View full case

PEOPLE v. MICHAEL BOKINGO

FACTS:

On February 29, 2000, appellants Michael Bokingco and Reynante Col were charged with murder. Bokingco confessed to the crime during the pre-trial, while Col pleaded not guilty. The victim, Noli Pasion, owned a pawnshop and apartment units in his house in Angeles City. Appellants were construction workers employed by Pasion.

According to the prosecution's evidence, Vitalicio, Pasion's brother-in-law and lessee, heard a commotion coming from one of the apartment units. He saw Bokingco hitting something on the floor and allegedly attacked Vitalicio. Vitalicio managed to fight back and subdued Bokingco. Pasion's wife, Elsa, heard banging sounds and her husband's moans. Col blocked her path, sprayed tear gas on her eyes, and instructed her to open the pawnshop vault. Bokingco opened the screen door and said that Pasion was dead. Elsa found her husband lying on the floor, covered in blood.

The police conducted an investigation and found a pool of blood on the kitchen floor. They discovered a claw hammer, a lead pipe, and a chisel near the crime scene. Bokingco admitted during the preliminary investigation that he conspired with Col to kill Pasion.

Dr. Esguerra conducted the necropsy and observed multiple injuries, including contusions, hematomas, an abrasion, and a stab wound.

During the trial, Bokingco claimed self-defense, while Col denied knowing Bokingco well and accused him of falsely accusing him.

On December 16, 2004, the trial court found both appellants guilty of murder and sentenced them to death, which was reduced to reclusion perpetua by the Court of Appeals. The appellants filed a motion for reconsideration, questioning the existence of conspiracy and the aggravating circumstances. The Court of Appeals subsequently included Bokingco's criminal liability in its decision.

The accused-appellants, Bokingco and Col, were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder as conspirators. The crime was qualified by treachery and evident premeditation, aggravated by the circumstances of nighttime and abuse of confidence. They were sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to indemnify the victim's heirs. The accused-appellants appealed the decision, raising two issues: whether the qualifying circumstances were properly appreciated for Bokingco's conviction and whether Col is guilty beyond reasonable doubt as a co-conspirator. Bokingco admitted planning the killing in his extrajudicial confession and testified that he was provoked in hitting the victim.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the qualifying circumstances were properly appreciated to convict appellant Bokingco of murder.

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

  3. Whether the confession of Bokingco is admissible against him since he was not assisted by counsel during the time it was taken before a judge.

  4. Whether the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and abuse of confidence can be appreciated in this case.

  5. Whether the conviction of Bokingco should be downgraded from murder to homicide due to the failure of the prosecution to prove the presence of qualifying circumstances.

  6. Whether the penalty imposed on Bokingco is correct.

  7. Whether Col can be held guilty as a co-conspirator based on the evidence presented.

  8. Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish the existence of conspiracy between the accused.

  9. Whether the extrajudicial confession of one accused is admissible as evidence against the other accused.

  10. Whether there is sufficient evidence to implicate the appellant, Reynante Col, in the crime charged.

  11. Whether the appellant, Michael Bokingco, is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide.

RULING:

  1. Treachery cannot be appreciated to qualify the crime to murder in the absence of any proof of the manner in which the aggression was commenced. The prosecution failed to establish that the victim was defenseless and that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack. Therefore, the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not proven.

  2. Evident premeditation was not proven in this case as there was no proof of how and when the plan to kill was devised. Additionally, Bokingco's admission in court that he only retaliated when the victim allegedly hit him in the head does not show evident premeditation. Therefore, appellant Col cannot be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt as a co-conspirator.

  3. The confession of Bokingco is inadmissible against him since he was not assisted by counsel during its taking before a judge.

  4. The aggravating circumstances of nighttime and abuse of confidence cannot be appreciated in this case.

  5. The conviction of Bokingco should be downgraded from murder to homicide due to the failure of the prosecution to prove the presence of qualifying circumstances.

  6. The penalty imposed on Bokingco is incorrect. The proper penalty should be from six years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum, in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

  7. Col cannot be held guilty as a co-conspirator since there is insufficient evidence to prove the existence of conspiracy between him and Bokingco.

  8. No, there was no sufficient evidence to establish the existence of conspiracy between the accused. The acts of the accused did not reveal a unity of purpose to kill the victim. The accused were separately committing different crimes - Bokingco was killing the victim out of anger, while Col was attempting to rob the pawnshop. Their moves were not coordinated.

  9. No, the extrajudicial confession of one accused is not admissible as evidence against the other accused. Under Section 28, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, an act, declaration, or omission of one party cannot prejudice the rights of another party. An extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant and is considered hearsay against the co-accused. An exception is if the confession is made by a conspirator, but since there was no sufficient evidence to establish the existence of conspiracy, the confession has no probative value and is inadmissible against the other accused.

  10. The appeal of Reynante Col is granted. He is acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt due to the insufficiency of evidence implicating him in the crime charged. The Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate release unless he is being lawfully held for another cause.

  11. Michael Bokingco is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor as a minimum to 14 years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal as a maximum. Bokingco is also ordered to indemnify the heirs of Noli Pasion and pay various amounts for moral damages, temperate damages, attorney's fees, and costs.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The prosecution must prove that the victim was not in a position to defend himself and that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method, or form of attack for treachery to be appreciated.

  • Evident premeditation requires the confluence of the time when the offender was determined to commit the crime, an act manifestly indicating the offender's clinging to the determination, and a sufficient interval of time between the determination and the execution of the crime.

  • An uncounselled confession is inadmissible against the accused.

  • Aggravating circumstances such as nighttime and abuse of confidence can only be appreciated if there is sufficient evidence to support their presence.

  • Downgrading of a conviction from murder to homicide is appropriate if the prosecution fails to prove the presence of qualifying circumstances.

  • The penalty for homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal, with a range of 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months in its medium period.

  • In order to establish conspiracy, there must be unity of purpose and unity in the execution of the unlawful objective, which must be proven with the same quantum of proof as the crime itself.

  • The acts of the accused must reveal a unity of purpose to establish the existence of conspiracy.

  • An extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant and is considered hearsay against the co-accused, unless it is made by a conspirator and the conspiracy is proven by evidence other than the confession itself.

  • Acquittal based on reasonable doubt (Reynante Col's case)

  • Guilt beyond reasonable doubt (Michael Bokingco's case)

  • Presumption of innocence

  • Insufficiency of evidence

  • Right to immediate release if acquitted

  • Indemnification of heirs in criminal cases

  • Awarding of damages and attorney's fees