Case Digest: People vs. Bokingco, G.R. No. 187536, August 10, 2011

                             Rule 115: Rights of the Accused  | Criminal Procedure

                            Extra-judicial Confession


Facts:

Michael Bokingco and Reynante Col were found guilty as conspirators beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder.

The appellants, armed with a claw hammer, attacked and assaulted Noli Pasion, causing fatal wounds on his head and body, resulting in his death. Bokingco entered a guilty plea, while Col pleaded not guilty during the arraignment. During the pre-trial, Bokingco confessed to the crime.

The victim, Noli Pasion, owned a pawnshop and apartments, and the appellants were among the construction workers employed by Pasion. A witness heard a commotion from Apartment No. 3 where the appellants stayed and saw Bokingco hitting something on the floor. The witness was also attacked by Bokingco but managed to escape.

The victim's wife, Elsa, witnessed the incident and was attacked by Col but was eventually released by him. The police found a claw hammer and other items at the crime scene. Bokingco admitted his involvement in the killing during the preliminary investigation.

Dr. Joven G. Esguerra conducted the necropsy on the victim's body and concluded that the injuries sustained were fatal.

The trial court initially sentenced both appellants to death but reduced it to reclusion perpetua on appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua, considering the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty by Bokingco.

Issue:

WON appellant Col is guilty beyond reasonable doubt as a co-conspirator.

Held:  NO. 

As a rule, 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. 

The finding of conspiracy was premised on Elsa’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. In fact, he was at Elsa’s house and allegedly ordering her to open the pawnshop vault.

Elsa 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. Their moves were not coordinated because while Bokingco was killing Pasion because of his pent-up anger, Col was attempting to rob the pawnshop.

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 Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.

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. Under Section 28, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration or omission of another. Res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet. Consequently, 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.

 An exception to the res inter alios acta rule is an admission made by a conspirator. Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that the act or declaration of the conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator provided that the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than by such act or declaration. In order that the admission of a conspirator may be received against his or her co-conspirators, it is necessary that first, the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission itself; second, the admission relates to the common object; and third, it has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy.50 As we have previously discussed, we did not find any sufficient evidence to establish the existence of conspiracy. Therefore, the extrajudicial confession has no probative value and is inadmissible in evidence against Col.

Bokingco’s judicial admission exculpated Col because Bokingco admitted that he only attacked Pasion after the latter hit him in the head. All told, an acquittal for Col is in order because no sufficient evidence was adduced to implicate him.



Popular posts from this blog

Election Laws: Requirements Before Election

REQUIREMENTS BEFORE ELECTION A. Registration Registration of Voters The right of a citizen to vote is necessarily conditioned upon certain procedural requirements he must undergo, among others, the process of registration. Registration regulates the exercise of the right of suffrage .  It is not a qualification for such right.  R.A. No. 8189, the Voter's Registration Act of 1996 (approved June 11, 1996) : Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. It is the policy of the State to systematize the present method of registration in order to establish a clean, complete, permanent and updated list of voters. Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act: Registration refers to the act of accomplishing and filing of a sworn application for registration by a qualified voter before the election officer of the city or municipality wherein he resides and including the same in the book of registered voters upon approval by the Election Registration Board; Registration Record refers to an ...
Read more

Case Digest: Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, GR. No. 122156, February 3, 1997

Political Law Review | Self-executing Provisions, Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy The GSIS decided to privatize the Manila Hotel by selling 51% of its shares to a qualified bidder through public bidding. In the bidding, the Manila Prince Hotel Corporation (MPHC) offered ₱41.58 per share, which was ₱0.58 higher than the ₱41.00 per share offered by a Malaysian firm, Renong Berhad. Despite MPHC being a Filipino-owned corporation and having a higher bid, the GSIS awarded the sale to the Malaysian firm, citing that MPHC failed to match the terms of payment required. MPHC filed a petition, invoking Section 10, second paragraph, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, which states: “ In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos .” MPHC argued that the provision is self-executing and GSIS was bound to apply it without need for an enabling law. Whether Section 10, Article XII of the 19...
Read more

Equality and Human Rights: The United Nations and Human Rights System (September 16, 2023)

Sovereign Equality of States/Principle of sovereign equality UN Charter of 1945 All states are equal before international law no matter the size of their territory, population, economy or military. All states have equal rights and duties under international law, and that no state has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state. Positive Consequences: All states have a voice in international affairs .   All states have the opportunity to participate in international organizations and to negotiate and conclude treaties. This helps to ensure that the interests of all states are represented in the development of international law and policy. No state has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state.  This helps to protect the sovereignty of all states and to prevent the use of force or coercion to achieve political objectives. States have the right to develop their own political, economic, and social systems without interference from othe...
Read more