Title
People vs. Boller
Case
G.R. No. 144222-24
Decision Date
Apr 3, 2002
Three brothers convicted of homicide for fatally shooting victims at a copra kiln; alibi rejected, conspiracy proven, treachery unproven.
three counts of homicide
workplace killing
dying declaration
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 129760)

Factual Background

On October 27, 1995, brothers Jacinto and Jesus Orquin, their father Arsenio Orquin, and their uncle Lolito de la Cruz were working at their copra kiln in Barangay Hinayagan, Gandara, Samar. They heard dogs barking, which prompted Jacinto to go outside to investigate. Jacinto saw the accused-appellants—Obat Boller, Nonoy Boller, and Bayani Boller—about three meters away. Jacinto observed Obat holding an M-14 Garand, Bayani holding a shotgun, and Nonoy holding a Garand, all of them pointing their firearms toward the copra kiln.

Jacinto ran away. The accused-appellants then opened fire at the copra kiln, hitting Arsenio Orquin, Jesus Orquin, and Lolito de la Cruz. As Jacinto fled across the river, he heard Jesus shout, “Entoy, dont leave me, I will die!” Jacinto later looked back, saw his brother in the water, returned, brought him to the river bank, and covered Jesus with cogon grass.

Events After the Shooting and the Ante-Mortem Statement

Jacinto met Roberto Tolin as he proceeded toward Barangay Hinayan. Jacinto told Roberto that the accused-appellants shot his brother, father, and uncle, and asked him to go to the copra kiln and to save them. Soon thereafter, Nixon de la Cruz reported to Barangay Captain Gutardo Berbis that Lolito was wounded and was in the house of Claro Arterio. Acting on the instruction of Berbis, Kagawad Pedro Sumagdon went to Arterio’s house with pen and paper so he could write down any statement that Lolito would make.

Sumagdon found Lolito lying on his right side. When Sumagdon asked why Lolito was wounded, Lolito answered that he was shot by Obat Boller, Nonoy Boller, and Bayani Boller. Sumagdon wrote down the statement, which was translated into English as identifying the persons seen by Lolito, describing them as clothed with military uniforms and some of them as members of CHDF of Bu-aw, and locating the shooting incident near the coconut plantation of Arsenio Orquin. The statement was witnessed and heard by Roberto Tolin and Ponciano Orquin. The written statement, entitled Ante-Mortem, was signed by Sumagdon, Tolin, and Orquin. According to the witnesses, Lolito was unable to move his right hand at that time.

Lolito was carried on a hammock to Bu-aw for treatment. He died before reaching the hospital.

Scene Investigation and Autopsy Findings

Roberto Tolin and others went to the scene and found the lifeless body of Arsenio Orquin lying face up. Across the river, they found the corpse of Jesus Orquin. The witnesses gathered several empty shells near the copra kiln. The bodies of Jesus and Arsenio were brought to Gandara for autopsy.

Dr. Cresilda Teston-Aguilar, who conducted the autopsy, reported gunshot-related injuries and diagnosed death as irreversible shock secondary to hemorrhage secondary to gunshot wounds for each victim. For Lolito de la Cruz, the autopsy described an avulsed gunshot wound at the umbilical area with transection of vital arteries and veins and evisceration of the large intestines. For Jesus Orquin, the autopsy described an avulsed gunshot wound to the thigh area transecting the femoral artery and veins, with fracture of the distal femur. For Arsenio Orquin, the autopsy described multiple avulsed gunshot wounds to the upper right thigh and the right leg, transecting significant arteries and veins.

Defense Theory and Testimonies

The accused-appellants proffered defenses of alibi and sought to distance themselves from participation in the killings.

Ronito Boller testified that on October 27, 1995, he was fetched at around 7:00 a.m. to work on Luz Villocero’s farm and stayed there until 5:00 p.m. He stated that Jacinto Orquin, the private complainant, killed his cousin Tantoy Boller, and that Eduardo, Tantoy’s elder brother, later filed a case against Jacinto whom Eduardo also claimed was killed by Jacinto. He denied being a member of CAFGU.

Luz Villocero corroborated Ronito’s version by testifying that she fetched Ronito at around 7:00 a.m. for corn harvesting and that Ronito remained with them until 5:00 p.m.

Dianito Boller testified that he was at their house at 6:00 a.m. taking breakfast, then proceeded to the camp because he was on duty until 6:00 p.m. He took lunch at home and returned to the camp, staying with other personnel and a partner, including Sgt. Espiritu, Sgt. Palalay, and PFC Raginal Narcing Selages, from the camp.

Narciso Selajes, identified as a CAFGU member and the duty partner of Dianito, corroborated that both were on duty from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., with firearms issued to them but left behind in the camp after their duty.

Francisco Boller testified that he arrived at Barangay Buan on October 24, 1995 to work in the farm because his father called him. He stayed to help his father on October 26 but did not return to Barangay Hinayagan because he promised Zosimo Suarello to repair the roof. He stated that Zosimo left him around 10:00 a.m. because Zosimo was called by the commandant due to something that had happened. Francisco later learned that Arsenio and Jesus Orquin were killed, but the killers were not yet known, and that on October 28, 1995, they were arrested by police in connection with the killing of Arsenio and Jesus.

Trial Court Proceedings and Judgment

The cases were consolidated and tried jointly. After trial, the Regional Trial Court, Calbayog City, Branch 31, rendered judgment on May 16, 2000, finding all three accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of Murder for the killings of Lolito dela Cruz, Jesus Orquin, and Arsenio Orquin. Each accused-appellant was sentenced in each case to reclusion perpetua, with joint and several indemnification to the surviving heirs in the amount of P50,000.00 per count, and payment of costs. The trial court further directed the crediting of preventive imprisonment in accordance with the Revised Penal Code, conditional on voluntary written agreement to observe disciplinary rules.

Issues Raised on Appeal

The accused-appellants assigned as errors: first, that the trial court erred in considering Lolito’s statement as a dying declaration despite alleged failure to comply with formal requirements of law; second, that the trial court erred in appreciating treachery, which was not allegedly proven; and third, that the trial court erred in convicting them of Murder when guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Appellate Court Ruling on the Dying Declaration

The Court addressed whether Lolito’s statement qualified as a dying declaration, applying the requisites that the statement concerns the cause and surrounding circumstances of death; that at the time of the declaration the declarant was under consciousness of impending death; that the declarant was competent; and that the declaration is offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide where the declarant is the victim.

The Court held that the requisites were present. The Court noted that Lolito’s statement concerned the cause and circumstances that led to his death because Lolito identified the shooters, their appearances, and the incident location near the coconut plantation of Arsenio Orquin. The Court also observed that Lolito sustained fatal gunshot wounds, that survival was a remote possibility, and that Lolito pleaded to be brought to a hospital, had to be carried in a hammock, and died before reaching the hospital. Autopsy findings confirmed the cause of death as gunshot wounds. These circumstances, the Court held, indicated that Lolito was conscious of his impending death.

On the alleged formal defect in writing and authentication, the accused-appellants argued that the barangay tanod wrote the statement using his own words and did not read it to Lolito, did not ask Lolito to sign, and thus failed to comply with formalities. The Court rejected the argument by holding that the Rules did not require that the witness repeat the victim’s exact words. It was sufficient that the witness testify on the substance of what was said by the declarant. The Court relied on Sumagdon’s cross-examination explanation that while the written statement reflected statements from Lolito, Sumagdon’s mistake was failing to let Lolito sign.

The Court further stated the evidentiary rule that a dying declaration may be oral or written, and if oral, the witness who heard it may testify without reproducing the decedent’s exact words. It added that an unsigned dying declaration may be used as a memorandum by the witness who took it down. On this basis, the Court sustained the trial court’s treatment of Lolito’s Ante-Mortem statement as a dying declaration.

Assessment of Alibi and Identification

The Court likewise addressed the defense of alibi. It reiterated that courts viewed alibi with caution because it was inherently unreliable and easily fabricated. For alibi to prosper, the accused had to prove not only that he was elsewhere when the offense was committed, but also that it would have been physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene.

The Court held that the accused-appellants failed to discharge this burden. It gave weight to the positive identification of the accused-appellants by Lolito de la Cruz through the dying declaration and by Jacinto Orquin as the persons who were pointing firearms and firing at the copra kiln. The Court noted that Jacinto’s testimony was found by the trial court to be straightforward and equivocal. Accordingly, it held that the dying declaration and the positive identification defeated the alibi.

Treachery Not Qualifying; Conspiracy Established

While the Court sustained guilt, it modified the characterization of the offense. It held that the trial court erred in appreciating treachery as a qualifying circumstance because the record did not show the exact manner of the killing. The Court ruled that treachery could not be presumed; it had to be proven clearly and convincingly as clearly as the killing itself. Any doubt on the existence of treachery had to be r

...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