Harold V. Tamargo V. Romulo Awingan, Lloyd
Harold V. Tamargo V. Romulo Awingan, Lloyd
Harold V. Tamargo V. Romulo Awingan, Lloyd
177727
HAROLD V. TAMARGO v. ROMULO AWINGAN, LLOYD
January 19, 2010
CORONA, J.:
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.
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:
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.