Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Tamargo v. Awingan

    Uploaded by

    Joshua Abad
    157 views2 pages
    1) Lucio Columna executed an extrajudicial confession implicating Licerio and Lloyd Antiporda in the killing of Atty. Tamargo and his daughter. However, Columna later recanted this confession. 2) Under the rule of res inter alios acta, an extrajudicial confession is only binding on the confessant and is inadmissible hearsay against co-accused. 3) For a conspirator's admission to be used against co-conspirators, the conspiracy must be proved independently and the admission must have been made in furtherance of the conspiracy. 4) Aside from the recanted confession, there was no other evidence proving the alleged conspiracy

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Lucio Columna executed an extrajudicial confession implicating Licerio and Lloyd Antiporda in the killing of Atty. Tamargo and his daughter. However, Columna later recanted this confession. 2) Under the rule of res inter alios acta, an extrajudicial confession is only binding on the confessant and is inadmissible hearsay against co-accused. 3) For a conspirator's admission to be used against co-conspirators, the conspiracy must be proved independently and the admission must have been made in furtherance of the conspiracy. 4) Aside from the recanted confession, there was no other evidence proving the alleged conspiracy

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    157 views2 pages

    Tamargo v. Awingan

    Uploaded by

    Joshua Abad
    1) Lucio Columna executed an extrajudicial confession implicating Licerio and Lloyd Antiporda in the killing of Atty. Tamargo and his daughter. However, Columna later recanted this confession. 2) Under the rule of res inter alios acta, an extrajudicial confession is only binding on the confessant and is inadmissible hearsay against co-accused. 3) For a conspirator's admission to be used against co-conspirators, the conspiracy must be proved independently and the admission must have been made in furtherance of the conspiracy. 4) Aside from the recanted confession, there was no other evidence proving the alleged conspiracy

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    TAMARGO V.

    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.

    You might also like