Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tamargo v. Awingan
Tamargo v. Awingan
177727
Petitioner, During the preliminary investigation, respondent Licerio presented
Present: Columnas unsolicited handwritten letter to respondent Lloyd, sent from
Columnas jail cell in Manila. In the letter, Columna disowned the contents
CORONA, J., Chairperson, of his affidavit and narrated how he had been tortured until he signed the
CARPIO MORALES, extrajudicial confession. He stated that those he implicated had no
- v e r s u s - VELASCO, JR., participation in the killings. Respondent Licerio also submitted an affidavit
NACHURA and of Columna wherein the latter essentially repeated the statements in his
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, JJ. handwritten letter.
ROMULO AWINGAN, LLOYD Due to the submission of Columnas letter and affidavit, the
ANTIPORDA and LICERIO investigating prosecutor set a clarificatory hearing, to enable Columna to
ANTIPORDA, JR., clarify his contradictory affidavits and his unsolicited letter. During the
Respondents. Promulgated: hearing, Columna categorically admitted the authorship and voluntariness
January 19, 2010 of the unsolicited letter. He affirmed the affidavit and denied that any
x--------------------------------------------------- violence had been employed to obtain or extract the affidavit from him.
x
Thus, the investigating prosecutor recommended the dismissal of
CORONA, J.: the charges. This was approved by the city prosecutor.
The rule on res inter alios acta provides that the rights of a party cannot
In this case, aside from the extrajudicial confession, which was
be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another. Consequently,
later on recanted, no other piece of evidence was presented to prove the
an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant, is not
alleged conspiracy. There was no other prosecution evidence, direct or
admissible against his or her co-accused and is considered as hearsay
circumstantial, which the extrajudicial confession could corroborate.
against them. The reason for this rule is that:
Therefore, the recanted confession, which was the sole evidence against
respondents, had no probative value and was inadmissible as evidence
against them.