THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 227863, September 20, 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PEDRITO ORDONA Y RENDON, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
To qualify the killing of a person to the crime of murder, evident premeditation must be proven with reasonable certainty. Facts regarding "how and when the plan to kill was hatched"1 are indispensable. The requirement of deliberate planning should not be based merely on inferences and presumptions but on clear evidence.
For this Court's resolution is an Ordinary Appeal from the June 1, 2015 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 06280, which affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant Pedrito Ordona y Rendon (Ordona) for the crime of murder.
In an Information, Ordona was charged of murder punished under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. The accusatory portion of the Information read:
That on or about the 1st day of January, 2005, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with intent to kill, taking advantage of superior strength, with evident premeditation and treachery, attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the person IRENEO A. HUBAY, by then and there stabbing him on the trunk with a bladed weapon thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds, which were the direct and immediate cause of his untimely death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said Ireneo A. Hubay.Ordona, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty during arraignment, Trial on the merits ensued.4
CONTRARY TO LAW.3
WHEREFORE, accused PEDRITO ORDONA y RENDON is hereby pronounced guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Accused Ordona is further ordered to indemnify the Heirs of Ireneo Hubay the following: (a) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P50,000.00 as moral damages; (c) P30,000.00 as exemplary damages and ([d]) interest on all damages awarded at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment.Ordona appealed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court. In his Brief,22 he alleged that there were material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses.23 Ordona argued, in the alternative, that assuming he may be held criminally liable, the trial court erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery.24 Treachery cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance because the purported attack was not sudden or unexpected. Ordona pointed out that he called Hubay's attention before approaching him. Hubay "was aware of the imminent danger to his life."25 Evident premeditation cannot likewise be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance because the prosecution failed to establish an overt act indicating his resolution to kill Hubay.26
SO ORDERED.21
Article 248. Murder Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua, to death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:For evident premeditation to qualify the killing of a person to the crime of murder, the following must be established by the prosecution "with equal certainty as the criminal act itself"50:
- With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity;
- In consideration of a price, reward, or promise;
- By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin;
- On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity;
- With evident premeditation;
- With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.
It is indispensable for the prosecution to establish "how and when the plan to kill was hatched or how much time had elapsed before it was carried out."52 In People v. Abadies,53 this Court underscored this requirement, thus:
(a) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination; and (c) a sufficient interval of time between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the. consequences of his act.51
Evident premeditation must be based on external facts which are evident, not merely suspected, which indicate deliberate planning. There must be direct evidence showing a plan or preparation to kill, or proof that the accused meditated and reflected upon his decision to kill the victim. Criminal intent must be evidenced by notorious outward acts evidencing a determination to commit the crime. In order to be considered an aggravation of the offense, the circumstance must not merely be "premeditation" but must be "evident premeditation."In this regard, evident premeditation cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance in the present case. The prosecution failed to establish the time when accused-appellant res.lved to kill Hubay. There is no evidence on record to show the moment accused-appellant hatched his plan. In People v. Borbon:55
The date and, if possible, the time when the malefactor determined to commit the crime is essential, because the lapse of time for the purpose of the third requisite is computed from such date and time.54 (Ermphasis supplied, citations omitted)
[Evident premeditation] must be based on external acts which must be notorious, manifest and evident-not merely suspecting-indicating deliberate planning. - Evident premeditation like other circumstances that would qualify a killing as murder, must be established by clear and positive evidence showing the planning and preparation stages prior to the killing. Without such evidence, mere presumptions and inferences, no matter how logical and probable, will not suffice.Accused-appellant's act of lurking outside the house can hardly be considered as an over act indicating his resolution to kill Hubay.
It is indispensable to show how and when the plan to kill was hatched or how much time had elapsed before it was carried out.56 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
Endnotes:
1People v. Borbon, 469 Phil. 132, 145 (2004) (Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division].
2Rollo, pp.2-10. The Decision ws penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy of the Fourteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3 Id. at 3.
4 Id.
5 CA rollo, p. 40.
6Rollo, pp. 3-4.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 CA rollo, p.41.
10Rollo, p. 4.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id. at 5.
15 Id.
16 CA rollo, pp. 42-43.
17Rollo, p. 5.
18 Id.
19 Id.
20 CA rollo, pp. 39-48. The Decision, docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-05-131859, was penned by Presiding Judge Madonna C. Echiverri of Branch 81, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City.
21 Id. at 48.
22 Id. at 25-38.
23 Id. at 31-33.
24 Id. at 33-36.
25 Id. at 34.
26 Id. at 34-36.
27 Id. at 53-66.
28 Id. at 60-61.
29 Id. at 63.
30 Id.
31 Id.
32Rollo, pp. 2-10. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy of the Fourteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
33 Id. at 7.
34 Id.
35 Id. at 8-9.
36 Id. at 9.
37 Id. at 11-14.
38 CA rollo, p. 92.
39Rollo, p. 1.
40 Id. at 17-18.
41 Id. at 19-22, Office of the Solicitor General's Manifestation and rollo, pp. 24-28, accused-appellant's Manifestation.
44People v. Acuram, 284-A Phil. 756, 765 (1994) [Per J. Romero, Third Division].
45 Id.
46 Id.
47 CA rollo, pp. 31-32.
48People v. Rabutin, 338 Phil. 705, 713 (1997) [Per J. Melo, Third Division].
49Rollo, pp, 4-5.
50People v. Abadies,436 Phil. 98, 105 (2002) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, En Banc].
51People v. Balleras, 432 Phil. 1018, 1026 (2002) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, En Banc].
52People v. Borbon, 469 Phil. 132, 145 (2004) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division].
53 436 Phil. 98 (2002) (Per J. Ynares-Santiago, En Banc].
54 Id. at 106.
55 469 Phil. 132 (2004) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division].
56 Id. at 145.
57People v. Abadies, 469 Phil. 132, 105 (2002) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division].
58 Id.
59Rollo, p. 4.
60People v. Ablao, 299 Phil. 276, 280 (1994) [Per J. Padilla, Second Division].
61 G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=jurisprudence/2016/april2016/202124.pdf> 27 [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
62 Id. at 27.
63See Nacar v. Gallery Frames, et al., 716 Phil. 267, 281-283 (2013) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].