G.R. No. 177727 January 19, 2010
HAROLD V. TAMARGO, Petitioner, vs. ROMULO AWINGAN, LLOYD ANTIPORDA and LICERIO ANTIPORDA, JR., Respondents.

FACTS

Atty. Franklin V. Tamargo and his daughter were shot and killed on August 15, 2003. A witness, Reynaldo Geron, implicated Lucio Columna. After his arrest, Columna executed an affidavit on March 8, 2004, admitting his role as a lookout and implicating respondents Romulo Awingan as the gunman and respondents Licerio Antiporda, Jr. and Lloyd Antiporda as masterminds. Based on this, petitioner Harold V. Tamargo filed a complaint. Columna later recanted his affidavit through a handwritten letter dated May 3, 2004, and an affidavit dated May 25, 2004, claiming he was tortured into signing the confession. During a clarificatory hearing on October 22, 2004, he affirmed his recantation. The investigating prosecutor recommended dismissal of the charges. The Department of Justice (DOJ) initially reversed this and ordered the filing of Informations for murder, but later granted a motion for reconsideration and directed their withdrawal. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), through Judge Zenaida R. Daguna, denied the motion to withdraw, finding probable cause based on Columna’s initial affidavit. Respondents filed petitions for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which ruled that Judge Daguna committed grave abuse of discretion by not considering Columna’s recantation and that the extrajudicial confession was inadmissible against the other respondents. The CA granted the petitions and ordered the withdrawal of the Informations.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that Judge Daguna committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the withdrawal of the Informations for murder against respondents.

RULING

The Supreme Court found no merit in the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that while a trial court has the duty to make an independent assessment of a motion to withdraw an Information, Judge Daguna committed grave abuse of discretion by selectively considering only the evidence that supported probable cause (i.e., Columna’s initial affidavit and its affirmation, his later letter expressing fear, and the initial DOJ resolution) while completely ignoring other relevant evidence that cast doubt on it (i.e., Columna’s recantation letter, his subsequent affidavit, and his testimony affirming the recantation). This selective evaluation impaired the substantial rights of the accused. Furthermore, the Court agreed with the CA that Columna’s extrajudicial confession was inadmissible against the respondents under the rule on res inter alios acta, as the confession was made after the conspiracy had ended and there was no other evidence to establish the conspiracy. The confession alone, especially a recanted one, was insufficient to establish probable cause against respondents.