PEOPLE vs. BOKINGO and COL [2011]

doctrine

·          GR: The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration or omission of another. 

·          E: admission made by a conspirator, but:

o    the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission itself;

o    admission relates to the common object;

o    it has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy.

facts

·          An Info was filed against Bokingko and Col charging them of murdering Pasion with a claw hammer.

·          Bokingco entered a guilty plea while Col pleaded not guilty. During the pre-trial, Bokingco confessed to the crime charged.

·          The victim, Noli Pasion and his wife, Peaches, were residing in a house in Angeles City. Pasion owned a pawnshop, which formed part of his house. He also maintained 2 rows of apartment units at the back of his house. Appellants, who were staying in Apartment No. 3, were among the 13 construction workers employed by Pasion.

prosecution’s evidence

·          Vitalicio

o    He was a resident in the apartment. He was spin-drying his clothes when Pasion came from the front door, passed by him and went out of the back door.

o    A few minutes later, he heard a commotion from Apartment No. 3. He peeped through a screen door and saw Bokingco hitting something on the floor. Upon seeing Vitalicio, Bokingco allegedly pushed open the screen door and attacked him with a hammer in his hand. Vitalicio bit Bokingco’s neck and managed to push him away.

o    Bokingco tried to chase Vitalicio but was eventually subdued by a co-worker. Vitalicio proceeded to his house and was told by his wife that Pasion was found dead in the kitchen. Vitalicio went back to Apartment No. 3 and saw Pasion’s body lying flat on the kitchen floor.

·          Peaches (wife of the victim)

o    testified that she was in the master’s bedroom on the second floor of the house when she heard banging sounds and her husband’s moans.

o    Before reaching the kitchen, Col blocked her way. Peaches asked him why he was inside their house but Col suddenly ran towards her, sprayed tear gas on her eyes and poked a sharp object under her chin.

o    Peaches was wounded when she bowed her head to avoid the tear gas. Col instructed her to open the vault of the pawnshop but Peaches informed him that she does not know the combination lock.

o    Peaches tried offering him money but Col dragged her towards the back door by holding her neck and pulling her backward. Before they reached the door, Peaches saw Bokingco open the screen door and heard him tell Col: "tara, patay na siya."

o    Col immediately let her go and ran away with Bokingco. Peaches proceeded to Apartment No. 3. Thereat, she saw her husband lying on the floor, bathed in his own blood.

·          PO3 Dayrit:

o    he received a phone call regarding the incident.

o    He saw a claw hammer with a green lead pipe handle approximately 13 inches long near the kitchen sink. A lead pipe measuring 40 inches and a chisel were also found in the nearby construction site.

·          Evelyn Gan, the stenographic reporter of Prosecutor Dayaon, during the preliminary investigation. She attests that Bokingco admitted that he conspired with Col to kill Pasion and that they planned the killing several days before because they got "fed up" with Pasion.

·          Dr. Esguerra concluded that the injuries sustained by Pasion on his skull proved fatal.

Appellants testified on their own behalf.

·          Bokingco: he was sleeping in Apartment No. 3 at around 1:20 a.m. when he was awakened by Pasion who appeared to be intoxicated. The latter wanted to know why he did not see Bokingco at the construction site on 28 Feb 2000. When Bokingco replied that he just stayed at the apartment the whole day, Pasion suddenly hit him in the head. This prompted Bokingco to take a hammer and hit Pasion. They both struggled and Bokingco repeatedly hit Pasion. Bokingco escaped to Manila right after the incident. He was subsequently arrested in Mindanao. Bokingco admitted that he harbored ill feelings towards Pasion.

·          Col:  confirmed that he was one of the construction workers employed by Pasion. He however resigned on 26 Feb 2000 because of the deductions from his salary. He went home to Cainta, Rizal, where he was apprehended and brought to Camp Olivas. Upon reaching the camp, he saw Bokingco who pointed to him as the person who killed Pasion. He insisted that he doesn’t know Bokingco very well.

rtc: guilty

·          Guilty of MURDER + two AC of nighttime and abuse of confidence to be considered against both accused and the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty in favor of accused Bokingo only, hereby sentences each of them to suffer the penalty of DEATH.  

ca modified to reclusion perpetua

·          affirmed the findings of the TC but reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua in view of RA 7659.

·          MR:

o    Bokingco’s fate when it rendered the challenged decision.

o    absence of other evidence, aside from Bokingco’s admission, to prove that conspiracy existed

o    admission made by Bokingco cannot be used as evidence against his alleged co-conspirator.

·          CA modified its Decision by including the criminal liability of Bokingco. BOKINGCO and COL are found GUILTY as conspirators of MURDER qualified by treachery and evident premeditation and with the attendant AC of nighttime and abuse of confidence, with no MC. The proper imposable penalty would have been death. Reclusion Perpetua without the possibility of parole.

issue #1: whether the qc were properly appreciated to convict Bokingco of murder. no, reduced to homicide.

Bokingco made 2 separate and dissimilar admissions:

·          extrajudicial confession taken during the preliminary investigation where he admitted that he and Col planned the killing of Pasion;

·          when he testified in open court that he was only provoked in hitting Pasion back when the latter hit him in the head.  

arguments of the appellants

·          no one from the prosecution witnesses testified on how Pasion was attacked by Bokingco. Evident premeditation was not proven in the case.

·          Nighttime was not purposely sought but it was merely co-incidental that the crime took place at that time.

·          Neither has trust and confidence been reposed on appellants by the victim to aggravate the crime by abuse of confidence.

·          They were living in an apartment owned by Pasion, not because the latter trusted them but because they worked in the construction of the victim’s apartment.

treachery:

·          For treachery to be appreciated, the prosecution must prove that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself, and that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him.

·          Nobody witnessed the commencement and the manner of the attack. While the witness Vitalicio managed to see Bokingco hitting something on the floor, he failed to see the victim at that time.

evident premeditation

·          Requisites:

o    (a) the time when the offender was determined to commit the crime;

o    (b) an act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination; and

o    (c) a sufficient interval of time between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.

·          It is indispensable to show how and when the plan to kill was hatched or how much time had elapsed before it was carried out. Bokingco admitted in court that he only retaliated when Pasion allegedly hit him in the head. Despite the fact that Bokingco admitted that he was treated poorly by Pasion, the prosecution failed to establish that Bokingco planned the attack.

confession during the preliminary investigation is inadmissible

·          It was during the preliminary investigation that Bokingco mentioned his and Col’s plan to kill Pasion. Bokingco’s confession was admittedly taken without the assistance of counsel in violation of Sec 12, Art III of the 1987 Consti.

Sec 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

·          The right to counsel applies in certain pretrial proceedings that can be deemed ‘critical stages’ in the criminal process. The preliminary investigation can be no different from the in-custody interrogations by the police, for a suspect who takes part in a preliminary investigation will be subjected to no less than the State's processes, oftentimes intimidating and relentless, of pursuing those who might be liable for criminal prosecution.

·          The extrajudicial confession is inadmissible against Bokingco because he was not assisted at all by counsel during the time his confession was taken before a judge.

nighttime and abuse of confidence

·          The finding that nighttime attended the commission of the crime is anchored on the presumption that there was evident premeditation. Having ruled however that evident premeditation has not been proved, the aggravating circumstance of nighttime cannot be properly appreciated.  

·          Abuse of confidence could not also be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in this case.

·          Taking into account that fact that Bokingco works for Pasion, it may be conceded that he enjoyed the trust and confidence of Pasion. However, there was no showing that he took advantage of said trust to facilitate the commission of the crime.

issue #2. whether Col is guilty beyond reasonable doubt as a co-conspirator. no.

·          Col:

o    to hold him guilty as co-conspirator, it must be established that he performed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.            

o    Applying Sec 30, Rule 130 Col asserts that Bokingco’s uncounselled testimony that appellants planned to kill Pasion bears no relevance considering the fact that there was no other evidence which will prove the conspiracy.

·          Peaches’s statements during trial, such as the presence of Col inside her house and his forcing her to open the vault of the pawnshop, as well as the alleged statement she heard from Bokingco "Tara, patay na siya," are not adequate to support the finding of conspiracy.

·          OSG: Col blocked and attacked her with a knife when she tried to check on her husband. She was left alone by Col when he was told by Bokingco that the victim was already dead.  

conspiracy must be established with the same quantum of proof as the crime itself and must be shown as clearly as the commission of the crime.

·          Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement to commit an unlawful act. It may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime.

·          Unity of purpose and unity in the execution of the unlawful objective are essential to establish the existence of conspiracy.

·          The finding of conspiracy was premised on Peaches’s testimony that appellants fled together after killing her husband and the extrajudicial confession of Bokingco.

·          Nobody witnessed the commencement of the attack. Col was not seen at the apartment where Pasion was being attacked by Bokingco.  

·          At the most, Col’s actuations can be equated to attempted robbery, which was actually the initial Info filed against appellants before it was amended, on motion of the prosecution, for murder.

·          Peaches testified that she heard Bokingco call out to Col that Pasion had been killed and that they had to leave the place. This does not prove that they acted in concert towards the consummation of the crime. It only proves, at best, that there were two crimes committed simultaneously and they were united in their efforts to escape from the crimes they separately committed.

·          Their acts did not reveal a unity of purpose that is to kill Pasion. Bokingco had already killed Pasion even before he sought Col.  

·          In as much as Bokingco’s extrajudicial confession is inadmissible against him, it is likewise inadmissible against Col, specifically where he implicated the latter as a cohort.

admission of a co-conspirator

·          GR: An extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant, is not admissible against his or her co-accused, and is considered as hearsay against them.

·          E: admission made by a conspirator, provided that:

o    conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission itself;

o    admission relates to the common object;

o    it has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy.

·          Bokingco’s judicial admission exculpated Col because Bokingco admitted that he only attacked Pasion after the latter hit him in the head.

·           

treatment of the factual findings of the tc

·          GR: SC must accord roper deference to the factual findings of the TC, owing to their unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling examination.

·          E:

o    when the TC’s findings of facts and conclusions are not supported by the evidence on record, 

o    when certain facts of substance and value likely to change the outcome of the case have been overlooked by the lower court, or

o    when the assailed decision is based on a misapprehension of facts.