This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2000-05-30 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| In this case, the trial court found accused-appellant's threat to the victim as an overt act manifesting evident premeditation. However, Josephine Sevillana admitted in court that she was not able to confirm the threat made by accused-appellant as she did not hear any word uttered by him when she arrived at the Northmall and her sister did not tell her anything when she arrived at the gift shop. An expression of hatred does not necessarily imply a resolution to commit a crime; there must be a demonstration of outward acts of a criminal intent that is notorious and manifest.[34] Evident premeditation must be based on external acts which are evident, not merely suspected, and which indicate deliberate planning.[35] Thus, evident premeditation may not be appreciated against accused-appellant. | |||||
|
2000-02-28 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Evident premeditation indicates deliberate planning and preparation.[104] The foregoing facts show too clearly that the killing of the victims were calculated and premeditated. In this case, accused-appellant had more than ample time to coolly reflect upon the consequences of his act when the victims were able to escape the first time they were pursued by appellant and his group. Instead, appellant had Jack and Boy Negro/Brando summoned and ordered them to catch the victims and kill them if they returned. Appellant was afforded even more time to contemplate on the repercussions of his deed when Jack and Boy Negro/Brando set out to do his bidding. However, instead, of desisting from his murderous inclinations, accused-appellant clung to his resolve when Jack and Boy Negro/Brando returned with the two victims and ordered them killed. | |||||