People vs. Pahoto

A co-accused’s extrajudicial affidavit implicating another person is not admissible against that person unless the conspiracy is first shown by evidence other than the affidavit, and a conviction cannot rest on an uncertain or absent positive identification. On the facts, Yakan Pahoto’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt because Emiliana Villarin never positively identified him and the affidavits of Arasa Han and Anjal Jawalil could not be used against him without independent proof of conspiracy.

Emiliana Villarin, the 16-year-old daughter of victim Eugenio Villarin, was the object of an unrequited courtship by Ami Han, the older brother of accused Arasa Han. The accused in the case were Arasa Han, Anjal Jawalil, and Yakan Pahoto, while several other named persons remained at large.

Eugenio Villarin lived in sitio Nangkabingit, Lamitan, City of Basilan, with his wife Marcela and their children Emiliana, 16, Aurora, 7, Romeo, 6, Felix, 5, and Agusto, 3. At about four o’clock in the morning of February 5, 1964, the family was awakened by barking dogs and heard voices calling for Eugenio and asking if he wanted “puto.” When Eugenio responded, the persons demanded money and personal belongings. Eugenio said he had no money but threw down blankets and clothing. Three persons then destroyed the wallings of the house and entered. Emiliana recognized Arasa Han, armed with a bladed weapon and a revolver, and Anjal Jawalil, armed with a shotgun and bladed weapon; she did not know the name of the third, who was armed with a bladed weapon, but said she would be able to identify him if she saw him again.

Arasa Han asked for Emiliana while she hid. Anjal and a companion ransacked the house. When Arasa found Emiliana, he pulled her; she resisted and ran toward her father. When Eugenio intervened, Arasa hacked him with a barong on the left neck, almost severing the head from the body. Emiliana escaped to a neighboring house. After looting, the trio left with blankets, two pants, two pairs of rubber shoes, shirts, a bolo, chickens, and other personal effects valued at P100. When Emiliana returned, she found her father dead. A report was relayed to the 110th PC Company, and a patrol was sent. Emiliana told the patrol that she recognized Anjal Jawalil and Arasa Han as two perpetrators but did not know the third’s name, though she could identify him if she saw him again. The patrol arrested Arasa Han and Anjal Jawalil. Upon investigation, they admitted committing the crime and implicated Yakan Pahoto as their co-conspirator; their affidavits were taken as Exhibits “D” and “E.” When Pahoto was brought face to face with Emiliana, she readily recognized him as one of the three that came up their house, according to the trial court’s summary of the prosecution evidence.

Dr. Conrado Yumol, Assistant City Health Officer, conducted a post-mortem examination at about 12:45 P.M. on February 5, 1964, at the Villarin house. He found only one wound, on the neck, which almost severed the head from the body, and estimated that Eugenio died at about four o’clock that morning.

At trial, Emiliana testified on direct examination that the group included Arasa Han, “Injal,” and another person whose name she did not know; she pointed to Arasa Han in court. On cross-examination, she said the house was dark because they had no light, but she claimed there was moonlight and that Arasa Han was bringing a flashlight, although she admitted she did not state the flashlight in her affidavit. She also admitted she had not seen the third man before the incident, did not know his name, and did not mention him to Sgt. Gregorio when investigated. The trial judge was under the impression that “she recognized him. He was in front of her.”

Sgt. Luis Gregorio testified that after Arasa Han and Anjal were apprehended, they mentioned the names of their companions; Yakan Pahoto was arrested as the third unidentified suspect, and Gregorio said that when he brought “Kamboto” before Emiliana, she identified “Kamboto” as one of those three persons who went up their house. The name “Kamboto” appears only in that instance in the record; the defense counsel answered “Yakan Kamboto” when asked for the name of the other accused. The only evidence relied upon for Pahoto’s conviction were the affidavits of Arasa Han and Anjal Jawalil, which the two later repudiated as extracted by force and maltreatment. The trial court rejected their claims because they had not complained to the City Judge, Hon. Francisco S. Atilano, before whom they executed the affidavits after the contents were interpreted to them by court interpreter Hamid Amerin, and the trial court treated the affidavits as admissions validly and voluntarily given by the declarants and as valid evidence against them.

Yakan Pahoto was the last witness. He denied knowledge and participation, testifying that he had resided for one week before the incident with his daughter at the neighboring barrio of Bulanting, engaged in fishing and clearing, had never gone to sitio Nangkabingit, and did not know Eugenio Villarin or Emiliana. On cross-examination, he said he did not know the PC who brought him, that he was confronted with the two co-accused, that both mentioned him as the one who killed Villarin, and that he denied it and said he was innocent. He also said he heard Emiliana testify and that it was his first time to see her.

• Identification: Petitioner argued that he was not identified at all by the eyewitness.
• Liability for the Mortal Blow: Petitioner argued that accused Arasa Han alone inflicted the mortal blow on the victim and should be held solely liable therefor.
• Minority: Petitioner argued that accused Arasa Han should be accorded the mitigating circumstance of minority.

• Conviction of Arasa Han and Anjal Jawalil: Respondent recommended affirmance of the conviction of accused Arasa Han and Anjal Jawalil.
• Insufficiency Against Yakan Pahoto: Respondent concurred with counsel de oficio that the evidence is insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Yakan Pahoto is guilty of the crime charged.

• Positive Identification: Whether the prosecution’s principal witness, Emiliana Villarin, positively identified appellant Yakan Pahoto as one of the three persons who entered and ransacked the Villarin house.
• Admissibility of Co-Accused Affidavits: Whether the affidavits of Arasa Han and Anjal Jawalil, implicating Yakan Pahoto, may be considered as evidence against him absent independent proof of conspiracy.

• Positive Identification: No. Emiliana Villarin did not positively identify Yakan Pahoto; the records contradict the trial judge’s impression that she recognized him.
• Admissibility of Co-Accused Affidavits: No. The affidavits, duly objected to, could not be validly considered as evidence against Pahoto absent independent proof of any conspiracy implicating him.

• Positive Identification: Emiliana’s testimony did not establish Pahoto’s identity as one of the perpetrators. On direct examination she named Arasa Han and “Injal” but said she did not know the other man; on cross-examination she admitted she had not seen the third man before, did not know his name, and did not mention him to Sgt. Gregorio when investigated. Although she claimed moonlight and a flashlight, she admitted the flashlight was not in her affidavit. The trial judge’s impression that “she recognized him. He was in front of her” was contradicted by the transcript. Sgt. Gregorio’s testimony referring to “Kamboto” did not cure the gap: the name appears only once, and Gregorio was not asked to identify Pahoto as the person he called Kamboto. The Solicitor General himself reported that there was no evidence Emiliana identified Pahoto as the third man. Without positive identification, the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Admissibility of Co-Accused Affidavits: Rule 130, Section 27 provides that the act or declaration of a conspirator during its existence may be given in evidence against a co-conspirator only after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The affidavits of Arasa Han and Anjal Jawalil were admissible against the declarants, but they were duly objected to and could not be used against Pahoto absent independent proof of conspiracy implicating him. No such independent evidence was presented. The trial court’s rejection of the declarants’ claim of maltreatment did not supply the missing proof of conspiracy as to Pahoto. Thus, the affidavits could not sustain his conviction.

• Admission by Conspirator — Under Rule 130, Section 27, the act or declaration of a conspirator during the existence of the conspiracy may be given in evidence against a co-conspirator only after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The SC applied this rule to exclude the affidavits of Arasa Han and Anjal Jawalil against Yakan Pahoto because there was no independent proof of conspiracy implicating him.
• Positive Identification — A conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is the person who committed the crime. The SC found that Emiliana Villarin never positively identified Yakan Pahoto as the third intruder; her testimony and omissions, the ambiguous reference to “Kamboto,” and the lack of independent evidence left reasonable doubt.

• “But while these affidavits were properly taken by the trial court as admissions validly and voluntarily given by said declarants and as valid evidence against them, said affidavits, duly objected to, could not be validly considered as evidence against appellant Yakan Pahoto, in the absence of independent proof of any conspiracy implicating Pahoto.” — This states the rule on co-accused affidavits and why they could not be used against Pahoto.
• “It is obvious from the foregoing transcript of the proceedings that appellant Yakan Pahoto was never positively identified by Emiliana.” — This resolves the identification issue against the prosecution.
• “WHEREFORE, for the reason that appellant's guilt has not been established beyond reasonable doubt, the judgment under review convicting said appellant Yakan Pahoto is hereby reversed and he is acquitted of the crime charged and set at liberty.” — This is the dispositive ruling acquitting Pahoto.

• People vs. Chaw Yaw Shun, et al., G.R. L-19590, April 25, 1968 — Cited in the footnote to Rule 130, Section 27, as support for the rule on admission by conspirator.

• Rule 130, Section 27 — Admission by conspirator: the act or declaration of a conspirator during its existence may be given in evidence against a co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The SC applied this to exclude the affidavits of Arasa Han and Anjal Jawalil against Yakan Pahoto absent independent proof of conspiracy.