Resultados Análisis descriptivo:

brother Ferdinand was walking behind him.She saw that their way was suddenly blocked by the brothers Jesus, Jr., Jimmy, and Nolito Julianda.Jimmy and Nolito tried to hack Teofilo so the latter alighted from the carabao and ran away. Both Teofilo and Ferdinand entered the store of a

certain Arlene Cabrillas.Approximately 20 people surrounded the store, 4 of whom she

recognized: the 3 Julianda brothers — and Samson Guerrero.From a distance of 10 meters she saw Nolito pull the hand of Teofilo and drag him towards the road. Nolito hacked the back of Teofilo. Despite this, Teofilo was able to run and cross the road before he fell down. Jimmy likewise hacked Teofilo while Jesus hit Teofilo with a stone.Ferdinand Coralde went out of the store. He was met by Samson Guerrero who smashed his nose with a stone. Then the group ganged up on him. He was already down, when the group left him.Ferdinand, upon regaining consciousness, got up and ran away, leaving his brother Teofilo behind.

Jesus Julianda, Jr. and Samson Guerrero denied any participation in the murder and attempted murder charges against them. Jesus Julianda, Jr. claimed that he was in his house the whole day while Samson Guerrero claimed that he was just pacifying the quarrel between Ferdinand

Coralde and Jimmy Julianda.

HELD:The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength is absorbed in treachery. Since no evidence was adduced showing when the accused hatched the murderous plan and the interval of time therefrom to its commission we find that this case is not attended by the

aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation.Settled is the rule that when it is not shown as

to how and when the plan to kill was hatched or what time had elapsed before it was carried out,

evident premeditation cannot be considered.

EVIDENT PREMIDATATION PEOPLE v DELA CRUZ 398 SCRA 415 FACTS: Salvador de la Cruz, Tamano and Boy Negro knocked on the door of the house of Florencio Antonio, , Ferdinand Pearanda, saw Florencio fleeing for dear life, chased by

Tamano,Salvador and Boy Negro. Tamano stabbed him at the back. Bading and Boy Negro took turns in stabbing Florencio. Residents in the neighborhood saw the incident and shouted at Tamano, Bading and Boy Negro.

CAUSE OF DEATH:Multiple stab wounds

For his defense, Salvador denied having stabbed the victim. He admitted that he was present when Florencio was stabbed. He, however, insisted that Tamano and Boy Negro helped each other in fighting with and stabbing Florencio. Salvador claimed that when Tamano told him that he just had an altercation with Florencio, he (Salvador) suggested that Tamano and Florencio settle their differences. He even offered to act as mediator since Florencio was the godson of Salvadors father.

HELD:Crime Committed By Accused-Appellant

The trial court convicted accused-appellant of murder on its finding that treachery and evident premeditation attended the killing of Florencio.

The Court does not agree with the trial court. Case law has it that treachery must be proved with the same quantum of evidence as the crime itself. Treachery cannot be presumed; nor can it be based on mere surmises or speculations. In case of doubt, the same should be resolved in favor of the accused

Evident premeditation was not attendant because the prosecution failed to prove the elements

thereof, namely: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow himself to reflect upon the consequence of his act.

Salvador de la Cruzis guilty only of homicide.

PEOPLE v BALDOGO 396 SCRA 31 FACTS: Gonzalo Baldogo alias "Baguio" & Edgar Bermas alias "Bunso" were serving sentence in the Penal Colony of Palawan. They were also serving the Camacho family who resides w/in the Penal Colony. On Feb 22, 1996 Baguio & Bunso killed Jorge (14 y.o.) & abducted Julie (12 y.o.). They brought Julie up to the mountains.

 During their trek Baguio & Bunso were able to retrieve their clothing & belongings from a trunk which was located under a Tamarind tree.

 Feb. 28, 1996 – Baguio left Julie in the mountains to fend for herself. Julie went to the lowlands & there she asked for help from Nicodemus

 Baguio/Baldogo denied killing Jorge and kidnapping Julie. Baguio contends that while he was preparing for sleep he was approached by Bunso who was armed with a bloodied bolo. Bunso warned him not to shout, otherwise he will also be killed.

 Accused-appellant maintained that he did not intend to hurt Julie or deprive her of her liberty. He averred that during the entire period that he and Julie were in the mountain before Bermas left him, he tried to protect her from Bermas. Accused-appellant asserted that he wanted to bring Julie back to her parents after Bermas had left them and to surrender but accused- appellant was afraid that Julio Sr. might kill him.

Issues:WON the qualifying aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation can be appreciated.

 To warrant a finding of evident premeditation, the prosecution must establish the confluence of the ff. requisites

a. Time when offender determined to commit the crime;

b. An act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination; and

c. Sufficient interval of time between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.

 Evident premeditation must be proved with certainty as the crime itself

 It cannot be based solely on mere lapse of time from the time the malefactor has decided to commit a felony up to the time that he actually commits it.

 The prosecution is burdened to prove overt acts that after deciding to commit the felony, the felon clung to his determination to commit the crime. The law doesn‘t prescribe a time frame that must elapse from the time the felon has decided to commit a felony up to the time that he commits it.

 Barefaced fact that accused-appellant and Bermas hid the bag containing their clothing under a tree located about a kilometer or so from the house of Julio Sr. does not constitute

clear evidence that they decided to kill Jorge and kidnap Julie. It is possible that they hid

their clothing therein preparatory to escaping from the colony. – Insufficient evidence for

evident premeditation.

PEOPLE v DELADA 399 SCRA 538