Article 14, Par. 13- Aggravating Circumstance

That the act be committed with evident premeditation.

Basis – has reference to the ways of committing the crime, implies a deliberate planning of the act before executing it

Essence – the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the decision to carry out the criminal intent during the time interval sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment

Requisites of evident premeditation:

The prosecution must prove:
1. The time when the offender determined to commit the crime
2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination
3. A sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution (to allow him to reflect on its consequences)

U.S. v Manalinde (14 Phil. 77)

Facts: Datu Mupuck directed Manalinde to go huramentado and kill the two persons he would meet in town in exchange for a pretty woman the former would give him to replace the latter’s wife that died about one hundred days ago. Mupuck, with a kris concealed in banana leaves, attacked in Cotobato a Spaniard and a Chinaman.

Held: The facts established evident premeditation.

Note: Manalinde met the three requisites necessary to establish evident premeditation. First, upon the date of his acceptance of the proposition from Datu Mupuck, it was established that he was determined to commit the crime. Second, he undertook the journey and provided himself with a weapon, which indicated his committal to the crime. Third, the journey was for a day and for a night, which indicates a time sufficient for the offender to realize the consequences of the act.

Other cases that establish evident premeditation:

People v Renegado

Renegado, giving vent to his anger, told his co-employee Ramirez and the security guard that he would kill Lira. On the school dance, Renegado asked the security guard if Lira was around. On the following day, he confided to Mrs. Benita Tan that he would have killed Lira had he seen her the night before. On Monday morning, he armed himself with a knife and proceeded to the canteen around 9:30 a.m. and stabbed the teacher Lira who had his back towards him. The three requisites were proven.

People v. Ong

The four accused held a meeting in Barrio Fiesta to lay out every detail of the planned murder. There was a careful selection of an ideal site for its commission.

People vs. Benito

The accused shot the victim while the latter was driving his car on P. Paredes Street. Upon reaching the corner, adjacent of Lepanto Street, he shot the victim eight times without any warning. The manner of the commission speaks eloquently of the evident premeditation which the court did not err in considering against the appellant.

People v Mojica

The deceased slapped the accused and asked him to kneel down. The latter made it clear of his plan to avenge the incident. Two days after, the accused looked inside a bus for the deceased, but the latter was not inside. The accused found the deceased in a jeep and stabbed him.

Essence of first requisite:

The date, and if possible, the time when the offender determined to commit the crime is essential, because the lapse of time for the purpose of the third requisite is computed from that date and time.

Necessity of second requisite:

The premeditation must be based on external acts and not presumed from the lapse of time. Criminal intent from the outwards acts must be notorious and manifest, purpose and determination must be plain and adopted after mature consideration on the part of the person who conceived the perpetration of the crime, as a result of deliberation, meditation, and reflection before its commission.

People v Carillo

The offender confessed his statement of proposal to kill the victim on the morning of June 29th. There is an absence of evidence that he meditated and reflected before the time the act was conceived and was actually perpetrated.

Indications of second requisite existence:

- The crime was carefully planned
- There was a previous preparation of the adequate means to carry it out
- A grave was prepared in an isolated place
- Making repeated statements that the hour of reckoning of the victim would arrive and arming themselves
- Sharpening of the bolo on the afternoon preceding the night of the crime
- The defendant confessed to have attempted thrice to take the life of the deceased in order to marry his widow
- The accused repeatedly plotted the commission of the murder over several weeks and made efforts to carry it out

Mere threats without the second element do not show evident premeditation:

- A threat to kill, unsupported by evidence, will be construed as nothing but from a feeling of rancor as it does not disclose the true criminal state of mind of the accused
- It is necessary to establish that the accused meditated on his intention between the time it was conceived and the time the crime was actually perpetrated.
Existence of ill-feeling of grudge alone is not proof of evident premeditation
- A grudge or resentment is not a conclusive proof of evident premeditation

Sufficient lapse of time:

- When the accused had three days time to meditate upon the crime intended to commit and prompted by impulse of the moment, as held in People v Lasafin
- The accused had one whole day to make the necessary preparations from the time he conceived the idea of attacking the deceased, as held in People v Dosal
- The accused had more the half a day to meditate and reflect and allow his conscience overcome the resolution of hos will
- Four hours between rage and aggression of the accused is sufficient time for desistance, as held in People v Lazada
- The lapse of 3.5 hours between the commission and the plan to commit is sufficient time for offenders to reflect upon the consequences, as held in People v Mostoles
- A quarter of an hour was not held as sufficient lapse of time to allow the conscience of the accused to overcome the resolution of his will as held in US v Blanco
- In People v Dumdum, Jr., one hour interval between commission and conception was held as sufficient lapse of time

Reason for the third requisite:

- The offender must be allowed to coolly and serenely think and deliberate on the meaning and consequences of his plan.
- Evident premeditation constitutes cold and deep meditation, and tenacious persistence in the accomplishment of the criminal act
Conspiracy generally presupposes premeditation:
- When conspiracy is established, the existence of evident premeditation is to be taken for granted.
- Exception: When conspiracy is implied, evident premeditation may not be appreciated, in the absence of proof as to how and when the plan to commit had elapsed before it was carried out.

Evident premeditation and price or reward can co-exist:

- If it is certain that as a general rule, price or reward implies premeditation, it is no less certain
that the latter may be present without the former
- Premeditation is absorbed by reward or promise
- Accomplishment of an act for a reward does not establish sufficiency of time to reflect on consequences.

Victim is different from intended

- Evident premeditation may not be properly taken into account when the person killed was different from the one the defendant proposed to kill.
- If it can be shown that the offenders were determined to kill anyone who would help the victim, evident premeditation may be considered for killing those who helped in the resistance of the victim
- However, it is not necessary that the accused planned to kill a particular person as when the accused carried out a plan to kill random victims

Evident premeditation in robbery

- Evident premeditation may aggravate the act if the plan included the killing of the victim
- If there is no evidence of the plan to kill in robbery, evident premeditation is not aggravating in robbery with homicide