TAMARGO v AWINGIN

Atty Tamargo and his daughter were shot dead in 2003. Police had no leads on the perpetrators
until a certain Geron surfaced and made an affidavit wherein he stated that a certain Columna
told him during their drinking spree that Columna was ordered to kill Tamargo by Antiporda.
Columna was arrested.
Columna thru an affidavit admitted that he was a lookout and a certain Awingin was the gunman.
And a certain Licerio Antiporda and his son (ex mayor) was the Mastermind.
During prelim investigation, Licerio presented a handwritten letter of Columna disowning his
previous affidavit saying that he was forced and tortured to obtain extrajudicial confession.
The prosecutor made a clarificatory hearing, during the hearing, Columna admitted the
authenticity of the letters. The investigating prosecutor recommended for the dismissal of
charges.
In another letter sent to the City Prosecutor, Columna said he withdrew his statements against
Awingin and others because of threat of his life in jail.
Because of this, RTC moved to deny motion to witdraw information, and affirmed the affidavit
before the investigating officer, there was probable cause the hold the accused for trial.
CA reversed the decision. Petitioners appealed. The independent assessment of Judge Daguna,
there was probable cause based on affidavit. Awingin defensed that the extrajudicial confession
is inadmissible against them because it was not corroborated by evidence.

WoN CA erred in finding judge Daguna had committed GAD in denying the withdrawal of info
for murder of the accused.

Ratio:
NO. Judge Daguna committed GAD.
It is a principle that when there is a motion to withdraw an info ( LOPC) It is the duty of the trial
Court to make its own independent assessment.
Judge Daguna failed to do this. He only depended his decision on the affidavit of Columna
implicating Awingan and others. The admission in the clarificatory hearing. The DOJ resolution
charging them of murder.
He completely ignored other relevant pieces of evidence. The letter narrating that he was subject
to torture to implicate Awingan and others ( the affidavit he sumitted was made thru threat)
Hence, the order of withdrawal of info was made with GAD because there was no probable cause.
PLUS, the extrajudicial confession will only bind the confessor and not the co accused, because it
is merely hearsay. RES INTER ALTOS ACTA.
Hence, the affidavit made by Columna is not binding to the co-accused.