People v.

Gaudia
G.R. No. 146111 | February 23, 2004
Doctrine: Following the principle of res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet, the actions of
the accused’s parents in offering to compromise cannot prejudice the accused, since he was not a party to
the said conversation, nor was it shown that he was privy to the offer of compromise made by them to the
mother of the victim.
FACTS:
Rolendo Gaudia was accused of the crime of rape committed against Remelyn. Amalia, the
mother of Remelyn, testified that she left her two children Remelyn (3 ½ years old) and Kimberly (1 year
old) at their house to gather pigs’ food. When she returned home, she could not find Remelyn. On her
way home, she shouted and called out Remelyn’s name. At about 6 pm, Amaila heard Remelyn calling
out to her from a grove of ipil ipil trees. She found Remelyn crying, naked, walking with her legs spread
apart, and with fresh and dried blood on her body. Blood was oozing from her private organ. While
Amalia was washing Remelyn, she found a whitish mucuslike substance coming from Remelyn’s private
organ. Tulon Mik, a neighbour, came and informed Amalia that he had seen the appellant pass by her
house and take Remelyn. At this point, the parents of Rolendo Gaudia told Amalia, “Mal, let us talk about
this matter, we will just settle this, we are willing to pay the amount of P15,000.00 for the crime that my
son committed.” Other documentary and testimonial pieces of evidence were presented by the
prosecution. The lower court ruled in favour of Remelyn and found Rolendo Gaudia guilty of the crime of
rape. Rolendo Gaudua charge that the offers allegedly made by his parents to Amalia should not have
been taken against him by the trial court.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the offers of compromise by Rolendo Gaudia’s parents to Amalia should be taken
against him? – NO.
RATIO:
Following the principle of res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet, the actions of his
parents cannot prejudice the appellant, since he was not a party to the said conversation, nor was it shown
that he was privy to the offer of compromise made by them to the mother of the victim. Thus, they cannot
be considered as evidence against Rolendo Gaudia. Nonetheless, it is not enough to reverse the conviction
of Rolendo Gaudia since the prosecution presented other documentary end testimonial evidence.