Tamargo vs Awingan Case Digest

Tamargo vs. Awingan G.R. No. 177727; January 19, 2010 Facts:

Atty. Franklin V. Tamargo and his 8-year-old daughter were shot and killed in 2003. The police had no leads on the perpetrators of the crime until a certain eynaldo !eron surfaced and e"ecuted an affida#it wherein he stated that a certain $ucio %olumna told him during a drinking spree that Atty. Tamargo was ordered killed &y $loyd Antiporda and that he '%olumna( was one of those who killed Atty. Tamargo. Tamargo. %olumna was arrested. )n *arch 8+ 200,+ %olumna e"ecuted an affida#it wherein he admitted his participation as look  out during the shooting and implicated omulo Awingan as the gunman and one ichard *ecate. /e also tagged as masterminds $icerio Antiporda+ r. and his son+ $loyd Antiporda+ e"mayor and mayor+ respecti#ely+ of 1uguey+ %agayan. ursuant ursuant to this affida#it+ affida#it+ petitioner petitioner /arold V. Tamargo Tamargo '&rother '&rother of Atty. Atty. Tamarg Tamargo( o( filed a complaint against those implicated &y %olumna in the )ffice of the %ity rosecutor of *anila. %olumna affirmed his affida#it &efore the in#estigating prosecutor. uring the preliminary in#estigation+ $icerio presented %olumna4s handwritten letter wherein the latter latter disowned the contents contents of his earlier affida#it affida#it and narrated narrated how he had &een tortured until he signed the e"tra5udicial confession. $icerio also su&mitted an affida#it of %olumna dated *ay 26+ 200, wherein the latter essentially repeated the statements in his handwritten letter. The in#es in#esti tigat gatin ing g pros prosec ecut utor or set set a clari clarifi ficat cator ory y heari hearing ng so that that %olu %olumn mnaa coul could d clar clarif ify y his his contradictory affida#its and his unsolicited letter. uring the hearing+ %olumna categorically admitt admitted ed the author authorshi ship p and #olunt #oluntari arines nesss of the unsoli unsolicit cited ed letter letter.. Thus+ Thus+ the in#est in#estigat igating ing  prosecutor recommended the dismissal of the charges. 7n another handwritten letter addressed to %ity rosecutor+ howe#er+ %olumna said that he was only forced to withdraw all his statements against respondents during the clarificatory hearing  &ecause of the threats to his life inside the 5ail. The The T% 5udge denied the motion to withdraw the the informations and held that &ased on the *arch 8+ 200, affida#it which %olumna affirmed &efore the in#estigating prosecutor+ there was pro&a&le cause to hold the accused for trial. %A re#ersed the decision. Tamargo appealed. etitioner argues that+ &ased on the independent assessment of the udge aguna+ there was pro&a&le cause &ased on the earlier affida#it of %olumna. Awingan and the Anti Antipo pord rda4 a4ss+ on the the other other hand hand++ cont conten end d that that %olu %olumn mna4 a4ss e"tra e"tra5ud 5udic icia iall conf confes essi sion on was was inadmissi&le against them &ecause of the rule on res inter alios acta. ssu!:

hether or not the admission of %olumna is admissi&le against Awingan Awingan and the Antipordas "!#$: Columna’s extrajudicial extrajudicial confession in his March 8, 2004 adavit was not admissible admissible as evidence against resondents in view of the rule on res inter alios acta! "he rule on res inter alios acta rovides that the rights of a art# cannot be rejudiced rejudiced b# an act, declaration, or omission of another! another! Conse$uentl#, an extrajudicial extrajudicial confession is binding onl# on the confessant, is not admissible against his or her co%accused and is considered as hearsa# against them! &n excetion to the res inter alios acta rule is an admission made b# a consirator under 'ection (0, )ule *(0 of the )ules of Court+

 Admission by conspirator. conspirator. — The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy con spiracy and and duri during ng its its exis existe tence nce,, may may be give given n in evid eviden ence ce agai agains nstt the the co-c co-con onsp spir irat ator or afte afterr the the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.

This rule prescri&es that the act or declaration of the conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its e"istence may &e gi#en in e#idence against co-conspirators pro#ided that the conspiracy is shown &y independent e#idence aside from the e"tra5udicial confession. Thus+ in order that the admission of a conspirator may &e recei#ed against his or her co-conspirators+ it is necessary that 'a( the conspiracy &e first pro#ed &y e#idence other than the admission itself '&( the admission relates to the common o&5ect and 'c( it has &een made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy. )therwise+ it cannot &e used against the alleged coconspirators without #iolating their constitutional right to &e confronted with the witnesses against them and to cross-e"amine them. /ere+ aside from the e"tra5udicial confession+ which was later on recanted+ no other piece of  e#idence was presented to pro#e the alleged conspiracy. There was no other prosecution e#idence+ direct or circumstantial+ which the e"tra5udicial confession could corro&orate. Therefore+ the recanted confession of %olumna+ which was the sole e#idence against respondents+ had no pro&ati#e #alue and was inadmissi&le as e#idence against them.

%!&ano vs. '!o(#! G.R. No. 17)*+9; !c!m-!r 1, 2010

Facts:

)n 30 une 9::9+ ;stellita Vi17 announced that it had sol#ed the crime. 7t presented star-witness essica Alfaro+ one of its informers+ who claimed that she had witnessed the crime. ?he pointed to /u&ert e&&+ Antonio $e5ano+ Artemio Ventura+ *ichael !atchalian+ /ospicio Fernande<+ eter ;strada+ *iguel odrigue< and oy Filart as the culprits. ?he also tagged police officer+ !erardo 1iong+ as an accessory after the fact. Alfaro had &een working as an asset to the >17 &y leading the agency to criminals. ?ome of the said criminals had &een so high-profile+ that Alfaro had &ecome the darling of the >17 &ecause of  her contri&ution to its success. The trial court and the %ourt of Appeals found that Alfaro4s direct and spontaneous narration of e#ents unshaken &y gruesome cross-e"amination should &e gi#en a great weight in the decision of the case.

7n Alfaro4s story+ she stated that after she and the accused got high of sha&u+ she was asked to see %armela at their residence. After e&& was informed that %armela had a male companion with her+ e&& &ecame pi=ued and thereafter consumed more drugs and plotted the gang rape on %armela. e&&+ on the other hand+ denied all the accusations against him with the ali&i that during the whole time that the crime had taken place+ he was staying in the @nited ?tates. /e had apparently left for the @? on 0: *arch 9::9 and only returned on 2 )cto&er 9::2. As documentary e#idence+ he presented photocopies of his passport with four stamps recording his entry and e"it from &oth the hilippines and the @?+ Flight4s assenger *anifest employment documents in the @? during his stay there and @?-7>? computer generated certification authenticated &y the hilippine FA. Aside from these documentary ali&is+ he also ga#e a thorough recount of his acti#ities in the @?. ssu!:

hether or not e&&4s documented ali&i of his @.?. tra#el should &e gi#en more credence &y the %ourt than the positi#e identification &y Alfaro. Ru#ing:

For a positi#e identification to &e accepta&le+ it must meet at least two criteriaB 1. The positi#e identification of the offender must come from a credi&le witnessC and

2. The witness4 story of what she personally saw must &e &elie#a&le+ not inherently contri#ed.

The ?upreme %ourt found that Alfaro and her testimony failed to meet the a&o#e criteria. ?he did not show up at the >17 as a spontaneous witness &othered &y her conscience. ?he had &een hanging around the agency for sometime as a stool pigeon+ one paid for mi"ing up with criminals and s=uealing on them. And although her testimony included details+ Alfaro had prior access to the details that the in#estigators knew of the case. ?he took ad#antage of her familiarity with these details to include in her testimony the clearly incompati&le acts of e&& hurling a stone at the front door glass frames+ for e"ample+ 5ust so she can accommodate the crime scene feature. To esta&lish ali&i+ the accused must pro#e &y positi#e+ clear and satisfactory e#idence thatB 9. /e was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime+ and 2. That it was physically impossi&le for him to &e at the scene of the crime. The ?upreme %ourt ga#e #ery high credence to the compounded documentary ali&i presented &y e&&. This ali&i altogether impeaches Alfaro4s testimony not only with respect to him+ &ut also with respect to the other accused. For+ if the %ourt accepts the proposition that e&& was in the @? when the crime took place+ Alfaro4s testimony will not hold altogether. e&&4s participation is the anchor of Alfaro4s story.