Sunteți pe pagina 1din 9

Case law teaches that the issue as to the identity of the drugs allegedly sold Same; Same; The

Same; Same; The requirement to conduct a searching inquiry should not be deemed
is commonly resolved by a scrutiny of the chain of custody of the satisfied in cases in which it was the defense counsel who explained the consequences of a guilty
recovered drugs. (People vs. Bernardino, 602 SCRA 270 [2009]) plea to the accusedthe conduct of a searching inquiry remains the duty of judges, as they are
mandated by the rules to satisfy themselves that the accused had not been under coercion or duress;
o0o mistaken impressions; or a misunderstanding of the significance, effects, and consequences of their
G.R. No. 188314. January 10, 2011.* guilty plea.The requirement to conduct a searching inquiry should not be
deemed satisfied in cases in which it was the defense counsel who explained the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.KHADDAFY
consequences of a guilty plea to the accused, as it appears in this case. In People
JANJALANI, GAMAL B. BAHARAN a.k.a. Tapay, ANGELO v. Alborida, 359 SCRA 495 (2001), this Court found that there was still an
TRINIDAD a.k.a. Abu Khalil, GAPPAL BANNAH ASALI a.k.a. Maidan improvident plea of guilty, even if the accused had already signified in open court
or Negro, JAINAL SALI a.k.a. Abu Solaiman, ROHMAT that his counsel had explained the consequences of the guilty plea; that he
ABDURROHIM a.k.a. Jackie or Zaky, and other JOHN and JANE understood the explanation of his counsel; that the accused understood that the
DOES, accused, penalty of death would still be meted out to him; and that he had not been
GAMAL B. BAHARAN a.k.a. Tapay, ANGELO TRINIDAD a.k.a. Abu intimidated, bribed, or threatened. We have reiterated in a long line of cases that
Khalil, and ROHMAT ABDURROHIM a.k.a. Abu Jackie or Zaky, the conduct of a searching inquiry remains the duty of judges, as they are
accused-appellants. mandated by the rules to satisfy themselves that the accused had not been under
Criminal Procedure; Plea of Guilty; All trial judges must refrain from accepting with coercion or duress; mistaken impressions; or a misunderstanding of the
alacrity an accuseds plea of guilty, for while justice demands a speedy administration, judges are significance, effects, and consequences of their guilty plea. This requirement is
duty bound to be extra solicitous in seeing to it that when an accused pleads guilty, he understands stringent and mandatory.
fully the meaning of his plea and the import of an inevitable conviction; The requirement for a Same; Same; Convictions based on an improvident plea of guilt are set aside only if such
judge to conduct a searching inquiry applies more so in cases of re-arraignment.As early as plea is the sole basis of the judgment.In People v. Oden, 427 SCRA 634 (2004), the
in People v. Apduhan, 24 SCRA 798 the Supreme Court has ruled that all trial Court declared that even if the requirement of conducting a searching inquiry was
judges must refrain from accepting with alacrity an accuseds plea of guilty, for not complied with, [t]he manner by which the plea of guilt is made loses
while justice demands a speedy administration, judges are duty bound to be extra much of great significance where the conviction can be based on independ-
159
solicitous in seeing to it that when an accused pleads guilty, he understands fully
the meaning of his plea and the import of an inevitable conviction. Thus, trial VOL. 639, JANUARY 10, 2011 159
court judges are required to observe the following procedure under Section 3, People vs. Baharan
Rule 116 of the Rules of Court: SEC. 3. ent evidence proving the commission by the person accused of the offense
_______________ charged. Thus, in People v. Nadera, 324 SCRA 490 (2000), the Court
stated: Convictions based on an improvident plea of guilt are set aside only
* THIRD DIVISION.
158
if such plea is the sole basis of the judgment. If the trial court relied on
sufficient and credible evidence to convict the accused, the conviction
158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED must be sustained, because then it is predicated not merely on the guilty plea of
People vs. Baharan the accused but on evidence proving his commission of the offense charged.
Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence.When the accused pleads guilty to Criminal Law; Conspiracy; Principals; One who gave instructions and training to
a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the another on how to make bombscoupled with their careful planning and persistent attempts to
voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and bomb different areas in Metro Manila and his confirmation that another would be getting TNT
shall require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of from one of the accused as part of their missionmake him a principal by inducement since it
culpability. The accused may also present evidence in his behalf. The requirement is his co-inducement which was the determining cause of the commission of the crime.In the
to conduct a searching inquiry applies more so in cases of re-arraignment. light of the foregoing evidence, the Court upholds the finding of guilt against
In People v. Galvez, 378 SCRA 389 (2002), the Court noted that since accused- Rohmat. Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code reads: Art. 17. Principals.The
appellants original plea was not guilty, the trial court should have exerted following are considered principals: 1. Those who take a direct part in the
careful effort in inquiring into why he changed his plea to guilty. execution of the act 2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it 3.
Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without Before the Court is an appeal from the Decision of the Court of
which it would not have been accomplished Accused Rohmat is criminally Appeals (CA) dated 30 June 2008, which affirmed the Decision of the
responsible under the second paragraph, or the provision on principal by Regional Trial Court of Makati City in Criminal Case Nos. 05-476 and 05-
inducement. The instructions and training he had given Asali on how to make 4777 dated 18 October 2005. The latter Decision convicted the three
bombscoupled with their careful planning and persistent attempts to bomb
accused-appellantsnamely, Gamal B. Baharan a.k.a. Tapay, Angelo
different areas in Metro Manila and Rohmats confirmation that Trinidad would
be getting TNT from Asali as part of their missionprove the finding that
Trinidad a.k.a. Abu Khalil, and Rohmat Abdurrohim a.k.a. Abu Jackie or
Rohmats co-inducement was the determining cause of the commission of the Zakyof the complex crime of multiple murder and multiple frustrated
crime. Such command or advice [was] of such nature that, without it, the crime murder, and sentenced them to suffer the pen-
would not have materialized. 161
Same; Same; Evidence; While it is true that statements made by a conspirator against a VOL. 639, JANUARY 10, 2011 161
co-conspirator are admissible only when made during the existence of the conspiracy, if the People vs. Baharan
declarant repeats the statement in court, his extrajudicial confession becomes a judicial admission, alty of death by lethal injection. The CA modified the sentence to reclusion
making the testimony admissible as to both conspirators.Accused contend that the perpetua as required by Republic Act No. 9346 (Act Abolishing the
testimony of Asali is inadmissible pursuant to Sec. 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Imposition of Death Penalty).
Court. It is true that
160
Statement of Facts
160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Baharan The pertinent facts, as determined by the trial court, are as follows:
under the rule, statements made by a conspirator against a co-conspirator are On 14 February 2005, an RRCG bus was plying its usual southbound
admissible only when made during the existence of the conspiracy. However, as route, from its Navotas bus terminal towards its Alabang bus
the Court ruled in People v. Buntag, 427 SCRA 180 (2004), if the declarant repeats terminal via Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA). Around 6:30 to 7:30
the statement in court, his extrajudicial confession becomes a judicial admission,
making the testimony admissible as to both conspirators. Thus, in People v. Palijon,
in the evening, while they were about to move out of the Guadalupe-
343 SCRA 486 (2000), the Court held the following: [W]e must make a EDSA southbound bus stop, the bus conductor noticed two men running
distinction between extrajudicial and judicial confessions. An extrajudicial after the bus. The two insisted on getting on the bus, so the conductor
confession may be given in evidence against the confessant but not against his obliged and let them in.
co-accused as they are deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine him. A According to Elmer Andales, the bus conductor, he immediately
judicial confession is admissible against the declarants co-accused since the latter became wary of the two men, because, even if they got on the bus together,
are afforded opportunity to cross-examine the former. Section 30, Rule 130 of the two sat away from each otherone sat two seats behind the driver,
the Rules of Court applies only to extrajudicial acts or admissions and not while the other sat at the back of the bus. At the time, there were only 15
to testimony at trial where the party adversely affected has the opportunity passengers inside the bus. He also noticed that the eyes of one of the men
to cross-examine the declarant. Mercenes admission implicating his co- were reddish. When he approached the person near the driver and asked
accused was given on the witness stand. It is admissible in evidence against him whether he was paying for two passengers, the latter looked dumb
appellant Palijon. Moreover, where several accused are tried together for the same
offense, the testimony of a co-accused implicating his co-accused is competent
struck by the question. He then stuttered and said he was paying for two
evidence against the latter. and gave PhP20. Andales grew more concerned when the other man seated
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals. at the back also paid for both passengers. At this point, Andales said he
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. became more certain that the two were up to no good, and that there might
Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. be a holdup.
Public Attorneys Office for accused-appellant. Afterwards, Andales said he became more suspicious because both
SERENO, J.: men kept on asking him if the bus was going to stop at Ayala Avenue. The
witness also noticed that the man at the back appeared to be slouching,
with his legs stretched out in front of him and his arms hanging out and Jane Doeswere then charged with multiple murder and multiple
hidden from view as if he was tinkering with something. When Andales frustrated murder. Only Baharan, Trinidad, Asali, and Rohmat were
162 arrested, while the other accused remain at-large.
162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED On their arraignment for the multiple murder charge (Crim. Case No.
People vs. Baharan 05-476), Baharan, Trinidad, and Asali all entered a plea of guilty. On the
would get near the man, the latter would glare at him. Andales admitted, other hand, upon arraignment for the multiple frustrated murder charge
however, that he did not report the suspicious characters to the police. (Crim. Case No. 05-477), accused Asali pled guilty. Accused Trinidad and
As soon as the bus reached the stoplight at the corner of Ayala Avenue Baharan pled not guilty. Rohmat pled not guilty to both charges. During
and EDSA, the two men insisted on getting off the bus. According to the pretrial hearing, the parties stipulated the following:
Andales, the bus driver initially did not want to let them off the bus, 1.) The jurisdiction of this court over the offenses charged.
because a Makati ordinance prohibited unloading anywhere except at 2.) That all three accused namely alias Baharan, Trinidad, and Asali
designated bus stops. Eventually, the bus driver gave in and allowed the admitted knowing one another before February 14, 2005.
two passengers to alight. The two immediately got off the bus and ran 3.) All the same three accused likewise admitted that a bomb exploded
towards Ayala Avenue. Moments after, Andales felt an explosion. He then in the RRCG bus while the bus was plying the EDSA route fronting
saw fire quickly engulfing the bus. He ran out of the bus towards a nearby the MRT terminal which is in front of the Makati Commercial
mall. After a while, he went back to where the bus was. He saw their bus Center.
passengers either lying on the ground or looking traumatized. A few hours 4.) Accused Asali admitted knowing the other accused alias Rohmat
after, he made a statement before the Makati Police Station narrating the whom he claims taught him how to make explosive devices.
whole incident. 5.) The accused Trinidad also admitted knowing Rohmat before the
The prosecution presented documents furnished by the Department of February 14 bombing incident.
Justice, confirming that shortly before the explosion, the spokesperson of 6.) The accused Baharan, Trinidad, and Asali all admitted to causing
the Abu Sayyaf GroupAbu Solaimanannounced over radio station the bomb explosion inside the RRCG bus which left four people
DZBB that the group had a Valentines Day gift for former President dead and more or less forty persons injured.
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. After the bombing, he again went on radio and 7.) Both Baharan and Trinidad agreed to stipulate that within the
warned of more bomb attacks. period March 20-24 each gave separate interviews to the ABS-CBN
As stipulated during pretrial, accused Trinidad gave ABS-CBN News news network admitting their participation in the commission of the
Network an exclusive interview some time after the incident, confessing said crimes, subject of these cases.164
his participation in the Valentines Day bombing incident. In another 164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
exclusive interview on the network, accused Baharan likewise admitted his People vs. Baharan
role in the bombing incident. Finally, accused Asali gave a television 8.) Accused Trinidad and Baharan also admitted to pleading guilty to
interview, confessing that he had supplied the explosive devices for the 14 these crimes, because they were guilt-stricken after seeing a man
February 2005 bombing. The bus conductor identified the accused carrying a child in the first bus that they had entered.
Baharan and Trinidad, and confirmed that they were the two men who had 9.) Accused Asali likewise admitted that in the middle of March 2005
entered the RRCG bus on the evening of 14 February.163 he gave a television news interview in which he admitted that he
VOL. 639, JANUARY 10, 2011 163 supplied the explosive devices which resulted in this explosion
People vs. Baharan inside the RRCG bus and which resulted in the filing of these
Members of the Abu Sayyaf Groupnamely Khaddafy Janjalani, charges.
Gamal B. Baharan, Angelo Trinidad, Gappal Bannah Asali, Jainal Asali, 10.) Finally, accused Baharan, Trinidad, and Asali admitted that they
Rohmat Abdurrohim a.k.a. Abu Jackie or Zaky, and other John and are members of the Abu Sayyaf.1
In the light of the pretrial stipulations, the trial court asked whether Rohmat, congratulating the former on the success of the
accused Baharan and Trinidad were amenable to changing their not mission.3According to Asali, Abu Zaky specifically said, Sa wakas nag
guilty pleas to the charge of multiple frustrated murder, considering success din yung tinuro ko sayo.
that they pled guilty to the heavier charge of multiple murder, creating
an apparent inconsistency in their pleas. Defense counsel conferred with Assignment of Errors
accused Baharan and Trinidad and explained to them the consequences of
the pleas. The two accused acknowledged the inconsistencies and Accused-appellants raise the following assignment of errors:
manifested their readiness for re-arraignment. After the Information was I. The trial court gravely erred in accepting accused-appellants plea
read to them, Baharan and Trinidad pled guilty to the charge of multiple of guilt despite insufficiency of searching inquiry into the
frustrated murder.2 voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of the
After being discharged as state witness, accused Asali testified that said plea.
_______________
while under training with the Abu Sayyaf in 2004, Rohmat, a.k.a Abu Jackie
or Zaky, and two other persons taught him how to make bombs and 3 CA Rollo at p. 29.
explosives. The trainees were told that they were to wage battles against 166
the government in the city, and that their first mission was to plant bombs 166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
in malls, the Light Railway Transit (LRT), and other parts of Metro Manila. People vs. Baharan
As found by the trial court, Asali, after his training, was required by the II. The trial court gravely erred in finding that the guilt of accused-
Abu Sayyaf leadership, specifically Abu So- appellants for the crimes charged had been proven beyond
_______________
reasonable doubt.4
1 Omnibus Decision of the Trial Court at 6, CA Rollo at p. 97. First Assignment of Error
2 TSN, 18 April 2005, at 3-17. Accused-appellants Baharan and Trinidad argue that the trial court did
165 not conduct a searching inquiry after they had changed their plea from
VOL. 639, JANUARY 10, 2011 165 not guilty to guilty. The transcript of stenographic notes during the 18
People vs. Baharan April 2005 re-arraignment before the Makati Regional Trial Court is
laiman and Rohmat, to secure eight kilos of TNT, a soldering gun, reproduced below:
aluminum powder, a tester, and Christmas lights, all of which he knew Court :Anyway, I think what we should have to do, considering the
would be used to make a bomb. He then recalled that sometime in stipulations that were agreed upon during the last hearing, is to
November to December 2004, Trinidad asked him for a total of 4 kilos of address this matter of pleas of not guilty entered for the frustrated
TNTthat is, 2 kilos on two separate occasions. Rohmat allegedly called murder charges by the two accused, Mr. Trinidad and Mr. Baharan,
Asali to confirm that Trinidad would get TNT from Asali and use it for because if you will recall they entered pleas of guilty to the multiple
their first mission. The TNT was allegedly placed in two buses sometime murder charges, but then earlier pleas of not guilty for the frustrated
in December 2004, but neither one of them exploded. multiple murder charges
Asali then testified that the night before the Valentines Day bombing, remain [I]s that not inconsistent considering the stipulations that
Trinidad and Baharan got another two kilos of TNT from him. Late in the were entered into during the initial pretrial of this case? [If] you will
evening of 14 February, he received a call from Abu Solaiman. The latter recall, they admitted to have caused the bomb explosion that led to
told Asali not to leave home or go to crowded areas, since the TNT taken the death of at least four people and injury of about forty other
by Baharan and Trinidad had already been exploded in Makati. Thirty persons and so under the circumstances, Atty Pea, have you
minutes later, Trinidad called Asali, repeating the warning of Abu discussed this matter with your clients?
Solaiman. The next day, Asali allegedly received a call from accused
Atty. Pea :Then we should be given enough time to talk with them. I As early as in People v. Apduhan, the Supreme Court has ruled that all
havent conferred with trial judges must refrain from accepting with alacrity an accuseds plea
_______________ of guilty, for while justice demands a speedy administration, judges are duty
bound to be extra solicitous in seeing to it that when an accused pleads
4 Brief for the Accused-Appellants at 1-2, CA Rollo at 73-74.
167 guilty, he understands fully the meaning of his plea and the import of an
VOL. 639, JANUARY 10, 2011 167 inevitable conviction.6 Thus, trial court judges are required to observe the
People vs. Baharan following procedure under Section 3, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court:
SEC. 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence.When the accused
them about this with regard to the multiple murder case. pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching
inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences
Court :Okay. So let us proceed now. Atty. Pea, can you assist the two of his plea and shall require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise
accused because if they are interested in withdrawing their [pleas], I degree of culpability. The accused may also present evidence in his behalf.
want to hear it from your lips. (Emphasis supplied)
Atty. Pea : Yes, your Honor. The requirement to conduct a searching inquiry applies more so in
(At this juncture, Atty. Pea confers with the two accused, namely cases of re-arraignment. In People v. Galvez, the Court noted that since
Trinidad and Baharan) accused-appellants original plea was not guilty, the trial court should
I have talked to them, your Honor, and I have explained to them have exerted careful effort in inquiring into why he changed his plea to
the consequence of their pleas, your Honor, and that the plea of guilty.7According to the Court:
guilt to the murder case and plea of not guilty to the frustrated multiple The stringent procedure governing the reception of a plea of guilt, especially in
murder actually are inconsistent with their pleas. a case involving the death penalty, is imposed upon the trial judge in order to
Court :With matters that they stipulated upon? leave no room for doubt on the possibility that
_______________
Atty. Pea:Yes, your Honor. So, they are now, since they already plead
guilt to the murder case, then they are now changing their pleas, 5 TSN, 18 April 2005, at 3-4, 14-15.
your Honor, from not guilty to the one of guilt. They are now ready, 6 People v. Apduhan, G.R. No. L-19491, 30 August 1968, 24 SCRA 798.
7 People v. Galvez, G.R. No. 135053, 6 March 2002, 378 SCRA 389; see alsoPeople v. Chua, G.R.
your Honor, for re-arraignment. No. 137841, 1 October 2001, 366 SCRA 283.
169
INTERPRETER:(Read again that portion [of the information] and VOL. 639, JANUARY 10, 2011 169
translated it in Filipino in a clearer way and asked both accused what People vs. Baharan
their pleas are). the accused might have misunderstood the nature of the charge and the
Your Honor, both accused are entering separate pleas of guilt to consequences of the plea.8
the crime charged. Likewise, the requirement to conduct a searching inquiry should not be
COURT:All right. So after the information was re-read to the accused, deemed satisfied in cases in which it was the defense counsel who
they have withdrawn their pleas of not guilty and changed it to the explained the consequences of a guilty plea to the accused, as it appears
pleas of guilty to the charge of frustrated murder. Thank you. Are there in this case. In People v. Alborida, this Court found that there was still an
any matters you need to address at pretrial improvident plea of guilty, even if the accused had already signified in open
168
court that his counsel had explained the consequences of the guilty plea;
168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED that he understood the explanation of his counsel; that the accused
People vs. Baharan understood that the penalty of death would still be meted out to him; and
now? If there are none, then I will terminate pretrial and accommodate5 that he had not been intimidated, bribed, or threatened.9
We have reiterated in a long line of cases that the conduct of a searching must be sustained, because then it is predicated not merely on the guilty plea of
inquiry remains the duty of judges, as they are mandated by the rules to the accused but on evidence proving his commission of the offense
satisfy themselves that the accused had not been under coercion or duress; charged.14 (Emphasis supplied.)
mistaken impressions; or a misunderstanding of the significance, effects, In their second assignment of error, accused-appellants assert that guilt
and consequences of their guilty plea.10 This requirement is stringent and was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. They
_______________
mandatory.11
Nevertheless, we are not unmindful of the context under which the re- 12 People v. Alborida, G.R. No. 136382, 25 June 2001, 359 SCRA 495.
arraignment was conducted or of the factual milieu surrounding the 13 People v. Oden, G.R. Nos. 155511-22, 14 April 2004, 427 SCRA 634, citing People v. Galas,
finding of guilt against the accused. The Court observes that accused 354 SCRA 722 (2001).
14 People v. Nadera, G.R. Nos. 131384-87, 2 February 2000, 324 SCRA 490.
Baharan and Trinidad previously pled guilty to another chargemultiple 171
murderbased on the same act relied upon in the multiple frustrated VOL. 639, JANUARY 10, 2011 171
_______________
People vs. Baharan
8 People v. Galvez, G.R. No. 135053, 6 March 2002, 378 SCRA 389, citing People v. Magat, pointed out that the testimony of the conductor was merely circumstantial,
332 SCRA 517, 526 (2000).
9 People v. Alborida, G.R. No. 136382, 25 June 2001, 359 SCRA 495.
while that of Asali as to the conspiracy was insufficient.
10 People v. Dayot, G.R. No. 88281, 20 July 1990, 187 SCRA 637; People v. Alborida, G.R. Insofar as accused-appellants Baharan and Trinidad are concerned, the
No. 136382, 25 June 2001, 359 SCRA 495, citing People v. Sevilleno, 305 SCRA 519 (1999) evidence for the prosecution, in addition to that which can be drawn from
11 People v. Galvez, G.R. No. 135053, 6 March 2002, 378 SCRA 389. the stipulation of facts, primarily consisted of the testimonies of the bus
170
conductor, Elmer Andales, and of the accused-turned-state-witness, Asali.
170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Andales positively identified accused Baharan and Trinidad as the two men
People vs. Baharan who had acted suspiciously while inside the bus; who had insisted on
murder charge. The Court further notes that prior to the change of plea to getting off the bus in violation of a Makati ordinance; and who had
one of guilt, accused Baharan and Trinidad made two other confessions of scampered away from the bus moments before the bomb exploded. On
guiltone through an extrajudicial confession (exclusive television the other hand, Asali testified that he had given accused Baharan and
interviews, as stipulated by both accused during pretrial), and the Trinidad the TNT used in the bombing incident in Makati City. The guilt
other via judicial admission (pretrial stipulation). Considering the foregoing of the accused Baharan and Trinidad was sufficiently established by these
circumstances, we deem it unnecessary to rule on the sufficiency of the corroborating testimonies, coupled with their respective judicial
searching inquiry in this instance. Remanding the case for re- admissions (pretrial stipulations) and extrajudicial confessions (exclusive
arraignment is not warranted, as the accuseds plea of guilt was not the sole television interviews, as they both stipulated during pretrial) that they were
basis of the condemnatory judgment under consideration.12 indeed the perpetrators of the Valentines Day bombing.15 Accordingly, the
Second Assignment of Error Court upholds the findings of guilt made by the trial court as affirmed by
In People v. Oden, the Court declared that even if the requirement of the Court of Appeals.
conducting a searching inquiry was not complied with, [t]he manner by Anent accused Rohmat, the evidence for the prosecution consisted of
which the plea of guilt is made loses much of great significance where the testimony of accused-turned-state-witness Asali. Below is a
the conviction can be based on independent evidence proving the reproduction of the transcript of stenographic notes on the state
commission by the person accused of the offense charged.13 Thus, prosecutors direct examination of state-witness Asali during the 26 May
in People v. Nadera, the Court stated: 2005 trial:
Convictions based on an improvident plea of guilt are set aside only if Q: You stated that Zaky trained you and Trinidad. Under what circumstances did he train
such plea is the sole basis of the judgment. If the trial court relied on you, Mr. Witness, to assemble those explosives, you and Trinidad?
_______________
sufficient and credible evidence to convict the accused, the conviction
15 Alano v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111244, 15 December 1997, 283 SCRA 269, citing People v. Hernandez, 260 SCRA Q: The second time that he got a bomb from you, Mr. witness, do you know if the bomb
25 (1996).
172
explode?
A: I did not know what happened to the next 2 kilos taken by Angelo Trinidad from me
172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS until after I was caught, because I was told by the policeman that interviewed me
ANNOTATED after I was arrested that the 2 kilos were planted in a bus, which also did not explode.
Q: So besides these two incidents, were there any other incidents that Angelo Trinidad
People vs. Baharan and Tapay get an explosive for you, Mr. witness?
A: Abu Zaky, Abu Solaiman, Khadaffy Janjalani, the three of them, that Angelo Trinidad
and myself be the one to be trained to make an explosive, sir. A: If I am not mistaken, sir, on February 13, 2005 at 6:30 p.m.
Q: Mr. witness, how long that training, or how long did it take that training? Q: Who got from you the explosive Mr. witness?
A: If I am not mistaken, we were thought to make bomb about one month and two A: Its Angelo Trinidad and Tapay, sir.
weeks.
Q: How many explosives did they get from you, Mr. witness, at that time?
Q: Now, speaking of that mission, Mr. witness, while you were still in training at Mr. A: They got 2 kilos TNT bomb, sir.
Cararao, is there any mission that you undertook, if any, with respect to that Q: Did they tell you, Mr. witness, where are they going to use that explosive?
mission? A: No, sir.174

A: Our first mission was to plant a bomb in the malls, LRT, and other parts of Metro
174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Manila, sir.16 ANNOTATED
The witness then testified that he kept eight kilos of TNT for accused People vs. Baharan
Baharan and Trinidad. Q: Do you know, Mr. witness, what happened to the third batch of explosives, which
Q: Now, going back to the bomb. Mr. witness, did you know what happened to the 2 were taken from you by Trinidad and Tapay?
kilos of bomb that Trinidad and Tapay took from you sometime in November
2004? A: That is the bomb that exploded in Makati, sir.
A: That was the explosive that he planted in the G-liner, which did not explode. Q: Why did you know, Mr. witness?
Q: How did you know, Mr. witness? A: Because I was called in the evening of February 14 by Abu Solaiman. He told me not
A: He was the one who told me, Mr. Angelo Trinidad, sir. to leave the house because the explosive that were taken by Tapay and Angelo
Trinidad exploded.
Q: What happened next, Mr. witness, when the bomb did not explode, as told to you by
Trinidad? Q: Was there any other call during that time, Mr. Witness?
A: On December 29, Angelo Trinidad got 2 more kilos of TNT bombs.
A: I was told by Angelo Trinidad not to leave the house because the explosive that he
Q: Did Trinidad tell you why he needed another amount of explosive on that date, took exploded already, sir.
December 29, 2004? Will you kindly tell us the reason why? Q: How sure were you, Mr. witness, at that time, that indeed, the bomb exploded at
Makati, beside the call of Abu Solaiman and Trinidad?
_______________ A: It was told by Abu Solaiman that the bombing in Makati should coincide with the
bombing in General Santos.
16 TSN, 26 May 2005, at 24-36.
173
A: He told it to me, sir I cannot remember the date anymore, but I know it was
VOL. 639, JANUARY 10, 2011 173 sometime in February 2005.
People vs. Baharan Q: Any other call, Mr. witness, from Abu Solaiman and Trinidad after the bombing
exploded in Makati, any other call?
A: He told me that Abu Solaiman instructed me to get the TNT so that he could detonate

a bomb A: There is, sir The call came from Abu Zaky.

Q: What did Abu Zaky tell you, Mr. witness?
Q: Were there any other person, besides Abu Solaiman, who called you up, with respect
A: He just greeted us congratulations, because we have a successful mission.
to the taking of the explosives from you?

A: There is, sir Abu Zaky, sir, called up also.
A: He told me that sa wakas, nag success din yung tinuro ko sayo.
Q: What did Abu Zaky tell you when he called you up? 175
A: He told me that this is your first mission.
Q: Please enlighten the Honorable Court. What is that mission you are referring to? VOL. 639, JANUARY 10, 2011 175
A: That is the first mission where we can show our anger towards the Christians. People vs. Baharan

Q: By the way, Mr. witness, I would just like to clarify this. You stated that Abu Zaky 1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act
called you up the following day, that was February 15, and congratulating you for
the success of the mission. My question to you, Mr. witness, if you know what is 2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it
the relation of that mission, wherein you were congratulated by Abu Zaky, to the 3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another
mission, which have been indoctrinated to you, while you were in Mt. Cararao, Mr. act without which it would not have been accomplished.
witness?
A: They are connected, sir. Accused Rohmat is criminally responsible under the second paragraph,
Q: Connected in what sense, Mr. witness? or the provision on principal by inducement. The instructions and
A: Because when we were undergoing training, we were told that the Abu Sayyaf should training he had given Asali on how to make bombscoupled with their
not wage war to the forest, but also wage our battles in the city.
Q: Wage the battle against who, Mr. witness? careful planning and persistent attempts to bomb different areas in Metro
A: The government, sir.17 Manila and Rohmats confirmation that Trinidad would be getting TNT
What can be culled from the testimony of Asali is that the Abu Sayyaf from Asali as part of their missionprove the finding that Rohmats co-
Group was determined to sow terror in Metro Manila, so that they could inducement was the determining cause of the commission of the
show their anger towards the Christians.18 It can also be seen that crime.21 Such command or advice [was] of such nature that, without it, the
Rohmat, together with Janjalani and Abu Solaiman, had carefully planned crime would not have materialized.22
the Valentines Day bombing incident, months before it happened. Further, the inducement was so influential in producing the criminal
Rohmat had trained Asali and Trinidad to make bombs and explosives. act that without it, the act would not have been performed.23 In People v.
While in training, Asali and others were told that their mission was to plant Sanchez, et al., the Court ruled that,
bombs in malls, the LRT, and other parts of Metro Manila. According to _______________
Asali, Rohmat called him on 29 December 2004 to confirm that Trinidad
20 Id., at p. 49.
would get two kilos of TNT from Asali, as they were about to 21 See generally U.S. v. Indanan, 24 Phil. 203 (1913); People v. Kiichi Omine, 61 Phil. 609
commence their first mission.19 They made two separate attempts to (1935).
bomb a bus in Metro Manila, but to no avail. The day before the 22 People v. Cruz, G.R. No. 74048, 14 November 1990, 191 SCRA 377, 385.
Valentines Day bombing, Trinidad got another two kilos of TNT from 23 Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Criminal LawBook One, 529 (2008).
177
Asali. On Valentines Day, the Abu Sayyaf Group announced that they had
VOL. 639, JANUARY 10, 2011 177
a gift for the former President, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. On their third
try, their plan finally People vs. Baharan
_______________ notwithstanding the fact that Mayor Sanchez was not at the crime
scene, evidence proved that he was the mastermind of the criminal act or
17 Id., at pp. 24-51. the principal by inducement. Thus, because Mayor Sanchez was a co-
18 Id., at p. 36.
19 Id., at pp. 24-51.
principal and co-conspirator, and because the act of one conspirator is the
176 act of all, the mayor was rendered liable for all the resulting crimes.24 The
176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED same finding must be applied to the case at bar.
People vs. Baharan The Court also affirms the finding of the existence of conspiracy
succeeded. Right after the bomb exploded, the Abu Sayyaf Group declared involving accused Baharan, Trinidad, and Rohmat. Conspiracy was clearly
that there would be more bombings in the future. Asali then received a call established from the collective acts of the accused-appellants before,
from Rohmat, praising the former: Sa wakas nag success din yung tinuro ko during and after the commission of the crime. As correctly declared by
sayo.20 the trial court in its Omnibus Decision:
Asalis clear and categorical testimony, which remains unrebutted on its
In the light of the foregoing evidence, the Court upholds the finding of major points, coupled with the judicial admissions freely and voluntarily given by
guilt against Rohmat. Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code reads: the two other accused, are sufficient to prove the existence of a conspiracy
Art. 17. Principals.The following are considered principals: hatched between and among the four accused, all members of the terrorist group
Abu Sayyaf, to wreak chaos and mayhem in the metropolis by indiscriminately examine him. A judicial confession is admissible against the declarants co-
killing and injuring civilian victims by utilizing bombs and other similar accused since the latter are afforded opportunity to cross-examine the
destructive explosive devices. former. Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court applies only to
While said conspiracy involving the four malefactors has not been expressly extrajudicial
admitted by accused Baharan, Angelo Trinidad, and Rohmat, more specifically _______________
with respect to the latters participation in the commission of the crimes,
nonetheless it has been established by virtue of the aforementioned evidence, 25 Omnibus Decision of the Trial Court at 6, CA Rollo at p. 123.
26 People v. Geronimo, G.R. No. L-35700, 15 October 1973, 53 SCRA 246, 254, citing People v.
which established the existence of the conspiracy itself and the indispensable Cabrera, 43 Phil. 64, 66 (1922); People v. Carbonell, 48 Phil. 868 (1926).
participation of accused Rohmat in seeing to it that the conspirators criminal 27 People v. Buntag, G.R. No. 123070, 14 April 2004, 427 SCRA 180; see also People v. Palijon,
design would be realized. 343 SCRA 486 (2000).
It is well-established that conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the 179
accused, which clearly manifests a concurrence of wills, a common intent or VOL. 639, JANUARY 10, 2011 179
design to commit a crime (People v. Lenantud, 352 SCRA 544). Hence, where acts People vs. Baharan
of the accused collectively and individually demonstrate the existence of a acts or admissions and not to testimony at trial where the party adversely
common design towards the affected has the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. Mercenes
_______________ admission implicating his co-accused was given on the witness stand. It is
admissible in evidence against appellant Palijon. Moreover, where several accused
24 People v. Sanchez, et al., G.R. No. 131116, 27 August 1999, 313 SCRA 254.
178 are tried together for the same offense, the testimony of a co-accused implicating
178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED his co-accused is competent evidence against the latter.28
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision of the
People vs. Baharan
Regional Trial Court of Makati, as affirmed with modification by the Court
accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose, conspiracy is evident and all the
perpetrators will be held liable as principals (People v. Ellado, 353 SCRA 643).25
of Appeals, is hereby AFFIRMED.
In People v. Geronimo, the Court pronounced that it would be justified in SO ORDERED.
concluding that the defendants therein were engaged in a conspiracy Carpio-Morales (Chairperson), Brion, Bersamin and Villarama, Jr., JJ.,
when the defendants by their acts aimed at the same object, one concur.
performing one part and the other performing another part so as to Appeal denied.
complete it, with a view to the attainment of the same object; and their Notes.It bears to note that a searching inquiry must focus on the
acts, though apparently independent, were in fact concerted and voluntariness of the plea and the full comprehension of the consequences
cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association, concerted action of the plea. (People vs. Aranzado, 365 SCRA 649 [2001])
and concurrence of sentiments.26 The procedure is mandatory and a judge who fails to observe it
Accused contend that the testimony of Asali is inadmissible pursuant commits grave abuse of discretion. (People vs. Chua, 366 SCRA 283 [2001])
to Sec. 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. It is true that under the rule, o0o
_______________
statements made by a conspirator against a co-conspirator are admissible
only when made during the existence of the conspiracy. However, as the 28 People v. Palijon, G.R. No. 123545, 18 October 2000, 343 SCRA 486, citing People v.
Court ruled in People v. Buntag, if the declarant repeats the statement in Flores, 195 SCRA 295, 308 (1991); People v. Ponce, 197 SCRA 746, 755 (1991).
court, his extrajudicial confession becomes a judicial admission, making Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
the testimony admissible as to both conspirators.27Thus, in People v. Palijon,
the Court held the following:
[W]e must make a distinction between extrajudicial and judicial confessions.
An extrajudicial confession may be given in evidence against the confessant but
not against his co-accused as they are deprived of the opportunity to cross-