Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tamargo v. Awingan
Tamargo v. Awingan
AWIGAN
G.R. 177727, January 19, 2010, Corono, J.
Digest preapred by Jackie Canlas (sorry ang haba!)
FACTS:
Atty. Franklin V. Tamargo and his 8yo daughter, Gail Franzielle, were shot and killed.
The police had no leads until a certain Reynaldo Geron surfaced and executed an affidavit re: the killing.
1. Geron stated that a certain Lucio Columna told him during a drinking spree, that Atty. Tamargo was
ordered killed by Lloyd Antiporda and that he (Columna) was one of those who killed Atty. Tamargo.
2. He added that he told the Tamargo family what he knew and that the sketch of the suspect closely
resembled Columna.
Subsequently, corresponding Informations for murder were charged against Columna and 3 John Does.
Eventually, Columna was arrested.
March 8, 2004 - Columna executed an affidavit wherein he tagged as masterminds Licerio Antiporda, Jr.
and his son, Lloyd Antiporda.
o Licerio was the ex-mayor and the Lloyed is the current the mayor of Buguey, Cagayan.
o When the killing took place, Licerio was in detention for a kidnapping case in which Atty. Tamargo
was acting as private prosecutor.
April 19, 2004 – Columna affirmed said March 8, 2004 affidavit in a clarificatory hearing.
The Antipordas denied any participation in the killings, saying that the charges were only instituted to
derail their political candidacy, as Atty. Tamargo was a rival for the mayoralty post.
During the preliminary investigation, Licerio presented the following:
1. Columna’s unsolicited handwritten letter dated May 3, 2004 to Lloyd, sent from Columna’s jail
cell in Manila, wherein Columna disowned the contents of his March 8, 2004 affidavit and
narrated how he had been tortured until he signed the extrajudicial confession. He stated that
those he implicated had no participation in the killings.
2. Columna’s May 25, 2004 affidavit reiterating the statement from the May 3, 2004 letter.
October 22, 2004 - During the clarificatory hearing, Columna admitted the authorship and voluntariness
of the unsolicited letter. He affirmed the May 25, 2004 affidavit and denied that any violence had been
employed to obtain the affidavit from him.
Thus, the prosecutor dismissed the charges.
Meanwhile, in another handwritten letter addressed to city prosecutor dated October 29, 2004, Columna
said that he was only forced to withdraw all his statements against the Antipordas because of the threats
to his life inside the jail. He requested that he be transferred to another detention center.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the charges, the Tamargo family filed an appeal to the DOJ.
Then SOJ Raul Gonzalez reversed the dismissal, saying that the March 8, 2004 extrajudicial confession
was not effectively impeached by the subsequent recantation and that there was enough evidence to
prove the probable guilt of respondents.
Later on, Gonzalez reversed this finding and declared this extrajudicial confession inadmissible. As a
result, the prosecutor filed a motion to withdraw the Informations.
RTC granted the motion to withdraw. On MR, the RTC reversed itself and held the existence of probable
cause to charge the Antipordas.
The Antipordas filed a Rule 65 to the CA.
CA granted the 65, ruling that the extrajudicial confession is inadmissible because aside from the
recanted confession, there was no other piece of evidence that would establishes the conspracy.
Tamargo, brother of Atty. Tamargo, filed a Rule 45 to the SC.
ISSUE/HELD: WON the extrajudicial confession was admissible given the rule on res inter alios acta – NO.
CA AFFIRMED.
RATIO:
The rule on res inter alios acta provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another. Consequently, an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the
confessant, is not admissible against his or her coaccused and is considered as hearsay against them.
The reason for this rule is that: on a principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a man’s own acts
are binding upon himself, and are evidence against him. So are his conduct and declarations. Yet it would
not only be rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts of
mere unauthorized strangers; and if a party ought not to be bound by the acts of strangers, neither ought
their acts or conduct be used as evidence against him.
An exception to the res inter alios acta rule is an admission made by a conspirator. However, in order
that the admission of a conspirator may be received against his or her coconspirators, it is necessary that
(a) the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission itself (b) the admission relates to
the common object and (c) it has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the
conspiracy. Otherwise, it cannot be used against the alleged co-conspirators without violating their
constitutional right to be confronted with the witnesses against them and to cross-examine them.
Here, aside from the extrajudicial confession, which was later on recanted, no other piece of evidence
was presented to prove the alleged conspiracy. There was no other prosecution evidence, direct or
circumstantial, which the extrajudicial confession could corroborate. Therefore, the recanted confession
of Columna, which was the sole evidence against respondents, had no probative value and was
inadmissible as evidence against them.