Tamargo Vs Awingan

1/28/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 610

G.R. No. 177727. January 19, 2010.*
HAROLD V. TAMARGO, petitioner, vs. ROMULO AWINGAN,

LLOYD ANTIPORDA and LICERIO ANTIPORDA, JR.,
respondents.
Criminal Procedure; Information; When confronted with a motion to

withdraw an Information (on the ground of lack of probable cause to hold
the accused for trial based on a resolution of the DOJ Secretary) the trial
court has the duty to make an independent assessment of the merits of the
motion.—It is settled that, when confronted with a motion to withdraw an
Information (on the ground of lack of probable cause to hold the accused for
trial based on a resolu-
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.

317
tion of the DOJ Secretary), the trial court has the duty to make an
independent assessment of the merits of the motion. It may either agree or
disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary. Reliance alone on the
resolution of the Secretary would be an abdication of the trial court’s duty
and jurisdiction to determine a prima facie case. The court must itself be
convinced that there is indeed no sufficient evidence against the accused.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016891fa9be1acddaddb003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/17
Same; Same; Evidence; Res Inter Alios Acta; 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; Reason for the Rule.—Res inter alios
acta alteri nocere non debet. 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 co-accused 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.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Conspiracy; Exception to the res inter alios
acta rule is an admission made by a conspirator under Section 30, Rule 130
of the Rules of Court.—An exception to the res inter alios acta rule is an
admission made by a conspirator under Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court: This rule prescribes that the act or declaration of the conspirator
relating to the conspiracy and during its existence may be given in evidence
against co-conspirators provided that the conspiracy is shown by
independent evidence aside from the extrajudicial confession. Thus, in order
that the admission of a conspirator may be received against his or her co-
conspirators, 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.

318
Same; Probable Cause; Once it is ascertained that no probable cause

exists to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused, they should be
relieved from the pain of going through a full blown court case.—
Considering the paucity and inadmissibility of the evidence presented
against the respondents, it would be unfair to hold them for trial. Once it is
ascertained that no probable cause exists to form a sufficient belief as to the
guilt of the accused, they should be relieved from the pain of going through
a full blown court case. When, at the outset, the evidence offered during the
preliminary investigation is nothing more than an uncorroborated
extrajudicial confession of an alleged conspirator, the criminal complaint
should not prosper so that the system would be spared from the unnecessary
expense of such useless and expensive litigation.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Ernesto V. Perez for petitioner.
The Firm of Sarmiento, Delson, Dakanay & Resurreccion for
respondents Licerio Antiporda, Jr. and Lloyd Antiporda.
Randy P. Bareng for respondent Romulo Awingan.
CORONA, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari1 of the November 10,
2006 decision2 and May 18, 2007 resolution3 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 93610.
Atty. Franklin V. Tamargo and his eight-year-old daughter, Gail
Franzielle, were shot and killed at around 5:15 p.m. of
_______________
1 Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

2 Penned by Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin (now Supreme Court Justice)
and concurred in by Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (now Supreme Court
Justice) and Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa of the Seventh Division of the Court of
Appeals. Rollo, pp. 34-60.
3 Id., at pp. 63-70.

319
August 15, 2003 along Nueva Street corner Escolta Street, Binondo,
Manila. The police had no leads on the perpetrators of the crime
until a certain Reynaldo Geron surfaced and executed an affidavit
dated September 12, 2003. He stated that a certain Lucio Columna
told him during a drinking spree that Atty. Tamargo was ordered
killed by respondent Lloyd Antiporda and that he (Columna) was
one of those who killed Atty. Tamargo. He added that he told the
Tamargo family what he knew and that the sketch of the suspect
closely resembled Columna.4
_______________
4 Id., at p. 35. The full text of the September 12, 2003 affidavit read:
1. About a week before August 15, 2003, I was in the house of Lucio
Columna at Battalan, Lasam and there we drank gin together and stayed with
him for several hours since we are close friends. In the course of our
conversation we talked about the chances of Atty. Franklin Tamargo to win
his election protest in the election for mayor of Buguey, Cagayan, and I told
him what I heard that Atty. Tamargo was winning in the protest, Lucio
Columna immediately said he could bet that Atty. Tamargo could not sit and
assume as mayor even if he wins. Later I learned that Atty. Tamargo was
killed last August 15.
2. Last week, Lucio Columna and I were again together in the morning
in our Barangay and he asked me to drink gin with him, and we continued
drinking until about noon time. When he had drunk much, he told me
“Awanen ni boss mon nga Tamargon, pinapatay ni Lloyd. Dakami pay ket di
ti pimmatay.” (Your boss Tamargo is already gone, he was ordered killed by
Lloyd. In fact, we were the ones who killed him). He also said “Tamargo ka,
Antiporda ak, no kayat mo saan ka nga agusubli diay Buguey yen ta awan met
ni boss mon, agdakua ta ti negosyo ditoyen.” (You are for Tamargo and I am
for Antiporda; if you want, do not go back to Buguey anymore since your
boss is already gone so that we can be together in business here). I know he is
in the business of selling “shabu” and marijuana.

320
After conducting a preliminary investigation and on the strength

of Geron’s affidavit, the investigating prosecutor5 issued a resolution
dated December 5, 2003 finding probable cause against Columna
and three John Does.6 On February 2, 2004, the corresponding
Informations for murder were filed against them in the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, one assigned to Branch 27 for the
death of Atty. Franklin Tamargo, and the other to Branch 29 for the
death of the minor Gail Franzielle.7 Columna was arrested in the
province of Cagayan on February 17, 2004 and brought to Manila
for detention and trial.8
On March 8, 2004, Columna (whose real name was Manuel, Jr.)
executed an affidavit wherein he admitted his participation as “look
out” during the shooting and implicated respondent Romulo
Awingan (alias “Mumoy”) as the gunman and one Richard Mecate.
He also tagged as masterminds respondent Licerio Antiporda, Jr. and
his son, respondent Lloyd Antiporda.9 The former was the ex-mayor
and the latter the
_______________
3. I decided to come to Manila to tell the family what I know. I was
shown the sketch of the face of suspect and I can say that the front side
closely resembles that of Lucio Columna, and I am executing this freely and
willingly to attest to its truth in court.
5 Assistant Prosecutor Bernardino R. Camba.
6 I.S. No. 031-26335. Id., at p. 500.
7 Docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 04-223270 and 04-223271. Id., at pp. 72, 236-
237, 469.
8 Id., at p. 36.
9 We reproduce here the full text of the March 8, 2004 affidavit:
Na ako po ay humihingi ng tulong upang ibigay ko ang buong katunayan
ng pangyayari sa pagkamatay nila ATTY. FRANKLIN TAMARGO at ng
anak na babae nito habang nakasakay sa kanilang kotse;
Na hindi po ako ang bumaril sa kanila;
Na ang bumaril po ay si ROMULO AWINGAN Aka MUMOY na taga
Aparri, Cagayan at ang nagutos ay sila MAYOR LLOYD ANTIPORDA ng
Buguey, Cagayan at ang

321
mayor of Buguey, Cagayan at that time. When the killing took

place,A Licerio Antiporda was in detention for a kidnap-
_______________
TATAY niya na si EX-MAYOR LICERIO ANTIPORDA JR. Aka BOY.

Na noong July 20, 2003 habang nagmamaneho ako ng Multicab biyaheng
Aparri-Dugo ay pinara ako ni MUMOY AWINGAN sa Tallungan Aparri at
sinabi niya kung gusto kong sumama sa grupo nila. Sabi ko naman ay ihahatid
ko lang ang pasahero ko sa Dugo. Pagkatapos noon ay binalikan ko sila sa
Tallungan. Nang magkausap na kami ni MUMOY AWINGAN ay sinabi niya
na may PROJECT sila at si ATTY. FRANKLIN TAMARGO na kalaban ni
MAYOR ANTIPORDA sa BUGUEY. Kung gusto ko raw sumama sa
PROJECT na yun. Nang sumagot ako ng OO ay isusurvey lang daw nila ang
lugar. Sinabi rin niya na isasama nila ako kay MAYOR ANTIPORDA;
Na noong August 10, 2003 ay inabangan ako nila MUMOY AWINGAN
sa Tallungan, Aparri Cagayan at sinama nila ako, kasama si RICHARD
MECATE at isa pa na hindi ko kilala pero mamumukhaan ko ito kung
makikita ko ulit. Pumunta na kami sa bahay na malaki sa POBLACION ng
BUGUEY CAGAYAN. Pagdating [namin] doon ay may lumabas na lalaki na
si MAYOR LLOYD ANTIPORDA at sinabihan ni MUMOY AWINGAN sa
kanya ng ‘SIR? ITO ANG MAKAKASAMA NAMIN’, tapos sumagot si
Mayor Antiporda ng GOOD at agad tinanong sa akin kung kilala ko si ATTY.
TAMARGO at sinagot ko ng “OO” naman. Tapos nakita ko na may inabot na
sobre kay MUMOY;
Na noong bumalik na kami sa Aparri Cagayan ay kumuha ng pera si
MUMOY at inabutan ako ng limang libong piso (P5,000.00) at sabi sa akin ay
ADVANCE LANG yun para makaluwas sa Maynila agad;
Na noong ding araw na iyon ay nagpunta kami ng Maynila kasama sina
MUMOY AWINGAN, RICHARD MACATE at yung hindi ko alam ang
pangalan. Bumaba kami bago dumating ng Terminal ng Florida Bus Line;
Na noong August 14, 2003 ay sumakay kami sa isang kotse na minaneho

ng isang lalaki at pumunta kami sa Quezon City Jail at kinausap [namin] si
Ex-Mayor Antiporda na nakakulong doon. Sinabi sa amin ni Ex-Mayor na
masamang tao si

322
ping case in which Atty. Tamargo was acting as private prosecutor.
_______________
Atty. Tamargo dahil ipinakulong siya nito na walang kasalanan at dapat lang
siya maparusahan. Sinabi pa niya dadagdagan ang bayad pag natapos ang
misyon [namin];
Na ang misyong iyon ay para PATAYIN si ATTY. TAMARGO;
Nang humigit kumulang alas dos ng hapon petsa 15 ng August 2003 ay
isinama kami sa isang bahay sa Bago Bantay Quezon City. Na sinabi na bahay
ni Mayor Lloyd Antiporda at doon sa garahe ay may dalawang motorsiklo.
Hindi nagtagal ay umalis din agad kami kasama si Mumoy Awingan, Richard
Mecate at yung isa pa na sakay ng dalawang motorsiklo, magkaangkas sina
Mumoy at Richard. Ang nagmamaneho ay si Richard at dalawa naman kami
ng lalaki na hindi ko kilala sa isang motorsiklo. Nagmaneho ang lalaki na
angkas ako. Pagdating [namin] sa Escolta, Manila ay bumaba si Mumoy at
kami naman ay naghintay sa isang lugar na malapit sa kinaroroonan nila;
Nang pasado alas singko ng hapon ng petsa ding iyon ay nakita [namin] na
palapit si Atty. Tamargo sa kanyang kotse kaya kami ay pumuwesto sa
kabilang [kanto];
Nang nasa loob na si Atty. Tamargo at minamaneho na ang kotse ay nakita
kong lumipat na si Mumoy sa may gawing kaliwa ng kotse kung saan
pumasok si Atty. Tamargo at kanya ng pinagbabaril.
Na habang binabaril niya si Atty. Tamargo ay nagsilbing LOOK OUT lang
kami at pagkatapos noon ay tumakas na kami sakay sa dalawang motorsiklo
at tumuloy na kami sa sakayan ng bus papuntang Cagayan;
Na nang dumating na kami sa Cagayan sa Dugo Camalaniugan ay bumaba
na kami at bago kami naghiwalay ay inabutan ako ulit ni MUMOY ng limang
libong piso;
Na nakikiusap po ako na dito na lamang makulong (Det. Jail, WPD) para
sa aking proteksyon;
Na ginawa ko po itong pagtatapat ng kusang loob upang patunayan ang
mga naganap na pangyayari.
Na panunumpaan at pipirmahan ko po iyan patunay na lahat ng sinabi ko
ay [pawang] katotohanan lamang. (Id., at pp. 36-38.)

323
Pursuant to this affidavit, petitioner Harold V. Tamargo (brother

of Atty. Tamargo) filed a complaint against those implicated by
Columna in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila.10
On April 19, 2004, Columna affirmed his affidavit before the
investigating prosecutor11 who subjected him to clarificatory
questions.12
Respondents denied any involvement in the killings. They
alleged that Licerio was a candidate for mayor in Buguey, Cagayan
during the May 2004 elections and that the case was instituted by his
political opponents in order to derail his candidacy. The Antipordas
admitted that Atty. Tamargo was their political rival for the
mayoralty post of Buguey. Atty. Tamargo had been defeated twice
by Lloyd and once by Licerio. Before the killing, Atty. Tamargo
filed an election case against Lloyd and a kidnapping case in the
Sandiganbayan against Licerio. However, they claimed that both
cases were dismissed as Lloyd emerged as the winner in the
elections and Licerio was acquitted by the Sandiganbayan.13
During the preliminary investigation, respondent Licerio
presented Columna’s unsolicited handwritten letter dated May 3,
2004 to respondent Lloyd, sent from Columna’s jail cell in Manila.
In the letter, 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.14 Respondent Licerio also submitted an
affidavit of
_______________
10 Id., at pp. 323, 436.

11 Assistant City Prosecutor Venus D. Marzan.
12 Rollo, p. 472.
13 Id., at pp. 98-99.
14 The full text of the May 3, 2004 letter read:
DEAR SIR,
SA PAMAMAGITAN NG PAKIUSAP AT PAYO NI RET. CORONEL
SEVERINO PURIGAY NA KASAMA KO

324
Columna dated May 25, 2004 wherein the latter essentially repeated
the statements in his handwritten letter.
_______________
NGAYON NA NAKAKULONG SA MANILA CITY JAIL SA QUEZON

CITY BLVD. STA. CRUZ, MLA. MINABUTI KONG SUMULAT SA INYO
AT IPARATING ANG AKING PANIG SA KASONG “DOUBLE
MURDER” NA KUNG SAAN KAYO AT ANG INYONG AMANG SI
GINOONG LICERIO ANTIPORDA AY ISINANGKOT SA PAGPATAY SA
YUMAONG ATTY. FRANKLIN TAMARGO.
AKO AY SI MANUEL COLUMNA JR. [29] TAONG GULANG
DRIVER, AT NAKATIRA SA BRGY. ZIMINILA CAMALANIUGAN,
CAGAYAN. NAARESTO AKO NOONG FEB. 18, 2004 SA SAPPING,
CAMALANIUGAN SA BISA NG WARRANT NA GALING SA BRANCH
27 NG MANILA RTC. SA KASONG DOUBLE MURDER NA IBINASE
SA SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY NI GERALDO GERON NG LASAM,
CAGAYAN NA SIYANG NAGSUMBONG SA AKIN SA PAMILYA NG
MGA TAMARGO DITO SA MANILA ANG PAGSIRA SA AKING
PAGKATAO AT KINABUKASAN NG WITNESS NA ITO. SA
[PAMAMAGITAN] NG PAGSISINUNGALING AY DAHIL MARAHIL SA
GALIT O INGGIT SA AKIN. SA BUONG BUHAY KO AY HINDI PA
AKO NAGKAROON NG KASO O NAKULONG KAHIT MINSAN
KUNDI NGAYON LANG. BAGO KO ITO ISINULAT AY INAROK KONG
MABUTI ANG KONSENSYA AT HINDI KO TALAGA KAYANG
ITULOY ANG MAGSINUNGALING NA GAYA NG GUSTO NILANG
MANGYARI AT ITURO KAYO BILANG MASTERMIND SA
PAGPATAY[.] AYAW KONG MAGKASALA SA DIYOS SA PAGTESTIGO
SA ISANG KASINUNGALINGAN.
NANIWALA AKO NA MAY DIYOS NA NAKAKAALAM NG
KATOTOHANAN AT BUONG KATAPATAN KONG SABIHIN SA INYO
NA NASA LASAM, CAGAYAN, AKO NOONG AUGUST 15, 2003 NA
SINASABI NILANG ARAW NG PAGPATAY KAY ATTY. TAMARGO. NI
MINSAN AY HINDI KO PA NAKITA ANG BIKTIMA AT HINDI KO
ALAM [ANG] KANYANG MUKHA HANGGAT HINDI SINABI SA AKIN
NG MGA PULIS NA DUMAKIP SA AKIN AY HINDI KO ALAM KUNG
BAKIT “DOUBLE MURDER” (KUNG SINO

325
Due to the submission of Columna’s letter and affidavit, the

investigating prosecutor set a clarificatory hearing, to enable
Columna to clarify his contradictory affidavits and his unsolicited
letter. During the hearing held on October 22, 2004, Columna
categorically 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 or extract the
affidavit from him.15
Thus, on November 10, 2004, the investigating prosecutor
recommended the dismissal of the charges. This was approved by
the city prosecutor.
Meanwhile, in another handwritten letter addressed to City

Prosecutor Ramon Garcia dated October 29, 2004, Columna said
that he was only forced to withdraw all his statements against
respondents during the October 22, 2004 clari-
_______________
PA ANG NAMATAY) AT KUNG SAAN NANGYARI NA SINABI

NILANG SA BINONDO RAW NA HINDI KO PA NARATING NA
LUGAR.
MULA NOONG ARAW NA INARESTO AKO AY MARAMING
“TORTURE” ANG DINAANAN KO SA MGA KAMAY NG MGA TAGA-
RSOB NG RECOM NG CAGAYAN AT SA WPD[.] NARANASAN KONG
MAISUPOT ANG ULO, MABUGBOG, AT MAKURYENTE KAYA
NAPILITAN AKONG PIRMAHAN ANG MGA PAPELES NA INIHANDA
NILA BUKOD SA PANANAKOT NA I-SALVAGE DAW (AKO) KUNG
HINDI AKO MAKIKOOPERA SA KANILA.
HUMIHINGI AKO NG UNAWA SA INYO LALO NA’T NALATHALA
SA DIARYO ANG PANGALAN NINYO NA NAKAKASIRA SA [INYO]
PERO INTINDIHIN NYO AKO, NA NAUNA NG NASIRA ANG
PANGALAN KO AT KINABUKASAN KO SA KASONG NAKASAMPA
NA LABAN SA AKIN.
SANA AY MATUTULUNGAN TAYONG LAHAT PARA MALUTAS
ANG KRIMENG NANGYARI[,] MAPARUSAHAN ANG TOTOONG
SALARIN, AT MAKAMITAN NATIN ANG HUSTISYA. (Id., at pp. 38-39.)
15 Id., at p. 40.

326
ficatory hearing because of the threats to his life inside the jail. He
requested that he be transferred to another detention center.16
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the charges, petitioner filed an
appeal to the Department of Justice (DOJ).17 On May 30, 2005, the
DOJ, through then Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez, reversed the
dismissal and ordered the filing of the Informa-
_______________
16 Id., at pp. 75, 239-240. The letter read:

October 29, 2004
KAGALANGGALANG NA FISCAL GARCIA:
Ako po ay sumulat sa inyo upang humingi ng tulong sa aking kalagayan
dito sa loob ng Manila City Jail kung saan ang akin pong buhay ay nalalagay
sa panganib.
Ito po ay dahil sa aking Sinumpaang Salaysay na kung saan ang mga
Antiporda ang aking itinuro na nagutos sa pagpaslang kay Atty. Tamargo.
Noong nakaraang Biyernes ako po ay ipinatawag ni Fiscal Marzan upang

patunayan kong muli ang aking naunang salaysay at ako po ay [nakahanda]
upang ang aking salaysay ay muli kong mapatunayan at gusto ko rin pong
isiwalat ang ginawa sa akin ng ibang tao dito sa loob ng piitan nang aking
pong tanggihan na pumirma sa inihanda nilang salaysay na pumapabor sa mga
Antiporda at nais ko rin pong ibigay ang aking inihandang salaysay kasama
ang Medical Certificate.
Sir, hindi ko po masabi kung ano ang gusto kong sabihin kay Fiscal
Marzan dahil noong gabing iyon ako po ay pinagbantaang papatayin kung
muli kong patunayan ang aking salaysay. Kung kaya sa pagdinig ng kaso kay
Fiscal Marzan kung saan ay naroon din sina Mayor Antiporda at kanyang
anak ay aking nasabi kung ano ang mga sinabi sa [akin] ng mga Antiporda.
Kaya po sana sir ay mailipat po ako sa ibang piitan dahil baka ako po ay
mapatay kung ako ay magsabi ng katotohanan upang mabigyan ng hustisya
ang pagkamatay ni Atty. Tamargo.
17 Id., at pp. 320-338.

327
tions for murder.18 He opined 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.19 Accordingly, the Informations were
filed and the cases were consolidated and assigned to the RTC of
Manila, Branch 29.20
However, on August 12, 2005, Secretary Gonzales granted the
Antipordas’ motion for reconsideration (MR) and directed the
withdrawal of the Informations.21 This time, he declared that the
extrajudicial confession of Columna was inadmissible against
respondents and that, even if it was admissible, it was not
corroborated by other evidence.22 As a result, on August 22, 2005,
the trial prosecutor filed a motion to withdraw the Informations. On
October 4, 2005, Secretary Gonzalez denied petitioner’s MR.
The RTC, through Judge Cielito Mindaro-Grulla, granted the
motion to withdraw the Informations in an order dated October 26,
2005.23 Petitioner filed an MR but the judge voluntarily inhibited
herself without resolving the same. The cases were re-raffled to
Branch 19, presided by Judge Zenaida R. Daguna. Judge Daguna
granted the MR of petitioner in a resolution dated December 9,
2005. She ruled that, based on Columna’s March 8, 2004 affidavit
which he affirmed before the investigating prosecutor, there was
probable cause to hold the accused for trial. She denied the MR of
the Antipordas in an order dated February 6, 2006.
Consequently, respondent Awingan filed a special civil action for
certiorari and prohibition in the CA docketed as CA-
_______________
18 Id., at pp. 96-104.

19 Id., at p. 102.
20 Id., at p. 236.
21 Criminal Case Nos. 05-237561 and 05-237562.
22 Rollo, pp. 41, 105-107.
23 Id., at p. 71.

328
G.R. SP No. 93610. The Antipordas separately filed another

certiorari case docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 94188.
In a decision dated November 10, 2006 in CA-G.R. SP No.
93610, the CA ruled that the RTC judge gravely abused her
discretion because she arbitrarily left out of her assessment and
evaluation the substantial matters that the DOJ Secretary had fully
taken into account in concluding that there was no probable cause
against all the accused. It also held that Columna’s extrajudicial
confession was not admissible against the respondents because,
aside from the recanted confession, there was no other piece of
evidence presented to establish the existence of the conspiracy.
Additionally, the confession was made only after Columna was
arrested and not while the conspirators were engaged in carrying out
the conspiracy.
After this decision was promulgated, CA-G.R. SP No. 93610 was
consolidated with CA-G.R. SP No. 94188. The CA denied
reconsideration in a resolution dated May 18, 2007. In a decision
dated August 24, 2007, the CA likewise granted the petition for
certiorari of respondents Antiporda.24
Petitioner filed this petition assailing the decision in CA-G.R. SP
No. 93610. Later on, he filed an amended petition impleading
respondents Antiporda and likewise assailing the CA decision in
CA-G.R. SP No. 94188. The Court treated this as a supplemental
petition.
The main issue for our resolution is whether or not the CA erred
in finding that Judge Daguna had committed grave abuse of
discretion in denying the withdrawal of the Informations for murder
against respondents.
Petitioner argues that, based on the independent assessment of
Judge Daguna, there was probable cause based on the earlier
affidavit of Columna. She considered all the pieces of evidence but
did not give credit to Columna’s recantation.
_______________
24 Id., at pp. 286-314.

329
Respondents counter that Judge Daguna committed grave abuse

of discretion by limiting her evaluation and assessment only to
evidence that supported probable cause while completely
disregarding contradicting evidence. They also contend that
Columna’s extrajudicial confession was inadmissible against
respondents because of the rule on res inter alios acta.
We find no merit in the petition.
It is settled that, when confronted with a motion to withdraw an
Information (on the ground of lack of probable cause to hold the
accused for trial based on a resolution of the DOJ Secretary), the
trial court has the duty to make an independent assessment of the
merits of the motion.25 It may either agree or disagree with the
recommendation of the Secretary. Reliance alone on the resolution
of the Secretary would be an abdication of the trial court’s duty and
jurisdiction to determine a prima facie case.26 The court must itself
be convinced that there is indeed no sufficient evidence against the
accused.27
We agree with the CA that Judge Daguna limited herself only to
the following: (1) Columna’s affidavit dated March 8, 2004 wherein
he implicated the respondents in the murders; (2) his affirmation of
this affidavit during the April 19, 2004 clarificatory hearing; (3) his
letter dated October 29, 2004 and (4) the May 30, 2005 DOJ
resolution upholding the prosecutor’s recommendation to file the
murder charges.28
_______________
25 Gandarosa v. Flores, G.R. No. 167910, 17 July 2007, 527 SCRA 776, 793.
26 Summerville General Merchandising & Co., Inc. v. Eugenio, Jr., G.R. No.
163741, 7 August 2007, 529 SCRA 274, 282, citing Santos v. Orda, Jr., G.R. No.
158236, 1 September 2004, 437 SCRA 504, 516..
27 Fuentes v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 139618, 11 July 2006, 494 SCRA 478,
485.
28 Rollo, pp. 72-75.

330
She completely ignored other relevant pieces of evidence such

as: (1) Columna’s May 3, 2004 letter to respondent Lloyd Antiporda
narrating the torture he suffered to force him to admit his

participation in the crimes and to implicate the respondents; (2) his
May 25, 2004 affidavit where he stated that neither he nor the
respondents had any involvement in the murders and (3) his
testimony during the October 22, 2004 clarificatory hearing wherein
he categorically affirmed his May 3, 2004 letter and May 25, 2004
affidavit.
We declared in Jimenez v. Jimenez29 that
“[although] there is no general formula or fixed rule for the determination of

probable cause since the same must be decided in the light of the conditions
obtaining in given situations and its existence depends to a large degree
upon the finding or opinion of the judge conducting the examination, such a
finding should not disregard the facts before the judge nor run counter to the
clear dictates of reason. The judge or fiscal, therefore, should not go on with
the prosecution in the hope that some credible evidence might later turn up
during trial for this would be a flagrant violation of a basic right which the
courts are created to uphold.”30 (Emphasis supplied)

Had Judge Daguna reviewed the entire records of the
investigation, she would have seen that, aside from the pieces of
evidence she relied on, there were others which cast doubt on them.
We quote with approval the reflections of the CA on this point:
“The selectivity of respondent RTC Judge for purposes of resolving the

motion to withdraw the informations effectively sidetracked the guidelines
for an independent assessment and evaluation of the merits of the case.
Respondent RTC Judge thus impaired the substantial rights of the accused.
Instead, she should have made a circumspect evaluation by looking at
everything made available to her at that point of the cases. No less than that
was expected and
_______________
29 G.R. No. 158148, 30 June 2005, 462 SCRA 516.

30 Id., at pp. 528-529.

331
required of her as a judicial officer. According to Santos v. Orda, Jr., the trial
judge may make an independent assessment of the merits of the case based
on the affidavits and counter-affidavits, documents, or evidence appended to
the Information; the records of the public prosecutor which the court may
order the latter to produce before the court; or any evidence already adduced
before the court by the accused at the time the motion is filed by the public
prosecutor.”31

Moreover, Judge Daguna failed to consider that Columna’s
extrajudicial confession in his March 8, 2004 affidavit was not
admissible as evidence against respondents in view of the rule on res
inter alios acta.
Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet. 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.32 Consequently, an
extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant, is not
admissible against his or her co-accused33 and is considered as
hearsay against them.34 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.”35
_______________
31 Rollo, p. 54.
32 This is expressed in Section 28, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
SEC. 28. Admission by third party.—The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced
by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided.
33 People v. Vda. De Ramos, 451 Phil. 214, 224 (2003).
34 People v. Tizon, Jr., G.R. No. 133228-31, 30 July 2002, 385 SCRA 364, 388,
citing People v. Suarez, G.R. No. 111193, 28 January 1997, 267 SCRA 119.
35 Supra note 33, pp. 224-225.

332
An exception to the res inter alios acta rule is an admission made

by a conspirator under Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court:
“Admission by conspirator.—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.”

This rule prescribes that the act or declaration of the conspirator
relating to the conspiracy and during its existence may be given in
evidence against co-conspirators provided that the conspiracy is
shown by independent evidence aside from the extrajudicial
confession.36 Thus, in order that the admission of a conspirator may
be received against his or her co-conspirators, 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.37 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.38
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 confes-
_______________
36 People v. Morial, 415 Phil. 310, 336; 363 SCRA 96, 116 (2001).
37 People v. Tena, G.R. No. 100909, 21 October 1992, 215 SCRA 43, 48-49,
citing Montoya v. Baun, 44 O.G. 4382, cited in Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court
in the Philippines, Vol. VII, Part I, 1990 Edition, p. 349.
38 People v. Surigawan, G.R. No. 83215, 15 December 1993, 228 SCRA 458,
465, citing People v. Badilla, 48 Phil. 718, 725 (1926) and People v. Ferry, 66 Phil.
310 (1938).

333
sion of Columna, which was the sole evidence against respondents,

had no probative value and was inadmissible as evidence against
them.
Considering the paucity and inadmissibility of the evidence
presented against the respondents, it would be unfair to hold them
for trial. Once it is ascertained that no probable cause exists to form
a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused, they should be
relieved from the pain of going through a full blown court case.39
When, at the outset, the evidence offered during the preliminary
investigation is nothing more than an uncorroborated extrajudicial
confession of an alleged conspirator, the criminal complaint should
not prosper so that the system would be spared from the unnecessary
expense of such useless and expensive litigation.40 The rule is all the
more significant here since respondent Licerio Antiporda remains in
detention for the murder charges pursuant to the warrant of arrest
issued by Judge Daguna.41
Indeed, at that stage of the proceedings, the duty of Judge
Daguna was only to satisfy herself whether there was probable cause
or sufficient ground to hold respondents for trial as co-conspirators.
Given that she had no sufficient basis for a finding of probable cause
against respondents, her orders denying the withdrawal of the

Informations for murder against them were issued with grave abuse
of discretion.
Hence, we hold that the CA committed no reversible error in
granting the petitions for certiorari of respondents.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.
No pronouncement as to costs.
_______________
39 R.R. Paredes v. Calilung, G.R. No. 156055, 5 March 2007, 517 SCRA 369,
395, citing Salonga v. Cruz Pano, G.R. No. L-59524, 18 February 1985, 134 SCRA
438, 461-462.
40 Sistoza v. Desierto, 437 Phil. 117, 138; 388 SCRA 307 (2002), citing Cabahug
v. People, 426 Phil. 490, 510; 376 SCRA 113 (2002).
41 Rollo, p. 441.

334
SO ORDERED.
Carpio-Morales, Velasco, Jr., Nachura and Leonardo-De

Castro, JJ., concur.
Petition denied.
Note.—As the term implies, probable cause is concerned with

probability, not absolute or even moral certainty—the standards of
judgment are those of a reasonably prudent man, not the exacting
calibrations of a judge after a full-blown trial. (People vs. Choi, 497
SCRA 547 [2006])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Tamargo Vs Awingan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tamargo Vs Awingan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tamargo Vs Awingan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1/28/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 610

G.R. No. 177727. January 19, 2010.*

HAROLD V. TAMARGO, petitioner, vs. ROMULO AWINGAN,

Criminal Procedure; Information; When confronted with a motion to

Same; Probable Cause; Once it is ascertained that no probable cause

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

1 Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

After conducting a preliminary investigation and on the strength

mayor of Buguey, Cagayan at that time. When the killing took

TATAY niya na si EX-MAYOR LICERIO ANTIPORDA JR. Aka BOY.

Na noong August 14, 2003 ay sumakay kami sa isang kotse na minaneho

ping case in which Atty. Tamargo was acting as private prosecutor.

Pursuant to this afﬁdavit, petitioner Harold V. Tamargo (brother

10 Id., at pp. 323, 436.

NGAYON NA NAKAKULONG SA MANILA CITY JAIL SA QUEZON

Due to the submission of Columna’s letter and afﬁdavit, the

Meanwhile, in another handwritten letter addressed to City

PA ANG NAMATAY) AT KUNG SAAN NANGYARI NA SINABI

16 Id., at pp. 75, 239-240. The letter read:

Noong nakaraang Biyernes ako po ay ipinatawag ni Fiscal Marzan upang

tions for murder.18 He opined that the March 8, 2004 extrajudicial

18 Id., at pp. 96-104.

G.R. SP No. 93610. The Antipordas separately ﬁled another

24 Id., at pp. 286-314.

Respondents counter that Judge Daguna committed grave abuse

She completely ignored other relevant pieces of evidence such

narrating the torture he suffered to force him to admit his

“[although] there is no general formula or ﬁxed rule for the determination of

“The selectivity of respondent RTC Judge for purposes of resolving the

29 G.R. No. 158148, 30 June 2005, 462 SCRA 516.

An exception to the res inter alios acta rule is an admission made

“Admission by conspirator.—The act or declaration of a conspirator

be received against his or her co-conspirators, it is necessary that (a)

sion of Columna, which was the sole evidence against respondents,

against respondents, her orders denying the withdrawal of the

Carpio-Morales, Velasco, Jr., Nachura and Leonardo-De

Note.—As the term implies, probable cause is concerned with

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like