G.R. No. 187536 - People vs. Michael Bokingco alias "Michael Bokingco" and Reyte Col

The case involves the killing of Carlos Reyes, which occurred on or about October 30, 1990, in Kalookan City.
The crime was committed due to mistaken identity – the perpetrators intended to kill Berong, a friend of the victim, but instead attacked Carlos Reyes.
The accused are identified as two brothers, Rodolfo Hilario y Martinez and Rodrigo Hilario y Martinez, together with their unidentified cumpadre.

Danilo Manzanares, a watch repairman and resident of Caloocan City, witnessed the events.

At approximately two o’clock in the afternoon, Danilo noted the presence of Rodrigo, Rodolfo, and their cumpadre at his residence where they came to have a watch bracelet fixed.
During their stay, Danilo overheard remarks suggesting that they were looking for “the person in white” (i.e. Berong).

Berong and the victim, Carlos Reyes, conversing while wearing white shirts.
A sudden change when Berong removed his white shirt, an act that ironically contributed to his protection while inadvertently leaving Carlos exposed.

Rodrigo was observed handing a bolo to Rodolfo and an ice pick to their cumpadre, simultaneously identifying “the one in white” as their target.
The assay culminated in the cumpadre stabbing Carlos Reyes, while Rodolfo provided support by shouting and the accused then fled from the scene.

After the murder, Danilo left the scene and later encountered Greg Reyes, the father of the victim, who questioned the incident and learned of the mistaken identity.
Suspicion arose among the accused when Greg’s frequenting visits to Danilo’s residence led to a warning from Rodrigo not to “interfere” or act as a witness.
On April 22, 1991, Rodrigo, reacting to intensified suspicions, ambushed Danilo by hacking him repeatedly, prompting Danilo to eventually transfer his residence, though he still pursued criminal charges against Rodrigo.

The prosecution’s case was built primarily on the testimony of Danilo Manzanares, who identified all involved including Rodrigo, his two uncles, and the unidentified cumpadre.
Additional testimonies were given by Virginia Reyes regarding funeral expenses and by NBI Agent Ferdinand Lavin concerning the investigation and subsequent referral for prosecution.
The defense was limited to the single testimony of the accused Rodrigo, who claimed an alibi as a Barangay Tanod on duty and contested the credibility of Danilo’s account.
The trial court convicted Rodrigo of murder and imposed reclusion perpetua, along with financial liabilities for indemnity and funeral expenses.
On appeal, Rodrigo contended:

That the star witness’s (Danilo Manzanares) testimony was fabricated, rehearsed, and tainted by personal animosity.
That his alibi of being on duty as a Tanod should exonerate him.
That the failure of the prosecution to present additional corroborative witnesses amounted to suppression of evidence.

Whether the trial court erred in giving weight to the testimony of Danilo Manzanares, despite alleged delay and potential personal bias.
Whether the delay in reporting the incident undermines the reliability of his account.

Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish an agreement and common plan among the accused, making them liable as co-principals in the commission of the murder.
Whether the collective acts and procedures undertaken by the accused constitute the elements of conspiracy.

Whether the killing of a person other than the intended target (mistaken identity) mitigates the accused’s criminal liability for murder.
Whether the intentional felonious act, despite the misidentification, justifies the imposition of reclusion perpetua.

Whether Rodrigo’s testimony of being on duty as a Barangay Tanod at the time of the incident sufficiently establishes an alibi.
Whether the failure to corroborate this alibi through additional witnesses weakens the defense.