People vs. Bokingco

An extrajudicial confession is inadmissible against a co-accused under the res inter alios acta rule where conspiracy is not independently proved by other evidence, and treachery cannot be appreciated to qualify a killing to murder absent any proof of how the aggression commenced.

Noli Pasion, a pawnshop owner, employed Michael Bokingco and Reynante Col as construction workers and leased them an apartment unit at the back of his residence. In the early morning of 29 February 2000, Pasion was fatally attacked with a hammer in the kitchen of the appellants' apartment. Simultaneously, Col confronted Pasion's wife, Elsa, near the pawnshop vault, demanding she open it while assaulting her with tear gas and a sharp object. Bokingco then announced to Col that Pasion was dead, and both men fled together.

• The Attack: Around 1:00 a.m. on 29 February 2000, Dante Vitalicio heard a commotion from Apartment No. 3. Peeking through the screen door, he saw Bokingco hitting something on the floor. Bokingco then attacked Vitalicio with a hammer, but Vitalicio managed to escape after a struggle. Elsa Pasion heard banging and her husband’s moans, and went downstairs where Col blocked her path near the pawnshop vault. Col sprayed tear gas in her eyes, poked a sharp object under her chin, and demanded she open the vault. Bokingco subsequently opened the screen door, told Col "tara, patay na siya," and both appellants fled together. Pasion was found dead on the kitchen floor.
• The Investigation: Police recovered a claw hammer, a lead pipe, and a chisel. The necropsy revealed multiple fatal lacerated wounds and skull fractures. During the preliminary investigation, Bokingco admitted he and Col planned the killing because they were "fed up" with Pasion; this confession was taken without the assistance of counsel.
• The Defense: Bokingco claimed Pasion was intoxicated and struck him first, prompting him to retaliate with a hammer. Col claimed he had resigned days prior, was arrested elsewhere, and barely knew Bokingco.

• Qualifying Circumstances: Petitioners argued that treachery could not be appreciated because no prosecution witness testified on how the attack commenced, and evident premeditation was unproven because Bokingco's extrajudicial admission was inadmissible.
• Aggravating Circumstances: Petitioners averred that nighttime was merely coincidental and not purposely sought, and abuse of confidence did not apply because they rented the apartment as workers, not out of special trust reposed by the victim.
• Conspiracy: Petitioners maintained that Bokingco's uncounselled admission could not prove conspiracy against Col, and Elsa's testimony regarding Col's acts and Bokingco's statement was insufficient to establish a common design to kill.

• Treachery and Aggravating Circumstances: The OSG countered that the victim was defenseless and had no opportunity to defend himself from unexpected assaults, and that evident premeditation, nighttime, and abuse of confidence attended the crime.
• Conspiracy: The OSG argued that Col's acts of blocking and attacking Elsa, combined with their joint flight after Bokingco announced the victim's death, indicated conspiracy, and that prosecution witnesses had no ill motive to lie.

• Qualifying Circumstances: Whether treachery and evident premeditation were properly appreciated to convict Bokingco of murder.
• Conspiracy: Whether Col is guilty beyond reasonable doubt as a co-conspirator.

• Qualifying Circumstances: Treachery was not appreciated because no witness saw the commencement of the attack, a requisite for establishing that the victim was defenseless and the means were consciously adopted. Evident premeditation was not proven because the prosecution failed to establish how and when the plan to kill was hatched; Bokingco's extrajudicial confession was inadmissible for being taken without counsel, and his judicial admission claimed mere retaliation. Nighttime and abuse of confidence were likewise disregarded for lack of proof that nighttime was purposely sought or that trust was exploited to facilitate the crime. The conviction was downgraded to homicide.
• Conspiracy: Conspiracy was not established. Col's acts of blocking Elsa and demanding she open the vault equated to attempted robbery, not a common design to kill. Their joint flight only proved unity in escape, not unity in the killing. Furthermore, Bokingco's extrajudicial confession implicating Col was inadmissible against Col under the res inter alios acta rule, as conspiracy must first be proved by evidence other than the admission itself. Col was acquitted on ground of reasonable doubt.

• Treachery — Requires proof that the victim was not in a position to defend himself and the offender consciously adopted the particular means of attack; it cannot be appreciated absent proof of how the aggression commenced.
• Evident Premeditation — Requires (a) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime, (b) an act manifestly indicating the offender clung to that determination, and (c) a sufficient interval of time between determination and execution to allow reflection; it is indispensable to show how and when the plan was hatched.
• Res Inter Alios Acta — The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another; an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant and is hearsay against co-accused.
• Admission by a Conspirator — An exception to the res inter alios acta rule, requiring: (1) conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission itself, (2) the admission relates to the common object, and (3) it was made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy.
• Right to Counsel in Preliminary Investigation — The right to counsel applies to pretrial proceedings deemed critical stages; an uncounselled admission taken during a preliminary investigation is inadmissible.

• "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."
• "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... 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."

• People v. Sunga, 447 Phil. 776 (2003) — Followed. Established that the right to counsel applies during preliminary investigations, rendering uncounselled admissions inadmissible.
• People v. Tabuelog, G.R. No. 178059, 22 January 2008 — Followed. Cited for the rule that treachery cannot be appreciated absent proof of the manner the attack was commenced.
• People v. Delpino, G.R. No. 171453, 18 June 2009 — Followed. Cited for the requisites of evident premeditation.
• People v. Vda. de Ramos, 451 Phil. 214 (2003) — Followed. Cited for the rule that an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant and is hearsay against co-accused.
• Tamargo v. Awingan, G.R. No. 177727, 19 January 2010 — Followed. Cited for the requisites for the admission of a conspirator to be admissible against a co-conspirator.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes Murder. Applied initially by lower courts, but the qualifying circumstances were struck down by the Supreme Court.
• Article 249, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes Homicide. Applied to Bokingco after the qualifying circumstances of murder were found unproven.
• Article 64(1), Revised Penal Code — Provides the rule for applying penalties when neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances are present. Applied to determine the medium period of reclusion temporal for homicide.
• Section 12, Article III, 1987 Constitution — Guarantees the right to counsel during investigation. Applied to render Bokingco's extrajudicial confession inadmissible.
• Section 28, Rule 130, Rules of Court — Codifies the res inter alios acta rule. Applied to exclude Bokingco's confession from being used against Col.
• Section 30, Rule 130, Rules of Court — Provides the exception for admissions by a conspirator. Applied to show the confession could not be used against Col because conspiracy was not independently proven.
• Republic Act No. 9346 — Prohibits the imposition of the death penalty. Applied by the Court of Appeals to reduce the penalty to reclusion perpetua.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to determine Bokingco's indeterminate penalty for homicide.

Antonio T. Carpio, Arturo D. Brion, Lucas P. Bersamin, Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno.