CASE NO.

238 – REYES
ARTICLE 14: AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
People vs. Sarmiento

MAIN POINT:
Mere determination to commit the crime does not of itself establish evident
premeditation for it must appear, not only that the accused made a decision to commit
the crime prior to the moment of execution, but also that his decision was the result of
meditation, calculation or reflection or persistent attempt.

FACTS:
Sarmiento was accused by the Provincial Fiscal of Antique of the crime of murder with
the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the generic aggravating circumstance of
known premeditation. He admitted to the killing but pleaded self-defense. The lower
court rejected this plea and found him guilty, however, only of the crime of homicide on
the ground that the treachery and evident premeditation were not fully proven.

ISSUE:
Whether the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation was present.

RULING:
No. It is true that two days immediately preceding the shooting, appellant threatened to
shoot the deceased and on the eve of the killing, appellant expressed his intention to
finish him. However, there was no showing, that in between, appellant made plans or
sought the deceased to accomplish the killing. In fact, the killing happened when
appellant was plowing the field and the deceased unexpectedly appeared thereat. It is
clear that appellant’s act of shooting the deceased was not premeditated.

The rule is settled that the qualifying circumstance of premeditation is satisfactorily

established only if it is proved that the defendant has deliberately planned to commit the
crime, and had persistently and continuously followed it, notwithstanding that he had
ample time and sufficient time to allow his conscience to overcome the determination of
his will, if he had so desired, after meditation and reflection. In other words it
contemplates cold and deep meditation, and tenacious persistence in the
accomplishment of the criminal act.

CONCLUSION:
Since there was no showing, that in between, the appellant made plans or sought the
deceased to accomplish the killing, the qualifying circumstance of premeditation cannot
be satisfactorily established since there was no deliberate plan to commit the crime and
persistently followed it.
 CASE NO. 239 – REYES
ARTICLE 14: AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
People vs. Manansala

MAIN POINT:
Evident premeditation, while inherent in robbery, may be aggravating in robbery with
homicide only if the premeditation included the killing of the victim because they must
have an agreement, they have to meditate and reflect on the manner of carrying out the
crime and they have to act coordinately in order to succeed. But in the case of implied
conspiracy, no such evident premeditation may not be appreciated.

FACTS:
Colmo and his girlfriend, Nisperos, were sitting at one end of a bench in a shed. They
were waiting for a ride home. Seated at the other end of the bench were three men who
were talking among themselves. Nisperos was looking at the approaching bus they
were to take when suddenly she heard a shot that made her scamper in fright. She
realized seconds later that she had left her boyfriend behind, and so she turned back.
She froze in horror. Colmo was slumped on the ground with a bleeding head. She
rushed to aid him, but one of the three men jumped over the bench and pointed a gun at
her. She stopped short. He took the pistol from the fallen victim. She looked at the man
but he did not harm her or even speak to her. As he fled with his two companions, she
started shouting for help. Colmo died from cardio-respiratory arrest due to shock and
hemorrhage as a result of the gunshot wound in the head. Manansala was charged with
the crime of robbery with homicide committed in conspiracy with two unidentified
persons and with the aggravating circumstance of premeditation.

ISSUE:
Whether the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation was present.

RULING:
No. Evident premeditation is not inherent in robbery with homicide. In such an offense,
the evident premeditation must relate to the killing and not to the robbery. According to
Chief Justice Ramon C. Aquino: Under normal conditions, where conspiracy is directly
established, with proof of the attendant deliberation and selection of the method, time
and means of executing the crime, the existence of evident premeditation can be taken
for granted. But in the case of implied conspiracy, evident premeditation may not be
appreciated, in the absence of proof as to how and when the plan to kill the victim was
hatched or what time elapsed before it was carried out, so that it cannot be determined
if the accused had "sufficient time between its inception and its fulfillment
dispassionately to consider and accept the consequences." There should be a showing
that the accused had the opportunity for reflection and persisted in effectuating his
criminal design.

CONCLUSION:
Since there was no showing that the accused had the opportunity for reflection and
persisted in effectuating the criminal design, such evident premeditation cannot be
aggravating in robbery with homicide because there was implied conspiracy. Hence, no
prior agreement to kill was made.