CONFESSIONS

PEOPLE vs. BOKINGO

G.R. No. 187536 August 10, 2011

FACTS:
An Information was filed against Bokingo and Col, charging them of the crime of murder
wherein 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, 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. On arraignment, Bokingco entered a guilty plea while Col pleaded not guilty.
During the pre-trial, Bokingco confessed to the crime charged.

The trial court rendered judgment finding appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
murder, there being the two aggravating circumstances of nighttime and abuse of
confidence to be considered against both accused and the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary plea of guilty in favor of accused Bokingo only, sentencing them to Death.

The Court of appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court however lowering the penalty
to reclusion perpetua pursuant to RA 7659.

ISSUE:
Whether or not appellant Col is guilty beyond reasonable doubt as a co-conspirator based
on Bakingo’s admission that Col is a co-consiprator

RULING:
NO. Col is hereby ACQUITTED beyond reasonable doubt.

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

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 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. As we
have previously discussed, we did not find any sufficient evidence to establish the
existence of conspiracy. It was during the preliminary investigation that Bokingco
mentioned his and Col’s plan to kill Pasion. Bokingco’s confession was admittedly taken
without the assistance of counsel in violation of Section 12, Article III of the 1987
Constitution. Therefore, the extrajudicial confession has no probative value and is
inadmissible in evidence against Col.

PEOPLE vs. DOMINGO REYES

G.R. No. 178300 March 17, 2009

FACTS:
On July 16, 1999, at Sitio Lambakin, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, accused-appellant,
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another and grouping themselves
together with Juanito Pataray Cayaban, Federico Pataray Cabayan and Rommel
Libarnes Acejo, who are still at large, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, by means of force and intimidation and with use of firearms, carry away and
deprive Robert Yao, Yao San, Chua Ong Ping Sim, Raymond Yao, Ronald Matthew Yao,
Lennie Yao, Charlene Yao, Jona Abagatnan ang Josephine Ortea against their will and
consent on board their Mazda MVP van for the purpose of extorting money in the amount
of Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00), that during the detention of Chua Ong Ping Sim
and Raymong Yao, said accused with intent to kill, willfully and unlawfully strangled Chua
Ong Ping Sim and Raymond Yao to death to the damage and prejudice of their heirs.

Appellant Arnaldo surrendered to the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force

(PAOCTF) at Camp Crame. Thereupon, appellant Arnaldo, with the assistance of Atty.
Uminga, executed a written extra-judicial confession narrating his participation in the
incident. Appellant Arnaldo identified appellants Reyes and Flores. Afterwards, appellant
Flores, with the assistance of Atty. Rous, executed a written extra-judicial confession
detailing his participation in the incident.

After trial, the RTC rendered a Decision convicting appellants of the special complex
crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide and sentencing each of them to suffer the
supreme penalty of death. Appellants were also ordered to pay jointly and severally the
Yao family ₱150,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱500,000.00 as moral damages and the costs
of the proceedings.

ISSUE:
Whether the extra-judicial confessions of the accused is admissible in evidence

RULING:
YES. The Pasubali of appellants Arnaldo and Flores’s written extra-judicial confessions
clearly shows that before they made their respective confessions, the PAOCTF
investigators had informed them that the interrogation about to be conducted on them
referred to the kidnapping of the Yao family.

Since the prosecution has sufficiently established that the respective extra-judicial
confessions of appellant Arnaldo and appellant Flores were obtained in accordance with
the constitutional guarantees, these confessions are admissible. They are evidence of a
high order because of the strong presumption that no person of normal mind would
deliberately and knowingly confess to a crime, unless prompted by truth and conscience.
Consequently, the burden of proving that undue pressure or duress was used to procure
the confessions rests on appellants Arnaldo and Flores.

We have held that an extra-judicial confession is admissible in evidence if the following

requisites have been satisfied: (1) it must be voluntary; (2) it must be made with the
assistance of competent and independent counsel; (3) it must be express; and (4) it must
be in writing.

PEOPLE vs. MARIETTA PATUNGAN Y PULGA ET. AL

GR. No. 138045 March 14, 2001

FACTS:
Respondents is being accused of were charged with criminal case for killing Alejandro
Patungan, the husband of Marietta Patungan, who is one of the accused. The criminal
charge arise from the extra judicial confession of Elmerto Pulga linking his sister Marietta
and his cousin Edgar Acebuche respectively as the master mind and the co-perpetrator
of the crime. However, Elmerto contradicted his confession and alleged that he was not
guilty and he was only forced to confess because of the physical violence the policemen
inflicted on him in the open court. The respondents questions the validity of the decision
of the lower court against them who relied entirely on the extrajudicial confession of
Elmerto. They content that the confession was not voluntary and he was not assisted by
counsel from the time he entered into custodial investigation rendering his confession
inadmissible as evidence.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the extra-judicial confession of Elmerto is admissible as evidence

RULING:
NO. An extra-judicial confession to be admissible in evidence must be express and
voluntarily executed in writing with the assistance of an independent and competent
counsel. Contrary to PO3 Villacorte’s assertion that Pulga was taken into custody on
August 10, 1994, the police officer who actually took all three appellants into custody,
SPO2 Orlando Gacute, testified that the appellants were all “invited” to the police station
on August 9, 1994 and that they were all subjected to custodial investigation without
counsel. Villacorte himself admitted that Pulga at first did not want to confess and pointed
to another suspect as the perpetrator of the crime. This statement negates the police’s
claim of voluntary surrender and places in serious doubt the voluntariness of Pulga’s
extra-judicial confession. We also note from the above testimonies that it was only after
appellant Pulga verbally confessed at the police precinct, without the assistance of
counsel, when he was brought to the IBP office allegedly for the actual transcription of his
confession in writing in the presence of a lawyer. Said lawyer admitted that he was
working on an appeal in another case two to three meters away from the police
investigator who was then taking Pulga’s statement. He stated that he was “not totally
concentrated on the appealed case because he could still hear the investigation being
conducted then.” Villacorte testified that while he was taking Pulga’s statement the IBP
lawyer was working on something else using two other tables four meters apart. The mere
presence of a lawyer is not sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement of
assistance of counsel. Assistance of counsel must be effective, vigilant and independent.
A counsel who could just hear the investigation going on while working on another case
hardly satisfies the minimum requirements of effective assistance of counsel.

TAMARGO vs. AWINGAN

G.R. No. 177727 January 19, 2010
FACTS:
In 2003, Atty. Franklin V. Tamargo and his 8-year-old daughter were shot and killed. The
police had no leads on the perpetrators of the crime until a certain Reynaldo Geron
surfaced and executed an affidavit wherein he stated that a certain Lucio Columna told
him during a drinking spree that Atty. Tamargo was ordered killed by Lloyd Antiporda and
that he (Columna) was one of those who killed Atty. Tamargo. Columna was arrested.

On March 8, 2004, Columna executed an affidavit wherein he admitted his participation

as “look out” during the shooting and implicated Romulo Awingan as the gunman and one
Richard Mecate. He also tagged as masterminds Licerio Antiporda, Jr. and his son, Lloyd
Antiporda, ex-mayor and mayor, respectively, of Buguey, Cagayan.

Pursuant to this affidavit, petitioner Harold V. Tamargo (brother of Atty. Tamargo) filed a
complaint against those implicated by Columna in the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Manila. Columna affirmed his affidavit before the investigating prosecutor.

During the preliminary investigation, Licerio presented Columna’s handwritten letter

wherein the latter disowned the contents of his earlier affidavit and narrated how he had
been tortured until he signed the extrajudicial confession. Licerio also submitted an
affidavit of Columna dated May 25, 2004 wherein the latter essentially repeated the
statements in his handwritten letter. The investigating prosecutor set a clarificatory
hearing so that Columna could clarify his contradictory affidavits and his unsolicited letter.
During the hearing, Columna categorically admitted the authorship and voluntariness of
the unsolicited letter. Thus, the investigating prosecutor recommended the dismissal of
the charges.

In another handwritten letter addressed to City Prosecutor, however, Columna said that
he was only forced to withdraw all his statements against respondents during the
clarificatory hearing because of the threats to his life inside the jail. The RTC judge denied
the motion to withdraw the informations and held that based on the March 8, 2004 affidavit
which Columna affirmed before the investigating prosecutor, there was probable cause
to hold the accused for trial. CA reversed the decision.

Tamargo appealed. Petitioner argues that, based on the independent assessment of the
Judge Daguna, there was probable cause based on the earlier affidavit of Columna.
Awingan and the Antiporda’s, on the other hand, contend that Columna’s extrajudicial
confession was inadmissible against them because of the rule on res inter alios acta.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the admission of Columna is admissible against Awingan and the
Antipordas

RULING:
NO. Columna’s extrajudicial confession in his March 8, 2004 affidavit was not admissible
as evidence against respondents in view of the rule on res inter alios acta. The rule on
res inter alios acta provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another. 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.

An exception to the res inter alios acta rule is an admission made by a conspirator under
Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court:

Admission by conspirator. — The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the

conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator
after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.

This rule prescribes that the act or declaration of the conspirator relating to the conspiracy
and during its existence may be given in evidence against co-conspirators provided that
the conspiracy is shown by independent evidence aside from the extrajudicial confession.
Thus, in order that the admission of a conspirator may be received against his or her co-
conspirators, it is necessary that (a) the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than
the admission itself (b) the admission relates to the common object and (c) it has been
made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy. Otherwise, it
cannot be used against the alleged co-conspirators without violating their constitutional
right to be confronted with the witnesses against them and to cross-examine them.

Here, aside from the extrajudicial confession, which was later on recanted, no other piece
of evidence was presented to prove the alleged conspiracy. There was no other
prosecution evidence, direct or circumstantial, which the extrajudicial confession could
corroborate. Therefore, the recanted confession of Columna, which was the sole
evidence against respondents, had no probative value and was inadmissible as evidence
against them.