G.R. No.

187536 August 10, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
MICHAEL BOKINGO alias "MICHAEL BOKINGCO" and REYNANTE
COL, Accused-Appellants.

FACTS.

On 31 July 2000, an Information3 was filed against appellants charging them of the
crime of murder committed as follows:

That on or about the 29th day of February, 2000 in the City of Angeles, Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping each other, armed with
a claw hammer and with intent to kill by means of treachery, evident premeditation,
abuse of confidence, and nighttime, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and maul NOLI PASION, by hitting and
beating his head and other parts of his body with said hammer, thereby
inflicting upon said NOLI PASION fatal wounds on his head and body
which caused his death.4

On arraignment, Bokingco entered a guilty plea while Col pleaded not

guilty. During the pre-trial, Bokingco confessed to the crime charged.5

Evelyn Gan, the stenographic reporter of Prosecutor Lucina Dayaon,

jotted down notes 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.

Appellants testified on their own behalf. Bokingco recalled that he was sleeping in
Apartment No. 3 at around 1:20 a.m. on 29 February 2000 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 February 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 on 11 June 2000.17 During the
cross-examination, Bokingco admitted that he harbored ill feelings towards Pasion.18

Col confirmed that he was one of the construction workers employed by

Pasion. He however resigned on 26 February 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. 19

On 16 December 2004, the trial court rendered judgment 20 finding

appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, DEATH.
In its Decision dated 24 July 2008, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
findings of the trial court but reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua.

Appellants filed a Motion for Reconsideration 23 and called the appellate

court’s attention on the omission to rule on Bokingco’s fate when it
rendered the challenged decision. Appellants also noted the absence of
other evidence, aside from Bokingco’s admission, to prove that
conspiracy existed in the instant case. Appellants maintained that the
admission made by Bokingco cannot be used as evidence against his
alleged co-conspirator. Appellants also took exception to the findings of
the lower courts that the aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident
premeditation, nighttime and abuse of confidence attended the
commission of the crime.

Appellants filed a notice of appeal.

ISSUE. Whether there is sufficient evidence to establish that Col was a co-
conspirator in this case.

RULING. No.

There is no question that Bokingco attacked and killed Pasion. Bokingco

made two (2) separate and dissimilar admissions: first, in his
extrajudicial confession taken during the preliminary investigation
where he admitted that he and Col planned the killing of Pasion; and
second, when he testified in open court that he was only provoked in
hitting Pasion back when the latter hit him in the head. On the basis of
his extrajudicial confession, Bokingco was charged for murder qualified
by evident premeditation and treachery.

It was during the preliminary investigation that Bokingco mentioned his

and Col’s plan to kill Pasion. 35 Bokingco’s confession was admittedly
taken without the assistance of counsel in violation of Section 12, Article
III of the 1987 Constitution.

Col, on the other hand, was charged as a co-conspirator. He contends

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

Applying Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, 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. Col also claims that Elsa’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.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) justifies Col’s conviction of murder by
conspiracy by mentioning that starting from the declaration of Bokingco, the victim’s
wife, Elsa, also positively declared that 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. For the OSG, appellants’ acts are
indicative of conspiracy. The OSG contends that the prosecution witnesses had no ill-
motive to lie and falsely accuse appellants of the crime of murder.

The lower courts concluded that there was conspiracy between appellants.

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.42 Unity of purpose and unity in the execution of the unlawful objective are
essential to establish the existence of conspiracy.43

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.44

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.

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 attempted robbery, which was actually the initial
information filed against appellants before it was amended, on motion of
the prosecution, for murder.47

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.

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. 48 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. 49 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.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of

Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Reynante Col is
ACQUITTED on ground of reasonable doubt.

Appellant Michael Bokingco is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt

of the crime of Homicide.