1068

People v. Bokingo
655 scra 313
August 10, 2011
FACTS:
This petition seeks to review the decision of the Cour of Appeals, finding appellants
Bokingo and Col guilty as conspirators for the crime of murder.
An information was filed against herein appellants, when they conspired together 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. During the preliminary investigation, Bokingo admitted that he conspired with
Col to murder Pasion, and that they planned it for several days. During the trial for the case,
Bokingo pleaded guilty while Col pleaded not guilty. The lower court rendered judgment finding
both accused guilty, with 2 aggravating circumstances of night time and abuse of confidence but
considering 1 mitigating circumstance in favor of Bokingo for voluntary confession of guilty.
ISSUES:
1. Whether appellant Col can be found guilty based on Bakingos admission.
HELD:
1. No.
The Court ruled that in order to convict Col as a principal by direct participation, conspiracy
must first be established between him and Bokingo. It is not necessary that there be a previous
explicit agreement between the conspirators for it may be inferred from their actions and conduct
before, during and after the commission of the crime that they pertain to the same goal and there
is unity. The acts of the accused did not reveal a unity of purpose to kill Pasion. Bokingo was
stated to have already killed Pasion before he sought for Col, for while the former was
preoccupied with venting out his anger and murdering the victim, Col wanted to rob the
pawnshop. An admission of a conspirator may only be received against the co-conspirators if the
conspiracy is first proved by evidence other than the admission itself. Also, the admission must
relate to the common object and lastly it must be made while the declarant was engaged in
carrying out the conspiracy. In the case at bar, the conspiracy between Bokingo and Col was not
established since it was during the preliminary investigation that Bokingo admitted to the
conspiracy, without the assistance of a competent counsel violating Art. 3, Sec. 12 of the
Constitution, therefore it is inadmissible as evidence. Wherefore, the Court acquitted Col but
found Bokingo guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Prepared by: Jo-Anne D. Coloquio