a collections of case digests and laws that can help aspiring law students to become a lawyer.
People vs. Macaspac
G.R. No.198954,February 22, 2017
On July 7, 1988, Macaspac was having drinks with Surban, Barcomo, Reyes, and Jebulan on Pangako Street, Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. In the course of their drinking, an argument ensued between Macaspac and Jebulan. It became so heated that, Macaspac uttered to the group: Hintayin nyo ako d'yan, wawalisin ko kayo, and then left. After around three minutes Macaspac returned wielding a kitchen knife. He confronted and taunted Jebulan, saying: Ano? Jebulan simply replied: Tama na. At that point, Macaspac suddenly stabbed Jebulan on the lower right area of his chest, and ran away. Surban and the others witnessed the stabbing of Jebulan. The badly wounded Jebulan was rushed to the hospital but was pronounced dead on arrival. The case was archived for more than 15 years because Macaspac had gone into hiding and remained at large until his arrest on July 28, 2004. Upon his arraignment on August 31, 2004, he pleaded not guilty to the foregoing information.
Whether or not evident premeditation must be appreciated in the case instead of treachery
No. The requisites for the appreciation of evident premeditation are: (1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the accused had clung to his determination to commit the crime; and (3) the lapse of a sufficient length of time between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. The first and second elements of evident premeditation were thereby established, but the third requisite is absent in this case; such that by quickly returning to the group with the knife, Macaspac let no appreciable time pass to allow him to reflect upon his resolve to carry out his criminal intent. It was as if the execution immediately followed the resolve to commit the crime. Accordingly, we cannot appreciate the attendance of evident premeditation in the killing.
Without the Prosecution having sufficiently proved the attendance of either treachery or evident premeditation, Macaspac was guilty only of homicide for the killing of Jebulan.