked on the door, as