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 Reynaldo Geron surfaced and
executed an affidavit wherein he stated that a certain Lucio Columna told him during a drinking
spree that Atty. Tamargo was ordered killed by Lloyd Antiporda and that he (Columna) was one
of those who killed Atty. Tamargo. Columna was arrested.
On March 8, 2004, Columna executed an affidavit wherein he admitted his participation as look
out during the shooting and implicated Romulo Awingan as the gunman and one Richard
Mecate. He also tagged as masterminds Licerio Antiporda, Jr. and his son, Lloyd Antiporda, exmayor and mayor, respectively, of Buguey, Cagayan.
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.
Columna affirmed his affidavit before the investigating prosecutor.
During the preliminary investigation, Licerio presented Columnas handwritten letter wherein the
latter disowned the contents of his earlier affidavit and narrated how he had been tortured until
he signed the extrajudicial confession. Licerio also submitted an affidavit of Columna dated May
25, 2004 wherein the latter essentially repeated the statements in his handwritten letter. The
investigating prosecutor set a clarificatory hearing so that Columna could clarify his
contradictory affidavits and his unsolicited letter. During the hearing, Columna categorically
admitted the authorship and voluntariness of the unsolicited letter. Thus, the investigating
prosecutor recommended the dismissal of the charges.
In another handwritten letter addressed to City Prosecutor, however, Columna said that he was
only forced to withdraw all his statements against respondents during the clarificatory hearing
because of the threats to his life inside the jail. The RTC judge denied the motion to withdraw the
informations and held that based on the March 8, 2004 affidavit which Columna affirmed before
the investigating prosecutor, there was probable cause to hold the accused for trial. CA reversed
the decision.
Tamargo appealed. Petitioner argues that, based on the independent assessment of the Judge
Daguna, there was probable cause based on the earlier affidavit of Columna. Awingan and the
Antipordas, on the other hand, contend that Columnas extrajudicial confession was
inadmissible against them because of the rule on res inter alios acta.
Issue:
Whether or not the admission of Columna is admissible against Awingan and the Antipordas
Held:
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. 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.
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 coconspirators 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.

Lejano vs. People

G.R. No. 176389; December 14, 2010

Facts:

On 30 June 1991, Estellita Vizconde and her daughters Carmela and Jennifer were brutally slain
at their home in Paranaque City. Four years later in 1995, the NBI announced that it had solved
the crime. It presented star-witness Jessica Alfaro, one of its informers, who claimed that she
had witnessed the crime. She pointed to Hubert Webb, Antonio Lejano, Artemio Ventura,
Michael Gatchalian, Hospicio Fernandez, Peter Estrada, Miguel Rodriguez and Joy Filart as the
culprits. She also tagged police officer, Gerardo Biong, as an accessory after the fact. Alfaro
had been working as an asset to the NBI by leading the agency to criminals. Some of the said
criminals had been so high-profile, that Alfaro had become the darling of the NBI because of
her contribution to its success. The trial court and the Court of Appeals found that Alfaros direct
and spontaneous narration of events unshaken by gruesome cross-examination should be given a
great weight in the decision of the case.

In Alfaros story, she stated that after she and the accused got high of shabu, she was asked to see
Carmela at their residence. After Webb was informed that Carmela had a male companion with
her, Webb became piqued and thereafter consumed more drugs and plotted the gang rape on
Carmela. Webb, on the other hand, denied all the accusations against him with the alibi that
during the whole time that the crime had taken place, he was staying in the United States. He
had apparently left for the US on 09 March 1991 and only returned on 27 October 1992. As
documentary evidence, he presented photocopies of his passport with four stamps recording his
entry and exit from both the Philippines and the US, Flights Passenger Manifest employment
documents in the US during his stay there and US-INS computer generated certification
authenticated by the Philippine DFA. Aside from these documentary alibis, he also gave a
thorough recount of his activities in the US.
Issue:
Whether or not Webbs documented alibi of his U.S. travel should be given more credence by the
Court than the positive identification by Alfaro.
Ruling:
For a positive identification to be acceptable, it must meet at least two criteria:
1. The positive identification of the offender must come from a credible witness; and
2. The witness story of what she personally saw must be believable, not inherently
contrived.

The Supreme Court found that Alfaro and her testimony failed to meet the above criteria. She
did not show up at the NBI as a spontaneous witness bothered by her conscience. She had been
hanging around the agency for sometime as a stool pigeon, one paid for mixing up with criminals
and squealing on them. And although her testimony included details, Alfaro had prior access to
the details that the investigators knew of the case. She took advantage of her familiarity with
these details to include in her testimony the clearly incompatible acts of Webb hurling a stone at
the front door glass frames, for example, just so she can accommodate the crime scene feature.
To establish alibi, the accused must prove by positive, clear and satisfactory evidence that:
1. He was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and
2. That it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.
The Supreme Court gave very high credence to the compounded documentary alibi presented by
Webb. This alibi altogether impeaches Alfaros testimony not only with respect to him, but also
with respect to the other accused. For, if the Court accepts the proposition that Webb was in the
US when the crime took place, Alfaros testimony will not hold altogether. Webbs participation
is the anchor of Alfaros story.