People v. Sabangan G.R. No. 191722

 

G.R. No. 191722               

December 11, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

GERRY SABANGAN AND NOLI BORN ASAL, Accused.

GERRY SABANGAN, Accused-Appellant.

Facts:

According to the prosecution, Eden was inside the store Flora Navales at Mega Market, Kidapawan while she was waiting for her husband. Flora and Abe Felonia, the barangay captain, were also in the store. She noticed the accused enter the store who roamed around three times. She heard Flora called her name and there she saw the accused positioned at the back of Felonia and pulling a gun with which he used to shoot Felonia at the back of his head three times. She saw Felonia fall down and she shouted for help. She tried to grapple the bad but she was no match to the accused. Another witness saw two guys one of which identified as Bornasal running towards his direction who were both wearing a jacket. 

The defense both of the accused denied their involvement with Felonia’s death. Five witnesses of Sabangan testified that he was in Luong helping for the preparation of a wedding of his relative. None of his witnesses executed an affidavit.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Sabangana and Bornasal guilty of murder while the CA reaffirmed the RTC’s decision but acquitted Bornasal due to reasonable doubt. Hence, this appeal by Sabangan.

Issue:

Is there an aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation?

Ruling:

None. To warrant a finding of evident premeditation, the prosecution must establish the confluence of the following requisites: (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. Evident premeditation, like other circumstances that would qualify a killing as murder, must be established by clear and positive evidence showing the planning and the preparation stages prior to the killing. Without such evidence, mere presumptions and inferences, no matter how logical and probable, will not suffice.

The prosecution’s evidence herein pertained merely to the actual commission by Sabangan of the crime. It did not submit any proof that Sabangan, at some prior time, determined to kill Felonia; that Sabangan performed an act manifestly indicating that he clung to his determination to kill Felonia; and that there was sufficient interval of time between his determination and execution which allowed Sabangan to reflect upon the consequences of his act.