People vs.

Bokingco

SEPTEMBER 17, 2016 / RUSSELL JAY

Subject: Criminal Law 1: Conspiracy to commit felony

Law/s Applicable: RPC Art. 8

Ponente: Associate Justice Jose Portugal Perez

Doctrine:

FACTS: Noli and Elsa Pasion were an owner of a pawnshop and a

two-row apartment in Angeles City, Pampanga.

In the midnight of February 2000, Dante Vitaliano saw Michael

Bokingco hi ing something on the floor. He headed on his
apartment unit and there he discovered that it was Noli Pasion, his
brother-in-law, that was hit by Bokingco. Upon seeing him,
Bokingco ran towards him and a acked him with a hammer.
Vitaliano managed to push him away and proceeded to Pasion’s
house to inform Elsa, Noli’s wife, that his husband was already
dead.

Meanwhile, Elsa also heard the commotion while she was in the
master’s bedroom. She immediately went down to check what was
happenning but before reaching the kitchen, she was blocked by co-
accused Reynante Col. She asked Col why he was in their house but
he refused to answer, instead, he sprayed tear gas on Elsa’s eyes.
Col instructed her to open the vault of their pawnshop but she told
him that she doesn’t know the combination lock. He then
proceeded to drag her in the back door. Before they reached the
door, Bokingco openned the screen door and shouted “tara na,
patay na s’ya!” Col immediately let her go and ran away with
Bokingco.
Later, Vitaliano and Elsa discovered Noli lying on the floor, bathing
with his own blood. Necropsy reported that Noli suffered 29
injuries, and that the injuries sustained by Noli on his skull was the
cause of his death.

Prosecution filed a case against Bokingco and Col. RTC found them
guilty of murder and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of death.
CA affirmed the decision but reduced the sentence to life
imprisonment without parole.

Appellant sought reversal to the decision contending that Col is not

guilty of conspiring with Bokingco.

ISSUE: WON Col is guilty of murder as co-conspirator.

RULING. NO. Indeed, in order to convict Col as a principal by

direct participation in the case before us, it is necessary that
conspiracy between him and Bokingco be proved. 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. Conspiracy
may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense
was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused evincing a
joint or common purpose and design, concerted action, and
community of interest. Unity of purpose and unity in the execution
of the unlawful objective are essential to establish the existence of
conspiracy.

Based on these acts alone, it cannot be logically inferred that Col

conspired with Bokingco in killing Pasion. At the most, Col’s
actuations can be equated to a empted robbery, which was actually
the initial information filed against appellants before it was
amended, on motion of the prosecution, for murder.

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 commi ed
simultaneously and they were united in their efforts to escape from
the crimes they separately commi ed.

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 a empting to
rob the pawnshop.

Appellant Reynante Col is ACQUITTED on ground of reasonable

doubt. Appellant Michael Bokingco is found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide. He is hereby sentenced
to suffer the penalty of six years (6) and one (1) day of prision
mayor as minimum to 14 years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of
reclusion temporal, as maximum.

Uncategorized

POWERED BY WORDPRESS.COM.