THIRD DIVISION
HAROLD V. TAMARGO, G.R. No. 177727
Petitioner,
Present:
CORONA, J., Chairperson,
CARPIO
MORALES,
- v e r s u s - VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA and
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, JJ.
ROMULO
AWINGAN, LLOYD
ANTIPORDA
and LICERIO
ANTIPORDA,
JR.,
Respondents. Promulgated:
January
19, 2010
x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S
I O N
CORONA, J.:
This
is a petition for review on certiorari[1] of the
November 10, 2006 decision[2] and May
18, 2007 resolution[3]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 93610.
Atty.
Franklin V. Tamargo and his eight-year-old daughter, Gail Franzielle, were shot
and killed at around 5:15 p.m. of August 15, 2003 along Nueva Street corner
Escolta Street, Binondo, Manila. The police had no leads on the perpetrators of
the crime until a certain Reynaldo Geron surfaced and executed an affidavit
dated September 12, 2003. He stated that
a certain Lucio Columna told him during a drinking spree that Atty. Tamargo was
ordered killed by respondent Lloyd Antiporda and that he (Columna) was one of
those who killed Atty. Tamargo. He added that he told the Tamargo family what
he knew and that the sketch of the suspect closely resembled Columna.[4]
After
conducting a preliminary investigation and on the strength of Geron’s
affidavit, the investigating prosecutor[5] issued a
resolution dated December 5, 2003 finding probable cause against Columna and
three John Does.[6] On February 2, 2004, the corresponding Informations
for murder were filed against them in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila,
one assigned to Branch 27 for the death of Atty. Franklin Tamargo, and the
other to Branch 29 for the death of the minor Gail Franzielle.[7] Columna was arrested in the province of
Cagayan on February 17, 2004 and brought to Manila for detention and trial.[8]
On March 8, 2004, Columna (whose real
name was Manuel, Jr.) executed an affidavit wherein he admitted his
participation as “look out” during the shooting and implicated respondent
Romulo Awingan (alias “Mumoy”) as the gunman and one Richard Mecate. He also tagged
as masterminds respondent Licerio Antiporda, Jr. and his son, respondent Lloyd
Antiporda.[9] 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.
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.[10]
On April 19, 2004, Columna affirmed
his affidavit before the investigating prosecutor[11] who
subjected him to clarificatory questions.[12]
Respondents denied any involvement in
the killings. They alleged that Licerio
was a candidate for mayor in Buguey, Cagayan during the May 2004 elections and
that the case was instituted by his political opponents in order to derail his
candidacy. The Antipordas admitted that Atty. Tamargo was their political rival
for the mayoralty post of Buguey. 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.[13]
During the preliminary investigation,
respondent Licerio presented Columna’s unsolicited handwritten letter dated May
3, 2004 to respondent Lloyd, sent from Columna’s jail cell in Manila. In the letter, Columna disowned the contents
of his March 8, 2004 affidavit and narrated how he had been tortured until he
signed the extrajudicial confession. He stated that those he implicated had no
participation in the killings.[14]
Respondent Licerio also submitted an affidavit of Columna dated May 25, 2004
wherein the latter essentially repeated the statements in his handwritten letter.
Due to the submission of Columna’s
letter and affidavit, the investigating prosecutor set a clarificatory hearing,
to enable Columna to clarify his contradictory affidavits and his unsolicited
letter. During the hearing held on
October 22, 2004, Columna categorically admitted the authorship and
voluntariness of the unsolicited letter. He affirmed the May 25, 2004 affidavit
and denied that any violence had been employed to obtain or extract the
affidavit from him.[15]
Thus, on November 10, 2004, the
investigating prosecutor recommended the dismissal of the charges. This was
approved by the city prosecutor.
Meanwhile, in 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.[16]
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the
charges, petitioner filed an appeal to the Department of Justice (DOJ).[17] On May 30, 2005, the DOJ, through then
Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez, reversed the dismissal and ordered the filing of
the Informations for murder.[18] He opined that the March 8, 2004
extrajudicial confession was not effectively impeached by the subsequent
recantation and that there was enough evidence to prove the probable guilt of
respondents.[19] Accordingly, the Informations were filed and
the cases were consolidated and assigned to the RTC of Manila, Branch 29.[20]
However, on August 12, 2005,
Secretary Gonzales granted the Antipordas’ motion for reconsideration (MR) and
directed the withdrawal of the Informations.[21] This time, he 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.[22] As a result, on August 22, 2005, the trial
prosecutor filed a motion to withdraw the Informations. On October 4, 2005, Secretary Gonzalez denied
petitioner’s MR.
The RTC, through Judge Cielito
Mindaro-Grulla, granted the motion to withdraw the Informations in an order
dated October 26, 2005.[23] Petitioner filed an MR but the judge
voluntarily inhibited herself without resolving the same. The cases were re-raffled to Branch 19,
presided by Judge Zenaida R. Daguna.
Judge Daguna granted the MR of petitioner in a resolution dated December
9, 2005. She ruled that, based on
Columna’s March 8, 2004 affidavit which he affirmed before the investigating
prosecutor, there was probable cause to hold the accused for trial. She denied the MR of the Antipordas in an
order dated February 6, 2006.
Consequently, respondent Awingan
filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition in the CA docketed
as CA-G.R. SP No. 93610. The Antipordas
separately filed another certiorari case docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 94188.
In a decision dated November 10, 2006
in CA-G.R. SP No. 93610, the CA ruled that the RTC judge gravely abused her
discretion because she arbitrarily left out of her assessment and evaluation
the substantial matters that the DOJ Secretary had fully taken into account in
concluding that there was no probable cause against all the accused. It also held that Columna’s extrajudicial
confession was not admissible against the respondents because, aside from the
recanted confession, there was no other piece of evidence presented to
establish the existence of the conspiracy.
Additionally, the confession was made only after Columna was arrested
and not while the conspirators were engaged in carrying out the conspiracy.
After this decision was promulgated,
CA-G.R. SP No. 93610 was consolidated with CA-G.R. SP No. 94188. The CA denied reconsideration in a resolution
dated May 18, 2007. In a decision dated
August 24, 2007, the CA likewise granted the petition for certiorari of
respondents Antiporda.[24]
Petitioner
filed this petition assailing the decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 93610. Later on, he filed an amended petition
impleading respondents Antiporda and likewise assailing the CA decision in
CA-G.R. SP No. 94188. The Court treated
this as a supplemental petition.
The
main issue for our resolution is whether or not the CA erred in finding that
Judge Daguna had committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the withdrawal
of the Informations for murder against respondents.
Petitioner argues that, based on the
independent assessment of Judge Daguna, there was probable cause based on the
earlier affidavit of Columna. She
considered all the pieces of evidence but did not give credit to Columna’s
recantation.
Respondents counter that Judge Daguna
committed grave abuse of discretion by limiting her evaluation and assessment
only to evidence that supported probable cause while completely disregarding
contradicting evidence. They also
contend that Columna’s extrajudicial confession was inadmissible against
respondents because of the rule on res inter alios acta.
We find no merit in the petition.
It is settled that, when confronted
with a motion to withdraw an Information (on the ground of lack of probable
cause to hold the accused for trial based on a resolution of the DOJ Secretary),
the trial court has the duty to make an independent assessment of the merits of
the motion.[25] 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.[26] The court must itself be convinced that there
is indeed no sufficient evidence against the accused.[27]
We agree with the CA that Judge Daguna limited herself only to the following: (1) Columna’s affidavit dated March 8, 2004
wherein he implicated the respondents in the murders; (2) his affirmation of
this affidavit during the April 19, 2004 clarificatory hearing; (3) his letter
dated October 29, 2004 and (4) the May 30, 2005 DOJ resolution upholding the
prosecutor’s recommendation to file the murder charges.[28]
She completely ignored other relevant pieces of evidence such as: (1) Columna’s
May 3, 2004 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 May 25, 2004 affidavit where he stated that neither he
nor the respondents had any involvement in the murders and (3) his testimony
during the October 22, 2004 clarificatory hearing wherein he categorically
affirmed his May 3, 2004 letter and May 25, 2004 affidavit.
We declared in Jimenez v. Jimenez[29] that
[although]
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.[30] (Emphasis supplied)
Had Judge Daguna reviewed the entire
records of the investigation, she would have seen that, aside from the pieces
of evidence she relied on, there were others which cast doubt on them. We quote with approval the reflections of the
CA on this point:
The selectivity of respondent RTC 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. Respondent 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.[31]
Moreover, Judge Daguna 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.
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.[32] Consequently, an extrajudicial confession is
binding only on the confessant, is not admissible against his or her co-accused[33] and is considered
as hearsay against them.[34] The reason for this rule is that:
on a principle of
good faith and mutual convenience, a man’s own acts are binding upon himself,
and are evidence against him. So are his
conduct and declarations. Yet it would not only be rightly inconvenient, but
also manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts of mere
unauthorized strangers; and if a party ought not to be bound by the acts of
strangers, neither ought their acts or conduct be used as evidence against him.[35]
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.[36] 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.[37] 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.[38]
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.
Considering the paucity and inadmissibility of the evidence
presented against the respondents, 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.[39] When, at the outset, 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.[40] 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 issued by Judge Daguna.[41]
Indeed, at that stage of the proceedings, the duty of Judge Daguna was
only to satisfy herself whether there was probable cause or sufficient ground
to hold respondents for trial as co-conspirators. Given that she had no sufficient basis for a
finding of probable cause against respondents, her orders denying the
withdrawal of the Informations for murder against them were issued with grave
abuse of discretion.
Hence, we hold that the CA committed no reversible error in granting the
petitions for certiorari of respondents.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
WE CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
Chief Justice
[1] Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin (now Supreme Court Justice) and concurred in by Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (now Supreme Court Justice) and Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa of the Seventh Division of the Court of Appeals. Rollo, pp. 34-60.
[3] Id., pp. 63-70.
[4] Id., p. 35. The full text of the September 12, 2003 affidavit read:
1. About
a week before August 15, 2003, I was in the house of Lucio Columna at Battalan,
Lasam and there we drank gin together and stayed with him for several hours
since we are close friends. In the course of our conversation we talked about
the chances of Atty. Franklin Tamargo to win his election protest in the
election for mayor of Buguey, Cagayan, and I told him what I heard that Atty.
Tamargo was winning in the protest, Lucio Columna immediately said he could bet
that Atty. Tamargo could not sit and assume as mayor even if he wins. Later I
learned that Atty. Tamargo was killed last August 15.
2. Last week, Lucio Columna and I were
again together in the morning in our Barangay and he asked me to drink gin with
him, and we continued drinking until about noon time. When he had drunk much,
he told me “Awanen ni boss mon nga Tamargon, pinapatay ni Lloyd. Dakami pay ket
di ti pimmatay.” (Your boss Tamargo is already gone, he was ordered killed by
Lloyd. In fact, we were the ones who killed him). He also said “Tamargo ka,
Antiporda ak, no kayat mo saan ka nga agusubli diay Buguey yen ta awan met ni
boss mon, agdakua ta ti negosyo ditoyen.” (You are for Tamargo and I am for
Antiporda; if you want, do not go back to Buguey anymore since your boss is
already gone so that we can be together in business here). I know he is in the
business of selling “shabu” and marijuana.
3. I decided to come to Manila to tell the family what I know. I was shown the sketch of the face of suspect and I can say that the front side closely resembles that of Lucio Columna, and I am executing this freely and willingly to attest to its truth in court.
[5] Assistant Prosecutor Bernardino R. Camba.
[6] I.S. No. 031-26335. Id., p. 500.
[7] Docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 04-223270 and 04-223271. Id., pp. 72, 236-237, 469.
[8] Id., p. 36.
[9] We reproduce here the full text of the March 8, 2004 affidavit:
Na
ako po ay humihingi ng tulong upang ibigay ko ang buong katunayan ng pangyayari
sa pagkamatay nila ATTY. FRANKLIN TAMARGO at ng anak na babae nito habang
nakasakay sa kanilang kotse;
Na
hindi po ako ang bumaril sa kanila;
Na
ang bumaril po ay si ROMULO AWINGAN Aka MUMOY na taga Aparri, Cagayan at ang nagutos
ay sila MAYOR LLOYD ANTIPORDA ng Buguey, Cagayan at ang TATAY niya na si
EX-MAYOR LICERIO ANTIPORDA JR. Aka BOY.
Na
noong July 20, 2003 habang nagmamaneho ako ng Multicab biyaheng Aparri-Dugo ay
pinara ako ni MUMOY AWINGAN sa Tallungan Aparri at sinabi niya kung gusto kong
sumama sa grupo nila. Sabi ko naman ay ihahatid ko lang ang pasahero ko sa
Dugo. Pagkatapos noon ay binalikan ko sila sa Tallungan. Nang magkausap na kami
ni MUMOY AWINGAN ay sinabi niya na may PROJECT sila at si ATTY. FRANKLIN
TAMARGO na kalaban ni MAYOR ANTIPORDA sa BUGUEY. Kung gusto ko raw sumama sa
PROJECT na yun. Nang sumagot ako ng OO ay isusurvey lang daw nila ang lugar. Sinabi rin niya na isasama nila ako kay
MAYOR ANTIPORDA;
Na
noong August 10, 2003 ay inabangan ako nila MUMOY AWINGAN sa Tallungan, Aparri
Cagayan at sinama nila ako, kasama si RICHARD MECATE at isa pa na hindi ko
kilala pero mamumukhaan ko ito kung makikita ko ulit. Pumunta na kami sa bahay
na malaki sa POBLACION ng BUGUEY CAGAYAN. Pagdating [namin] doon ay may lumabas
na lalaki na si MAYOR LLOYD ANTIPORDA at sinabihan ni MUMOY AWINGAN sa kanya ng
‘SIR? ITO ANG MAKAKASAMA NAMIN’, tapos sumagot si Mayor Antiporda ng GOOD at
agad tinanong sa akin kung kilala ko si ATTY. TAMARGO at sinagot ko ng “OO”
naman. Tapos nakita ko na may inabot na sobre kay MUMOY;
Na
noong bumalik na kami sa Aparri Cagayan ay kumuha ng pera si MUMOY at inabutan
ako ng limang libong piso (P5,000.00) at sabi sa akin ay ADVANCE LANG
yun para makaluwas sa Maynila agad;
Na
noong ding araw na iyon ay nagpunta kami ng Maynila kasama sina MUMOY AWINGAN,
RICHARD MACATE at yung hindi ko alam ang pangalan. Bumaba kami bago dumating ng Terminal ng
Florida Bus Line;
Na
noong August 14, 2003 ay sumakay kami sa isang kotse na minaneho ng isang
lalaki at pumunta kami sa Quezon City Jail at kinausap [namin] si Ex-Mayor
Antiporda na nakakulong doon. Sinabi sa amin ni Ex-Mayor na masamang tao si
Atty. Tamargo dahil ipinakulong siya nito na walang kasalanan at dapat lang
siya maparusahan. Sinabi pa niya dadagdagan ang bayad pag natapos ang misyon [namin];
Na
ang misyong iyon ay para PATAYIN si ATTY. TAMARGO;
Nang
humigit kumulang alas dos ng hapon petsa 15 ng August 2003 ay isinama kami sa
isang bahay sa Bago Bantay Quezon City. Na sinabi na bahay ni Mayor Lloyd
Antiporda at doon sa garahe ay may dalawang motorsiklo. Hindi nagtagal ay
umalis din agad kami kasama si Mumoy Awingan, Richard Mecate at yung isa pa na
sakay ng dalawang motorsiklo, magkaangkas sina Mumoy at Richard. Ang
nagmamaneho ay si Richard at dalawa naman kami ng lalaki na hindi ko kilala sa
isang motorsiklo. Nagmaneho ang lalaki na angkas ako. Pagdating [namin] sa
Escolta, Manila ay bumaba si Mumoy at kami naman ay naghintay sa isang lugar na
malapit sa kinaroroonan nila;
Nang
pasado alas singko ng hapon ng petsa ding iyon ay nakita [namin] na palapit si
Atty. Tamargo sa kanyang kotse kaya kami
ay pumuwesto sa kabilang [kanto];
Nang
nasa loob na si Atty. Tamargo at minamaneho na ang kotse ay nakita kong lumipat
na si Mumoy sa may gawing kaliwa ng kotse kung saan pumasok si Atty. Tamargo at
kanya ng pinagbabaril.
Na
habang binabaril niya si Atty. Tamargo ay nagsilbing LOOK OUT lang kami at
pagkatapos noon ay tumakas na kami sakay sa dalawang motorsiklo at tumuloy na
kami sa sakayan ng bus papuntang Cagayan;
Na nang dumating na kami sa
Cagayan sa Dugo Camalaniugan ay bumaba na kami at bago kami naghiwalay ay
inabutan ako ulit ni MUMOY ng limang libong piso;
Na
nakikiusap po ako na dito na lamang makulong (Det. Jail, WPD) para sa aking
proteksyon;
Na
ginawa ko po itong pagtatapat ng kusang loob upang patunayan ang mga naganap na
pangyayari.
Na panunumpaan at pipirmahan ko po iyan patunay na lahat ng sinabi ko ay [pawang] katotohanan lamang. (Id., pp. 36-38.)
[10] Id., pp. 323, 436.
[11] Assistant City Prosecutor Venus D. Marzan.
[12] Rollo, p. 472.
[13] Id., pp. 98-99.
[14] The full text of the May 3, 2004 letter read:
DEAR SIR,
SA
PAMAMAGITAN NG PAKIUSAP AT PAYO NI RET. CORONEL SEVERINO PURIGAY NA KASAMA KO
NGAYON NA NAKAKULONG SA MANILA CITY JAIL SA QUEZON CITY BLVD. STA. CRUZ, MLA.
MINABUTI KONG SUMULAT SA INYO AT IPARATING ANG AKING PANIG SA KASONG “DOUBLE
MURDER” NA KUNG SAAN KAYO AT ANG INYONG AMANG SI GINOONG LICERIO ANTIPORDA AY
ISINANGKOT SA PAGPATAY SA YUMAONG ATTY. FRANKLIN TAMARGO.
AKO
AY SI MANUEL COLUMNA JR. [29] TAONG GULANG DRIVER, AT NAKATIRA SA BRGY.
ZIMINILA CAMALANIUGAN, CAGAYAN. NAARESTO AKO NOONG FEB. 18, 2004 SA SAPPING,
CAMALANIUGAN SA BISA NG WARRANT NA GALING SA BRANCH 27 NG MANILA RTC. SA KASONG
DOUBLE MURDER NA IBINASE SA SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY NI GERALDO GERON NG LASAM,
CAGAYAN NA SIYANG NAGSUMBONG SA AKIN SA PAMILYA NG MGA TAMARGO DITO SA MANILA
ANG PAGSIRA SA AKING PAGKATAO AT KINABUKASAN NG WITNESS NA ITO. SA [PAMAMAGITAN]
NG PAGSISINUNGALING AY DAHIL MARAHIL SA GALIT O INGGIT SA AKIN. SA BUONG BUHAY
KO AY HINDI PA AKO NAGKAROON NG KASO O NAKULONG KAHIT MINSAN KUNDI NGAYON LANG.
BAGO KO ITO ISINULAT AY INAROK KONG MABUTI ANG KONSENSYA AT HINDI KO TALAGA
KAYANG ITULOY ANG MAGSINUNGALING NA GAYA NG GUSTO NILANG MANGYARI AT ITURO KAYO
BILANG MASTERMIND SA PAGPATAY[.] AYAW KONG MAGKASALA SA DIYOS SA PAGTESTIGO SA
ISANG KASINUNGALINGAN.
NANIWALA
AKO NA MAY DIYOS NA NAKAKAALAM NG KATOTOHANAN AT BUONG KATAPATAN KONG SABIHIN
SA INYO NA NASA LASAM, CAGAYAN, AKO NOONG AUGUST 15, 2003 NA SINASABI NILANG
ARAW NG PAGPATAY KAY ATTY. TAMARGO. NI MINSAN AY HINDI KO PA NAKITA ANG BIKTIMA
AT HINDI KO ALAM [ANG] KANYANG MUKHA HANGGAT HINDI SINABI SA AKIN NG MGA PULIS
NA DUMAKIP SA AKIN AY HINDI KO ALAM KUNG BAKIT “DOUBLE MURDER” (KUNG SINO PA
ANG NAMATAY) AT KUNG SAAN NANGYARI NA SINABI NILANG SA BINONDO RAW NA HINDI KO
PA NARATING NA LUGAR.
MULA NOONG ARAW NA INARESTO AKO AY MARAMING “TORTURE”
ANG DINAANAN KO SA MGA KAMAY NG MGA TAGA-RSOB NG RECOM NG CAGAYAN AT SA WPD[.]
NARANASAN KONG MAISUPOT ANG ULO, MABUGBOG, AT MAKURYENTE KAYA NAPILITAN AKONG
PIRMAHAN ANG MGA PAPELES NA INIHANDA NILA BUKOD SA PANANAKOT NA I-SALVAGE DAW
(AKO) KUNG HINDI AKO MAKIKOOPERA SA KANILA.
HUMIHINGI AKO NG UNAWA SA INYO LALO NA’T NALATHALA SA
DIARYO ANG PANGALAN NINYO NA NAKAKASIRA SA [INYO] PERO INTINDIHIN NYO AKO, NA
NAUNA NG NASIRA ANG PANGALAN KO AT KINABUKASAN KO SA KASONG NAKASAMPA NA LABAN
SA AKIN.
SANA AY MATUTULUNGAN TAYONG LAHAT PARA MALUTAS ANG KRIMENG NANGYARI[,] MAPARUSAHAN ANG TOTOONG SALARIN, AT MAKAMITAN NATIN ANG HUSTISYA. (Id, pp. 38-39.)
[15] Id., p. 40.
[16] Id., pp. 75, 239-240. The letter read:
October 29, 2004
KAGALANGGALANG NA FISCAL GARCIA:
Ako
po ay sumulat sa inyo upang humingi ng tulong sa aking kalagayan dito sa loob
ng Manila City Jail kung saan ang akin pong buhay ay nalalagay sa panganib.
Ito
po ay dahil sa aking Sinumpaang Salaysay na kung saan ang mga Antiporda ang
aking itinuro na nagutos sa pagpaslang kay Atty. Tamargo.
Noong
nakaraang Biyernes ako po ay ipinatawag ni Fiscal Marzan upang patunayan kong
muli ang aking naunang salaysay at ako po ay [nakahanda] upang ang aking
salaysay ay muli kong mapatunayan at gusto ko rin pong isiwalat ang ginawa sa
akin ng ibang tao dito sa loob ng piitan nang aking pong tanggihan na pumirma
sa inihanda nilang salaysay na pumapabor sa mga Antiporda at nais ko rin pong
ibigay ang aking inihandang salaysay kasama ang Medical Certificate.
Sir,
hindi ko po masabi kung ano ang gusto kong sabihin kay Fiscal Marzan dahil noong
gabing iyon ako po ay pinagbantaang papatayin kung muli kong patunayan ang
aking salaysay. Kung kaya sa pagdinig ng kaso kay Fiscal Marzan kung saan ay
naroon din sina Mayor Antiporda at kanyang anak ay aking nasabi kung ano ang
mga sinabi sa [akin] ng mga Antiporda.
Kaya po sana sir ay mailipat po ako sa ibang piitan dahil baka ako po ay mapatay kung ako ay magsabi ng katotohanan upang mabigyan ng hustisya ang pagkamatay ni Atty. Tamargo.
[17] Id., pp. 320-338.
[18] Id., pp. 96-104.
[19] Id., p. 102.
[20] Id., pp. 236.
[21] Criminal Case Nos. 05-237561 and 05-237562.
[22] Rollo, pp. 41, 105-107.
[23] Id., p. 71.
[24] Id., pp. 286-314.
[25] Gandarosa v. Flores, G.R. No. 167910, 17 July 2007, 527 SCRA 776, 793.
[26] Summerville General Merchandising & Co., Inc. v. Eugenio, Jr., G.R. No. 163741, 7 August 2007, 529 SCRA 274, 282, citing Santos v. Orda, Jr., G.R. No. 158236, 1 September 2004, 437 SCRA 504, 516..
[27] Fuentes v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 139618, 11 July 2006, 494 SCRA 478, 485.
[28] Rollo, pp. 72-75.
[29] G.R. No. 158148, 30 June 2005, 462 SCRA 516.
[30] Id., pp. 528-529
[31] Rollo, p. 54.
[32] This is expressed in Section 28, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
SEC. 28. Admission by third party. – The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided.
[33] People v. Vda. De Ramos, 451 Phil. 214 , 224 (2003).
[34] People v. Tizon, Jr., G.R. No. 133228-31, 30 July 2002, 385 SCRA 364, 388, citing People v. Suarez, G.R. No. 111193, 28 January 1997, 267 SCRA 119.
[35] Supra note 33, pp. 224-225.
[36] People v. Morial, 415 Phil. 310, 336 (2001).
[37] People v. Tena, G.R. No. 100909, 21 October 1992, 215 SCRA 43, 48-49, citing Montoya v. Baun, 44 O.G. 4382, cited in Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines, Vol. VII, Part I, 1990 Edition, p. 349.
[38] People v. Surigawan, G.R. No. 83215, 15 December 1993, 228 SCRA 458, 465, citing People v. Badilla, 48 Phil. 718, 725 (1926) and People v. Ferry, 66 Phil. 310 (1938).
[39] R.R. Paredes v. Calilung, G.R. No. 156055, 5 March 2007, 517 SCRA 369, 395, citing Salonga v. Cruz Pano, G.R. No. L-59524, 18 February 1985, 134 SCRA 438, 461-462.
[40] Sistoza v. Desierto, 437 Phil. 117, 138 (2002), citing Cabahug v. People, 426 Phil. 490, 510 (2002).
[41] Rollo, p. 441.