17.

Tamargo v Awingan

Facts:
1. Atty. Tamargo and his 8yr old daughter died in a shooting incident along Binondo
2. The police got no leads until Reynaldo Geron (RG) surfaced and executed an affidavit stating
that during a drinking session with Lucerio Columna, the latter said that atty. Tamargo was
ordered to be killed by Lloyd Awing (respondent). He added that he told the Tamargo family what
he knew and that the sketch of the suspect closely resembled Columna. (RG’s affidavit)
3. Preliminary Investigation was conducted and issued a resolution (1st) based on Geron’s affidavit,
there was probable cause against Columna and 3 John does. a murder case was filed to the
RTC. Columna was arrested.
4. Columna executed an affidavit (1st C’s Affidavit) affistating he acted as a look out and Romula
Awing (mumoy) and Richard Mecate were the shooters. He also tagged as masterminds
respondent Licerio Antiporda, Jr. and his son, respondent Lloyd Antiporda. The former was
the ex-mayor and the latter the mayor of Buguey, Cagayan at that time. When the killing took
place, Licerio Antiporda was in detention for a kidnapping case in which Atty. Tamargo was
acting as private prosecutor. (IMPORTANT)
5. Petitioner (bro of atty, Tamargo) filed a case to the office of the prosecutor
6. Columna affirmed his (1st) affidavit to the office of prosecutor. (AFFIRMATION)
7. Respondents denied stating it was merely political and stated that Atty. Tamargo had been
defeated twice by Lloyd and once by Licerio. Before the killing, Atty. Tamargo filed an election
case against Lloyd and a kidnapping case in the Sandiganbayan against Licerio. However, they
claimed that both cases were dismissed as Lloyd emerged as the winner in the elections and
Licerio was acquitted by the Sandiganbayan
8. During Preliminary investigation, Licerio presented Columna’s unsolicited handwritten letter
sent from the jail disowning his affidavit as it was signed by him because of torture and He stated
that those he implicated had no participation in the killings.
9. Respondent Licerio also submitted an affidavit of Columna wherein the latter essentially repeated
the statements in his handwritten letter. (2nd C’s Affidavit)
10. Columna categorically admitted the authorship and voluntariness of the unsolicited letter and
affirmed the 2nd affidavit then denied the 1st ( this was the 1st recantation)
11. investigating prosecutor recommended the dismissal of the charges. This was approved by the
city prosecutor.
12. the investigating prosecutor recommended the dismissal of the charges. This was approved by
the city prosecutor.
13. another handwritten letter addressed to City Prosecutor Ramon Garcia dated October 29, 2004,
Columna said that he was only forced to withdraw all his statements against respondents during
the October 22, 2004 clarificatory hearing because of the threats to his life inside the jail. He
requested that he be transferred to another detention center (2nd recantation)
14. Petition appealed to Sec. of DOJ and ordered the filling of the informations for murder and opined
that the extrajudicial confession was not effectively impeached by the subsequent recantation
and that there was enough evidence to prove the probable guilt of respondents
15. Sec. of DOJ, upon MR directed to withdraw the case and declared that the extrajudicial
confession of Columna was inadmissible against respondents and that, even if it was admissible,
it was not corroborated by other evidence. trial process filed a motion to withdraw the information
16. RTC granted the motion but upon MR, judge inhibited himself without resolving it.
17. judge DAGUNA (new Judge) : deny MR! there is probably cause based on 1st C’s affidavit.

Issue: WON the new Judge committed GADALEJ for not taking into consideration the other pieces
of evidence? yes!

Held: The trial court has the duty to make an independent assessment of the merits of the motion. It
may either agree or disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary. Reliance alone on the
resolution of the Secretary would be an abdication of the trial court’s duty and jurisdiction to
determine a prima facie case. The court must itself be convinced that there is indeed no sufficient
evidence against the accused. New Judge limited herself only to the following: (1) Columna’s 1st
affidavit wherein he implicated the respondents in the murders; (2) his affirmation of this affidavit
during the clarificatory hearing; (3) his letter of admission and authorship and (4) DOJ resolution
upholding the prosecutor’s recommendation to file the murder charges.

New Judge completely ignored other relevant pieces of evidence such as: (1) Columna’s letter to
respondent Lloyd Antiporda narrating the torture he suffered to force him to admit his participation
in the crimes and to implicate the respondents; (2) his affidavit where he stated that neither he nor
the respondents had any involvement in the murders and (3) his testimony during the clarificatory
hearing wherein he categorically affirmed his 2nd letter and 2nd affidavit.

Jimenez v. Jimenez “there is no general formula or fixed rule for the determination of probable cause
since the same must be decided in the light of the conditions obtaining in given situations and its
existence depends to a large degree upon the finding or opinion of the judge conducting the
examination, such a finding should not disregard the facts before the judge nor run counter to the
clear dictates of reason. The judge or fiscal, therefore, should not go on with the prosecution in the
hope that some credible evidence might later turn up during trial for this would be a flagrant violation
of a basic right which the courts are created to uphold.”

The selectivity of newRTC Judge for purposes of resolving the motion to withdraw the informations
effectively sidetracked the guidelines for an independent assessment and evaluation of the merits
of the case. new RTC Judge thus impaired the substantial rights of the accused. Instead, she should
have made a circumspect evaluation by looking at everything made available to her at that point of
the cases. No less than that was expected and required of her as a judicial officer. According to
Santos v. Orda, Jr., the trial judge may make an independent assessment of the merits of the case
based on the affidavits and counter-affidavits, documents, or evidence appended to the Information;
the records of the public prosecutor which the court may order the latter to produce before the court;
or any evidence already adduced before the court by the accused at the time the motion is filed by
the public prosecutor.

Moreover, New Judge failed to consider that Columna’s 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. (did not discuss re inter allies act since di topic natin)