GR 178541 March 27, 2008
People vs. Zeta
Criminal Case Digest
Digested Cases
Criminal Law
FACT:
On or about the 28th day of October 1995 in Quezon City,
Angelo Zeta and his wife Petronilla Zeta was found conspiring together,
confederating with and helping one another, with intent to kill, attacked,
assaulted and employed personal violence to Ramon Garcia by shooting the latter
with a .45 caliber pistol hitting him on the different parts of his body which
ultimately caused his death.
The Regional Trial Court ruled that Ramon’s killing was
attended by the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and
nocturnity.
On December 24, 2002, Petronilla filed a Notice of Appeal
with the Regional Trial Court stating that there are no testimonial evidence
presented before the lower court that could sufficiently served as justifiable
basis to warrant the reversal of the appealed decision rendered insofar as
Petronilla is concerned but then upon being informed of the health predicament
of the undersigned counsel, Petronilla voluntarily decided to withdraw the
appeal, the appeal is dismissed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there is aggravating
circumstance of evident premeditation in the commission of the crime.
HELD:
No, the court held that the aggravating circumstance of
evident premeditation cannot be appreciated. Evident premeditation qualifies
the killing of a person to murder if the following evidence are present: (a)
the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (b)an act manifestly
indicating that the culprit clung to his resolve; and (c) a sufficient interval
of the time between the determination or conception and the execution of the
crime to allow him to reflect upon the consequence of his act and to allow his
conscience to overcome the resolution of his will if he desired to hearken to
its warning.
In the case at bar, the third element of premeditation is
lacking. The span of 30 minutes or half an hour from the time appellant shot
Ramon could not have afforded them full opportunity for meditation and
reflection on the consequences of the crime they committed. The court held that
the lapse of 30 minutes between the determination to commit a crime and the
execution is insufficient for a full meditation on the consequences of the act.
