Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 67 views

    Harold V. Tamargo V. Romulo Awingan, Lloyd

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous EfPg6qLj7
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the admissibility of extrajudicial confessions against co-conspirators. It discusses the rule of res inter alios acta, which provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by the acts or declarations of another. Specifically, it states that an extrajudicial confession is only binding on the confessant and is inadmissible hearsay against co-accused. However, there is an exception where the confession of a conspirator may be used against others if conspiracy is proved by independent evidence and the confession was made in furtherance of the conspiracy. In this case, the court held that aside from the extrajudicial confession, which was later rec

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved

    Harold V. Tamargo V. Romulo Awingan, Lloyd

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous EfPg6qLj7
    67 views4 pages
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the admissibility of extrajudicial confessions against co-conspirators. It discusses the rule of res inter alios acta, which provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by the acts or declarations of another. Specifically, it states that an extrajudicial confession is only binding on the confessant and is inadmissible hearsay against co-accused. However, there is an exception where the confession of a conspirator may be used against others if conspiracy is proved by independent evidence and the confession was made in furtherance of the conspiracy. In this case, the court held that aside from the extrajudicial confession, which was later rec

    Original Description:

    EVIDENCE DIGEST

    Original Title

    29. Tamargo v Awigan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the admissibility of extrajudicial confessions against co-conspirators. It discusses the rule of res inter alios acta, which provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by the acts or declarations of another. Specifically, it states that an extrajudicial confession is only binding on the confessant and is inadmissible hearsay against co-accused. However, there is an exception where the confession of a conspirator may be used against others if conspiracy is proved by independent evidence and the confession was made in furtherance of the conspiracy. In this case, the court held that aside from the extrajudicial confession, which was later rec

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    67 views4 pages

    Harold V. Tamargo V. Romulo Awingan, Lloyd

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous EfPg6qLj7
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the admissibility of extrajudicial confessions against co-conspirators. It discusses the rule of res inter alios acta, which provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by the acts or declarations of another. Specifically, it states that an extrajudicial confession is only binding on the confessant and is inadmissible hearsay against co-accused. However, there is an exception where the confession of a conspirator may be used against others if conspiracy is proved by independent evidence and the confession was made in furtherance of the conspiracy. In this case, the court held that aside from the extrajudicial confession, which was later rec

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    of 4

    G. R. No.

    177727
    HAROLD V. TAMARGO v. ROMULO AWINGAN, LLOYD
    January 19, 2010
    CORONA, J.:

    TOPIC: Admissions & Confessions

    DOCTRINE: “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.”

    FACTS:
    Atty. Franklin V. Tamargo and his eight-year-old daughter, Gail Franzielle, were
    shot and killed along Escolta St., Binondo, Manila. The police had no leads on the
    perpetrators of the crime until Reynaldo Geron surfaced and executed an
    affidavit. Geron stated that Lucio Columna confessed him during a drinking spree that
    Atty. Tamargo was ordered to be killed by Lloyd Antiporda and that 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. After conducting
    a preliminary investigation based on Geron’s affidavit, the investigating
    prosecutor found probable cause against Columna and three John Does. The
    accused were thereafter brought to Manila for detention and trial.

    Columna executed an affidavit wherein he admitted his participation as look


    out during the shooting and Romulo Awingan (alias Mumoy) as the gunman and
    Richard Mecate. He also tagged as masterminds respondent Licerio Antiporda, Jr.
    and his son, Lloyd Antiporda. The Liciero was the ex-mayor and the Llyod was then
    the mayor of Cagayan at that time. When the killing took place, Licerio Antiporda was
    in detention for a kidnapping case in which Atty. Tamargo was acting as private
    prosecutor. Harold V. Tamargo (brother of Atty. Tamargo) filed a complaint against
    those implicated by Columna.

    Columna affirmed his affidavit before the investigating prosecutor. Antipordas


    et al 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.

    During the preliminary investigation, Licerio presented Columnas unsolicited


    handwritten letter dated May 3, 2004 to respondent Lloyd, sent from Columnas jail. In
    the letter, Columna disowned the contents of his March 8, 2004 affidavit and said how
    he had been tortured until he signed the extrajudicial confession. He stated that those
    he implicated had no participation in the killings.

    Meanwhile, another handwritten letter addressed to City Prosecutor dated


    October 29, 2004, Columna said that he was only forced to withdraw all his
    statements against respondents during the October 22, 2004 because of the threats
    to his life inside the jail.

    Aggrieved by the dismissal of the charges, Tamargo filed an appeal. The DOJ,
    reversed the dismissal and ordered the filing of the Informations for murder. However,
    Secretary Gonzales granted the Antipordas motion for reconsideration (MR) and
    directed the withdrawal of the Informations.

    The RTC reversed the decision of the DOJ. However CA Reversed the
    decision of RTC stating that 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.

    ISSUE:
    WON Columna’s extrajudicial confession was inadmissible against respondents
    because of the rule on res inter alios acta.

    HELD:

    NO. The RTC failed to consider that Columnas 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. 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 mans 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 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. 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.

    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