G.R. Nos. 111098-99 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. PIO BISO ALIAS BISOY, EDUARDO YALONG ALIAS BULOY.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Court finds both accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation not offset by any mitigating circumstances and the Court hereby sentences each of them to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. Ordering both accused to indemnify the heirs of Dario Pacaldo y Luega the sum of P 50,000.00. Ordering both accused to pay litigation expenses and the costs of this proceedings. [8] The accused appealed from the decision of the court. [9] After filing his brief with this Court on June 12, 1999, Pio filed a motion dated January 20, 2000 praying for the withdrawal of his appeal. After verifying the veracity and the voluntariness of the motion, the Court, in a Resolution dated October 16, 2000, granted the said motion and declared the case closed and terminated as to Pio Biso. [10] Appellant Eduardo filed his brief contending that: I THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT TREACHERY AND EVIDENT PREMEDITATION ATTENDED THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME. II THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME OF MURDER. [11] The appellant posits that the prosecution failed to prove beyond cavil of doubt that he killed the victim with treachery and evident premeditation. Hence, he is guilty only of homicide and not of murder. He avers that the prosecution failed to prove the essential requisites for evident premeditation. The trial court, on the other hand, stated in its decision that evident premeditation attended the commission of the crime: There was evident premeditation as shown by the burning hatred of accused Eduardo Yalong to avenge the dishonor of his sister Teresita Yalong who was earlier mashed and sexually molested by the deceased in the presence of said accused Yalong. Accused Yalong had a score to settle with the deceased Pacaldo, so he sought out the help of his ex-convict first cousin Pio Biso, who, together with two (2) others waited at the scene of the crime for more than one (1) hour near the house of the deceased until his arrival, thereafter they were able to carry out their plan when deceased arrived after midnight. [12] We agree with the appellant. Case law has it that qualifying circumstances must be proved with the same quantum of evidence as the crime itself. [13] For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the prosecution is required to prove the following: (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. [14] Evident premeditation is not presumed from mere lapse of time. The prosecution is burdened to prove that the malefactors had decided to commit a crime and performed an act manifestly indicating that the offender had clung to a previous determination to kill. [1