FACTS:

Atty. Franklin V. Tamargo and his daughter, Gail Franzielle, were shot and killed in August 2003. Reynaldo Geron came forward and implicated Lucio Columna as one of the perpetrators and stated that Lloyd Antiporda ordered the killing. Based on Geron's affidavit, the investigating prosecutor found probable cause against Columna and three John Does. Informations for murder were filed against them in the Manila Regional Trial Court. Columna later executed an affidavit admitting his participation and implicating Romulo Awingan, Licerio Antiporda Jr., and Lloyd Antiporda as masterminds. Petitioner Harold V. Tamargo filed a complaint against those implicated by Columna. However, Columna later disowned his confession and alleged that he had been tortured into signing it. Nevertheless, the Department of Justice reversed the dismissal of the charges and ordered the filing of Informations for murder. Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez later granted the Antipordas' motion for reconsideration and directed the withdrawal of the Informations. The trial prosecutor filed a motion to withdraw the Informations, which was later granted by the trial court. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was granted by another trial judge. Respondents Awingan and the Antipordas filed separate petitions for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals. The CA ruled that there was no probable cause against the accused and that Columna's extrajudicial confession was not admissible as evidence.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the CA erred in finding that Judge Daguna committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the withdrawal of the Informations for murder against respondents.

2. Whether or not Columna's extrajudicial confession is admissible against the respondents.

3. Whether or not the extrajudicial confession of one of the accused can be used as evidence against the co-accused.

4. Whether or not the recanted confession of the accused has probative value and can be used as evidence against the co-accused.

5. Whether or not there was sufficient evidence to establish probable cause against the co-accused.

RULING:

1. The CA did not err in finding that Judge Daguna committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the withdrawal of the Informations for murder against respondents. The trial court has the duty to independently assess the merits of a motion to withdraw an Information based on lack of probable cause, and it may either agree or disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice. In this case, Judge Daguna limited herself to certain pieces of evidence while ignoring other relevant evidence that cast doubt on the accused's involvement in the murders. This selective evaluation impaired the substantial rights of the accused and violated the requirement of an independent assessment of the case.

2. Columna's extrajudicial confession is not admissible as evidence against the respondents. 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. In this case, Columna's confession was not made while the conspirators were engaged in carrying out the conspiracy and there was no other piece of evidence presented to establish the existence of the conspiracy. Therefore, the confession cannot be used against the respondents.

3. An extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant and is not admissible against his or her co-accused. The reason for this is that a party should not be bound by the acts or declarations of unauthorized strangers. This follows the principle that a person's own acts, conduct, and declarations are binding upon himself or herself.

4. The recanted confession of the accused, which was the sole evidence against the co-accused, had no probative value and was inadmissible as evidence against them. No other piece of evidence was presented to prove the alleged conspiracy aside from the extrajudicial confession. Therefore, the confession cannot be used against the co-accused.

5. Considering the lack of sufficient and admissible evidence against the co-accused, it would be unfair to hold them for trial. The duty of the judge at the preliminary investigation stage is to determine whether there is probable cause to hold the accused for trial. In this case, there was no sufficient basis for a finding of probable cause against the co-accused. Therefore, the judge's orders denying the withdrawal of the Informations for murder against the co-accused were issued with grave abuse of discretion.

PRINCIPLES:

• The trial court has the duty to independently assess the merits of a motion to withdraw an Information based on lack of probable cause, and it may either agree or disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice. 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 judge or fiscal should not continue with the prosecution in the hope that some credible evidence might later turn up during trial, as this would be a flagrant violation of the accused's basic right.

• The trial judge may make an independent assessment of the merits of the case by considering the affidavits, counter-affidavits, documents, or evidence appended to the Information, the records of the public prosecutor, or any evidence already adduced before the court by the accused at the time the motion is filed by the public prosecutor.

• 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.

• A party cannot be bound by the acts, conduct, or declarations of unauthorized strangers.

• An extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant and is not admissible against co-accused.

• The recanted confession of an accused has no probative value and is inadmissible as evidence against co-accused.

• A finding of probable cause is necessary to hold an accused for trial.

• When there is insufficient and inadmissible evidence against the accused, it would be unfair to hold them for trial.