PLT LEA FE C ARCILLA

PSOBC CLASS 2021-03

1. What is Evident Premeditation?

The essence of Evident Premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be
preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal
intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. 1 Thus, evident
premeditation may not be appreciated absent any proof as to how and when the plan to
kill was hatched or what time elapsed before it was carried out. 2 The premeditation to
kill must be plain and notorious, and thereafter proven by evidence of outward acts
showing such intent to kill. It is imperative to prove that the accused indeed underwent a
process of "cold and deep meditation, and a tenacious persistence in the
accomplishment of the criminal act." Accordingly, there can be no evident premeditation
when the determination to commit the crime was immediately followed by execution.
The elements of evident premeditation are: (1) a previous decision by the accused to
commit the crime; (2) overt act/acts manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his
determination; and (3) a lapse of time between the decision to commit the crime and its
actual execution sufficient to allow accused to reflect upon the consequences of his
acts. In evident premeditation, there must be a clear reflection on the part of the
offender. However, if the killing was accidental, there was no evident premeditation.
What is necessary to show and to bring about evident premeditation aside from showing
that as some prior time, the offender has manifested the intention to kill the victim, and
subsequently killed the victim. In order for evident premeditation to be considered, the
very person/offended party premeditated against must be the one who is the victim of
the crime. It is not necessary that the victim is identified. It is enough that the victim is
determined so he or she belongs to a group or class who may be premeditated against.
This is a circumstance that will qualify a killing from homicide to murder.

2. Discuss the difference in the period “sufficient lapse of time” in two cases.

The facts of Dumdum and Crisostomo case substantially differ from one another, hence
the difference in the decision of the Supreme Court. In the case of Dumdum, the
accused perpetrated the crime of Murder to exact revenge for stabbing the Mayor of
Happy Go Lucky Gang to which accused are members. It is also stated that they lie in
wait for the victim who hailed from the hospital going to the vocational school. The facts
of the case implies that there is a sufficient lapse of time since the stabbing of the mayor
and the murder incident considering that the victim hailed from the hospital and the
accused waited for him to be discharged. The lapse of time between the stabbing of the
mayor and the murder incident should have been enough to restore the accused normal
equanimity, showing that the accused has really clung to their determination to kill the
victim and that the accused had already reflected on their actions. While in the case of
Crisostomo it is apparent that the Murder was committed out of passion or obfuscation.
1
People vs Durante 53 Phil. 363
2
People vs Peñones G.R. No.71153, Aug. 16, 1991
It was evidenced by the fact that merely two hours has elapsed from the time of killing
and the failure of the victim to comply the wishes of the accused which motivated the
latter to kill the victim. Thus, one hour is enough in the Dumdum case considering that
there is already sufficient time for the accused to overcome their motive of revenge but
has chosen to proceed with their criminal act despite having sufficient time to reflect
upon their actions unlike in the Crisostomo case, two hours is held to be not enough
because the accused has no time to reflect upon his action and was merely motivated
by passion.

3. In the charge “robbery with homicide” accompanied by arson, is arson

aggravating? State your basis.

Yes. If the intent of the offender is to commit robbery and in the occasion of robbery,
homicide and arson was committed, the crime committed will be robbery with homicide
based on the hierarchy of special complex crimes. Based on a long line of cases, arson
will only be treated as an aggravating circumstance which will be likened to ignominy or
inflicting unnecessary wrong which was not included in the main criminal objective. No
such crime as arson with homicide. Law enforcers only use this to indicate that a killing
occurred while arson was being committed. At the most, you could designate it as
“death as a consequence of arson. Otherwise, the crime would be robbery with
homicide, or robbery with rape, or robbery with intentional mutilation, in that order, and
the arson would only be an aggravating circumstance. It is essential that robbery
precedes the arson, as in the case of rape and intentional mutilation, because the
amendment included arson among the rape and intentional mutilation which have
accompanied the robbery. Moreover, it should be noted that arson has been made a
component only of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons in said
Article 294, but not of robbery by the use of force upon things in Articles 299 and 302.
So, if the robbery was by the use of force upon things and therewith arson was
committed, two distinct crimes are committed.