Title
People vs. Baharan
Case
G.R. No. 188314
Decision Date
Jan 10, 2011
On 14 February 2005, an Abu Sayyaf-linked bus bombing in Manila killed four, injured forty; accused confessed, pleaded guilty, upheld by Supreme Court.
people
baharan
multiple murder
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 188314)

Factual Background

On 14 February 2005 an RRCG bus was traversing EDSA, departing the Guadalupe-EDSA southbound stop en route to Alabang. Two men ran after and boarded the bus; the passengers numbered about fifteen. The bus conductor, Elmer Andales, observed the two men sit apart, act nervously, pay fares in a manner that suggested they were paying for two passengers each, and repeatedly inquire whether the bus would stop at Ayala Avenue. One man slouched at the rear with his arms concealed as if handling something. The driver eventually allowed the two to alight at the Ayala-EDSA traffic light. Moments later an explosion engulfed the bus in flames, producing four fatalities and approximately forty injuries.

Admissions, Confessions and Media Statements

The prosecution presented documentary evidence that a spokesman for the Abu Sayyaf Group, identified as Abu Solaiman, publicly claimed responsibility and threatened further attacks. The parties stipulated that accused Trinidad and Baharan had given exclusive television interviews in mid-March admitting participation in the bombing, and that accused Asali likewise admitted on television supplying explosive devices. During pretrial the accused Baharan, Trinidad, and Asali admitted knowing one another, admitted that a bomb exploded in the RRCG bus causing the stated casualties, and admitted membership in Abu Sayyaf.

Pretrial Stipulations and Pleas

The case against the members of Abu Sayyaf charged multiple counts of murder and multiple counts of frustrated murder. At arraignment on the multiple murder Information, Baharan, Trinidad, and Asali pled guilty; on the multiple frustrated murder Information Asali pled guilty while Baharan and Trinidad initially pled not guilty and later, following a bench colloquy and consultation with counsel, withdrew their not guilty pleas and entered pleas of guilty. Rohmat pled not guilty to both charges. The parties stipulated to jurisdiction and numerous factual admissions that the bombing occurred and that the named accused had roles relating to the explosion.

Trial Evidence Against Baharan and Trinidad

The principal non-statutory evidence against Baharan and Trinidad consisted of the positive identification by the bus conductor Elmer Andales that they were the two suspicious passengers who alighted and fled moments before the explosion, and the extrajudicial and judicial admissions described in the pretrial stipulations and media interviews. Andales described specific conduct by the two that suggested an imminent holdup or danger, their insistence on disembarking at Ayala despite municipal ordinances, and their rapid flight from the scene immediately preceding the blast.

Trial Evidence Against Rohmat

The prosecution relied primarily on the testimony of accused-turned-state-witness Gappal Bannah Asali. Asali testified that while under training in 2004 he and Trinidad were taught by Rohmat and others to assemble explosives; that they were instructed to wage attacks in urban centers including malls and rail systems; that Asali supplied and held eight kilos of TNT from which Trinidad and Baharan took successive consignments in November and December 2004 and again on 13 February 2005; and that after the Makati explosion he received congratulatory telephone calls from Abu Solaiman and from Rohmat (Abu Zaky), the latter saying, “Sa wakas nag success din yung tinuro ko sayo.” Asali narrated earlier failed attempts and the planning and coordination indicative of a common design.

Procedural History and Assignments of Error

The RTC convicted the accused of the complex crimes of multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder and imposed the death penalty. The CA affirmed the convictions but modified the sentence to reclusion perpetua in compliance with Republic Act No. 9346. The present appeal by Baharan, Trinidad, and Rohmat raised two principal assignments of error: (1) that the trial court erred in accepting their pleas of guilty absent a sufficiently searching inquiry into voluntariness and comprehension of consequences; and (2) that the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

First Assignment — Searching Inquiry on Change of Plea

The appellants argued that the trial court failed to conduct the searching inquiry required by Section 3, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court when Baharan and Trinidad changed pleas from not guilty to guilty on the frustrated murder charges after having earlier pled guilty to the murder charges. The record reproduced the bench colloquy and counsel’s statements that counsel had explained consequences to the accused and that they were ready for re-arraignment. The Court recalled precedent, including People v. Apduhan, People v. Galvez, and People v. Alborida, which require judges to conduct such inquiry with particular stringency in capital cases and to satisfy themselves that the accused fully understood the nature and consequences of their plea, free of coercion, duress, mistake, or misunderstanding.

Court’s Treatment of the Searching Inquiry Issue

Although the Court reiterated that the duty to conduct a searching inquiry is stringent and mandatory, it declined to remand for re-arraignment because of the totality of circumstances. The Court observed that Baharan and Trinidad had previously pled guilty to a coextensive multiple murder charge, had made extrajudicial confessions in the form of stipulated television interviews, and had made judicial admissions in the pretrial stipulations that directly implicated them in the bombing that caused deaths and injuries. Given that the plea of guilty was not the sole basis of conviction, the Court deemed it unnecessary to resolve the sufficiency of the searching inquiry in this instance and held that remand was not warranted.

Second Assignment — Sufficiency of Evidence

Appellants challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, characterizing the conductor’s identification as circumstantial and asserting that Asali’s testimony was inadequate to prove conspiracy and Rohmat’s participation. The Court applied the principle stated in People v. Oden and People v. Nadera that an improvident plea of guilty will not overturn a conviction where independent and sufficient evidence establishes the commission of the offense. The Court examined the corroborating evidence: Andales’s positive identification of Baharan and Trinidad, Asali’s testimony tracing the supply and transfer of TNT to the accused and connecting Rohmat to the training and coordination, and the pretrial and extrajudicial admissions.

Legal Basis and Reasoning on Liability

On the record the Court found the evidence against Baharan and Trinidad sufficiently corroborated to uphold their convictions. With respect to Rohmat, the Court invoked Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code, in particular the paragraph on principals by inducement. It held that Rohmat’s instruction, training, and confirmation of the TNT transfers constituted inducement and cooperation “of such nature that, without it, the crime would not have materialized.” The Court reasoned that Rohmat’s acts were determinative and influential in producing the criminal act, thereby rendering him liable as a principal by inducement. The Court further held that the elements of conspiracy were sufficiently established by the collective acts, admissions, and Asali’s unrebutted testimony, such that all participants were liable for the resulting crimes.

Conspiracy and Collective Liability

The Court

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms