G.R. No. 177727 - Tamargo vs. Awingan

Case Summary (G.R. No. 177727)

Charging of Columna and filing of Informations

Based on Geron’s affidavit and the preliminary investigation, the investigating prosecutor found probable cause against Columna and three John Does (resolution dated December 5, 2003). Informations for murder were filed on February 2, 2004 in the Manila RTC (separate dockets for the two victims). Columna was arrested in Cagayan on February 17, 2004 and brought to Manila.

Columna’s March 8, 2004 extrajudicial confession

On March 8, 2004 Columna executed an affidavit admitting a role as a “lookout” and implicating Romulo Awingan as the gunman, Richard Mecate as an accomplice, and naming Lloyd and Licerio Antiporda as masterminds. The affidavit described meetings, payments, transportation, the shooting in Escolta, and subsequent flight to Cagayan. Petitioner filed criminal complaints based on this affidavit.

Early affirmations and the respondents’ denial

Columna affirmed the March 8 affidavit before the investigating prosecutor on April 19, 2004. Respondents denied involvement and argued the accusations were politically motivated: the Antipordas and Atty. Tamargo were political rivals in Buguey, Cagayan; prior adversarial litigation between them (an election case and a kidnapping case) formed the contextual background.

Columna’s recantations and the clarificatory hearing

While in custody, Columna sent an unsolicited handwritten letter (May 3, 2004) to respondent Lloyd, disowning his March 8 affidavit and alleging torture forced his confession; he later executed a May 25, 2004 affidavit repeating the recantation. A clarificatory hearing was held on October 22, 2004 where Columna affirmed authorship and voluntariness of the May 3 letter and May 25 affidavit and denied having been tortured to produce his earlier confession.

Prosecutorial disposition and Columna’s later statement

Following the clarificatory hearing and recantation, the investigating prosecutor recommended dismissal (November 10, 2004), and the city prosecutor approved dismissal. Columna, in a separate October 29, 2004 handwritten communication to the City Prosecutor, later stated he only withdrew his original statements at the October 22 hearing because of threats to his life in jail, requesting transfer for protection.

DOJ reversal and subsequent withdrawal

Petitioner appealed to the Department of Justice (DOJ). On May 30, 2005, the DOJ Secretary reversed the dismissal and ordered the filing of Informations, reasoning that the March 8 extrajudicial confession was not effectively impeached by the subsequent recantations and that probable cause existed. Informations were filed and the cases consolidated for trial in the RTC. On reconsideration, however, the Secretary granted the Antipordas’ motion to withdraw the Informations on August 12, 2005, concluding the March 8 confession was inadmissible against the respondents and, even if admissible, uncorroborated. The trial prosecutor moved to withdraw the Informations, and one RTC judge granted that motion (October 26, 2005).

RTC re-raffle, Judge Daguna’s independent assessment, and conflicting rulings

After recusal and re-raffle, Judge Zenaida R. Daguna reviewed the motion to withdraw. On December 9, 2005 Judge Daguna denied the prosecution’s motion to withdraw and granted petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, finding that Columna’s March 8, 2004 affidavit (which he had affirmed before the investigating prosecutor) established probable cause to hold the accused for trial. She subsequently denied the Antipordas’ motion for reconsideration.

Petitions for certiorari to the Court of Appeals and its rulings

Respondents sought relief by certiorari in the Court of Appeals. In CA‑G.R. SP No. 93610, the CA held on November 10, 2006 that Judge Daguna gravely abused her discretion by arbitrarily leaving out substantial matters that the DOJ Secretary had considered and by relying on an extrajudicial confession that had been recanted and not corroborated. The CA ruled that Columna’s extrajudicial confession was inadmissible against co‑accused under the doctrine of res inter alios acta and that the prosecution failed to present independent evidence of conspiracy. The CA denied reconsideration on May 18, 2007 and consolidated related petitions, later affirming similar relief in the other consolidated matter.

Issue presented to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court’s principal issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that Judge Daguna committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the Informations for murder against the respondents.

Standard: the trial court’s duty of independent assessment

The Court reiterated well‑established principles: when the prosecution moves to withdraw an Information after a DOJ Secretary’s resolution finding no probable cause, the trial court must make an independent, circumspect assessment of the merits and cannot merely adopt the Secretary’s conclusion. Reliance solely on the Secretary’s resolution would amount to an abdication of the trial court’s duty to determine whether a prima facie case exists. The trial judge must consider all the evidence before her, and not disregard facts or run counter to reason.

Analysis of Judge Daguna’s assessment and the CA’s criticism

The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that Judge Daguna selectively relied on a narrow subset of the record — notably Columna’s March 8 affidavit, his April 19 affirmation, his October 29 letter, and the DOJ’s May 30, 2005 resolution — while disregarding material contrary evidence including Columna’s May 3, 2004 letter, his May 25, 2004 affidavit recanting the March 8 statement, and his October 22, 2004 testimony affirming those recantations. The CA’s observation that such selectivity “sidetracked the guidelines for an independent assessment” was approved: a trial judge must evaluate the whole record, including affidavits, counter‑affidavits, documents and relevant records from the prosecutor

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 177727)

Parties and Nature of Action

Petitioner: Harold V. Tamargo (brother of Atty. Franklin V. Tamargo), filing a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Respondents: Romulo Awingan (alias “Mumoy”), Lloyd Antiporda, and Licerio Antiporda, Jr.
Relief sought: Review of the Court of Appeals (CA) November 10, 2006 decision and May 18, 2007 resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 93610 (later consolidated with CA-G.R. SP No. 94188), which granted petitions for certiorari and prohibited the RTC from denying the motion to withdraw Informations for murder; petitioner assails the CA’s finding that the RTC judge committed grave abuse of discretion.
Case citation and final disposition at the Supreme Court level: G.R. No. 177727, January 19, 2010; petition denied.

Summary of Facts

On or about 5:15 p.m., 15 August 2003, Atty. Franklin V. Tamargo and his eight-year-old daughter Gail Franzielle were shot and killed at the corner of Nueva Street and Escolta Street, Binondo, Manila.
The police initially had no leads until Reynaldo Geron executed an affidavit dated 12 September 2003 stating that Lucio Columna admitted during a drinking spree that Atty. Tamargo was ordered killed by Lloyd Antiporda and that Columna was one of the killers; Geron also identified a sketch resembling Columna.
After preliminary investigation, Assistant Prosecutor Bernardino R. Camba issued a resolution dated 5 December 2003 finding probable cause against Lucio Columna and three John Does; on 2 February 2004 Informations for murder were filed in the RTC of Manila (Criminal Case Nos. 04-223270 and 04-223271).
Lucio Columna (real name Manuel, Jr.) was arrested in Cagayan on 17 February 2004 and brought to Manila for detention and trial.
On 8 March 2004, Columna executed an affidavit admitting participation as a “look out” during the shooting, describing Mumoy (Romulo Awingan) as the gunman and naming Richard Mecate, and tagging Licerio Antiporda, Jr. and Lloyd Antiporda as masterminds; the affidavit contains detailed narrative of recruitment, payment, travel to Manila, the killing, return to Cagayan, and additional payments.
Columna affirmed the March 8, 2004 affidavit before the investigating prosecutor on 19 April 2004.
Respondents denied any participation and raised political-motive defenses: Licerio and Lloyd were political rivals of Atty. Tamargo in Buguey, Cagayan; Licerio was then detained for a kidnapping case where Atty. Tamargo was private prosecutor; respondents alleged the case was politically motivated.
During the preliminary investigation, Columna’s unsolicited handwritten letter dated 3 May 2004 to respondent Lloyd was submitted, in which he disowned his March 8 affidavit, narrated alleged torture to force him to sign an extrajudicial confession, and declared that those he implicated had no participation.
Columna also executed an affidavit dated 25 May 2004 essentially repeating the statements in the May 3 letter.
A clarificatory hearing was set; on 22 October 2004 Columna categorically admitted authorship and voluntariness of the May 3 letter, affirmed the May 25 affidavit, and denied that violence had been employed to obtain or extract the March 8 affidavit.
In a separate handwritten letter to City Prosecutor Ramon Garcia dated 29 October 2004, Columna stated that he was forced to withdraw his inculpatory statements during the October 22 hearing because of threats to his life inside jail and requested transfer for protection.
On 10 November 2004 the investigating prosecutor recommended dismissal of the charges; the city prosecutor approved the dismissal; petitioner appealed to the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Post-Investigation Administrative and Trial Court Actions

On 30 May 2005, the DOJ, through Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez, reversed the dismissal and ordered the filing of the Informations for murder, concluding the March 8, 2004 extrajudicial confession was not effectively impeached by subsequent recantation and that there was enough evidence for probable guilt.
Informations were filed and cases consolidated and assigned to RTC Manila, Branch 29.
On 12 August 2005 Secretary Gonzalez granted the Antipordas’ motion for reconsideration and directed withdrawal of the Informations, declaring the March 8 extrajudicial confession inadmissible against respondents and, alternatively, not corroborated by other evidence.
On 22 August 2005 the trial prosecutor filed a motion to withdraw the Informations; RTC (Judge Cielito Mindaro-Grulla) granted the motion in an order dated 26 October 2005. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration; Judge Grulla inhibited without resolving.
Cases were re-raffled to RTC Branch 19 (Judge Zenaida R. Daguna). Judge Daguna granted petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated 9 December 2005, ruling that, based on Columna’s March 8, 2004 affidavit and his affirmation before the investigating prosecutor, there was probable cause to hold the accused for trial. Judge Daguna thereafter denied the Antipordas’ motion for reconsideration in an order dated 6 February 2006.

Court of Appeals Proceedings and Rulings

Respondent Awingan filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition in the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 93610); the Antipordas separately filed CA-G.R. SP No. 94188. The cases were consolidated after the CA promulgated decisions.
In a decision dated 10 November 2006 (CA-G.R. SP No. 93610), the CA ruled that Judge Daguna gravely abused her discretion because she arbitrarily omitted substantial matters that the DOJ Secretary had fully taken into account in concluding there was no probable cause against the accused.
The CA held Columna’s extrajudicial confession was inadmissible against the respondents because (a) it had been recanted and (b) there was no other evidence to establish the conspiracy, and (c) the confession was made after Columna’s arrest, not while conspirators were engaged in the conspiracy.
The CA denied reconsideration in a resolution dated 18 May 2007. In a decision dated 24 August 2007, the CA likewise granted the petition for certiorari of the Antipordas.

Evidence Considered and Evidence Overlooked by the RTC (as identified by the Supreme Court)

Evidence considered by Judge Daguna (per SC):
- Columna’s March 8, 2004 affidavit implicating respondents;
- Columna’s affirmation of that affidavit during the 19 April 2004 clarificatory hearing;
- Columna’s letter dated 29 October 2004 (to City Prosecutor) expressing fear and claiming threats inside jail; and
- the DOJ resolution dated 30 May 2005 upholding the prosecutor’s recommendation to file charges.
Evidence the RTC failed to consider (as identified by the SC and CA):
- Columna’s unsolicited handwritten letter dated 3 May 2004 to respondent Lloyd in which he disowned the March 8 af
...continue reading