Harold Tamargo vs. Romulo Awingan, Lloyd Antiporda And Licerio Antiporda, Jr. G.R. No. 177727, January 19, 2010, RULE 130. Sec. 29. Admission by third party.

 

RULE 130. Sec. 29. Admission by third party.

Harold Tamargo vs. Romulo Awingan, Lloyd Antiporda And Licerio Antiporda, Jr. G.R. No. 177727, January 19, 2010

CORONA, J.:

FACTS: Atty. Tamargo and his daughter were shot and killed. The police had no leads until Geron executed an affidavit that Columna told him during a drinking spree that Atty. Tamargo was ordered killed by Antiporda and that he (Columna) was one of those who killed Atty. Tamargo. That he told the Tamargo family what he knew and that the sketch of the suspect closely resembled Columna. Informations for murder were filed against Columna et. Al.

Columna executed an affidavit admitting his participation as "look out" during the shooting and implicated Awingan as the gunman and Antiporda, Jr. and his son, Antiporda as masterminds. The former was the ex-mayor and the latter the mayor of Buguey, Cagayan at that time. When the killing took place, Antiporda, Jr. was in detention for a kidnapping case in which Atty. Tamargo was acting as private prosecutor. Pursuant to this affidavit, Harold Tamargo (brother of Atty. Tamargo) filed a complaint against those implicated by Columna. Awingan et. al denied any involvement in the killings. During the preliminary investigation, Columna disowned the contents of his affidavit and narrated how he had been tortured until he signed the extrajudicial confession.  During the clarificatory hearing Columna admitted the authorship and voluntariness of the unsolicited letter and denied that any violence had been employed to obtain or extract the affidavit from him. Thus, the city prosecutor dismissed of the charges. Meanwhile, Columna said that he was only forced to withdraw all his statements against Awingan et al. because of the threats to his life inside the jail. He requested that he be transferred to another detention center.

DOJ held that the extrajudicial confession of Columna was inadmissible and even if it was admissible, it was not corroborated by other evidence. RTC ruled that based on Columna’s affidavit, there was probable cause to hold the accused for trial. CA held Columna’s extrajudicial confession was not admissible because, aside from the recanted confession, there was no other piece of evidence presented to establish the existence of the conspiracy. The confession was made only after Columna was arrested and not while the conspirators were engaged in carrying out the conspiracy.

ISSUE: Whether or not Columna’s extrajudicial confession was inadmissible against Awingan et. al because of the rule on res inter alios acta.

HELD: Yes. 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. 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. 

An exception to the res inter alios acta rule is an admission made by a conspirator under Section 30: 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.

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 Awingan et al, had no probative value and was inadmissible as evidence against them.

Considering the inadmissibility of the evidence presented against the Awingan et al, 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. 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. 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.

CA is affirmed.