PEOPLE vs. CAMPOMANES, GR No.

132568 / 6 February 2002

A security guard witnessed Rosita stabbing Alkonga with a balisong while

Campomanes was holding the victim’s hands up. The Court affirmed the decision of
the trial court to hold both accused guilty of murder due to treachery, but the
Court denied the existence of evident premeditation. While there was conspiracy due
to the acts of both accused witnessed at the time of the murder, there was no proof
showing that there was conspiracy to commit the crime BEFORE the act was done.

FACTS: Aureada, security guard at Rizal park and eyewitness presented by the
prosecution, testified that on October 30,1994 at 10:30pm, while he was guarding the
area around the monument of Rizal, he saw park photographerCampomanes running
after the deceased Alkonga. Campomanes caught Alkonga and grabbed the latter’s
collar and they both lost balance. Aureada blew his whistle to call their attention, but
the two park photographers did not stop, and Alkonga grabbed for Campomanes’s
camera and hit the latter. Then another park photographer, Rosita arrived and brought
out a “balisong”/fan knife, pointing it at Alkonga. Aureada tried to fire a warning shot
but he misfired and Rosita came after the security guard, to which Aureada then
started running away and eventually called on park security patrol. He then saw Rosita
stabbing Alkonga with the balisong while Campomanes held Alkonga’s arms up.
Then both Campomanes and Rosita ran away towards the Manila Hotel, where they
were both apprehended by the park security patrol later on. Alkonga died the day after
he was brought to the hospital due to multiple stab wounds.According to the accused,
they were merely defending themselves from Alkonga and that Rosita stabbed
Alkonga after they grappled with the knife. That before the incident, Alkonga hit
Rosita in the stomach after Rosita and some four female customers refused to allow
him to take their pictures. The trial court found both Campomanes and Alkonga guilty
of murder.

ISSUE: Whether or not evident premeditation was sufficiently established as a

qualifying circumstance in the commission of the crime.

RULING: The Court enumerated the requisites that need to be established to properly
appreciate the existence of evident premeditation:

1. the time when the accused determined to commit the crime;

2. an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and
3. a sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution to allow
him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.

The Court also said that, “where conspiracy is directly established, with proof of the
attendant deliberation and selection of the method, time and means of executing the
crime, the existence of evident premeditation can be taken for granted,” citing People
v. Custodio.

However, there was no evident premeditation in this case because no evidence of

conspiracy where premeditation was established between the two accused was
actually shown. In fact, conspiracy was only inferred (and established) from the acts
of both accused at the time, and not from any evidence showing that there was a plan
they both conspired in to kill the victim. There was, however, treachery established
and thus, both accused were still found guilty of murder.
 Manila Law College
Metro Manila

Case Digest: Legal Medicine

PEOPLE vs. CAMPOMANES, GR No. 132568,
February 6, 2002

Submitted to: Dr. Manuel G. Lagonera

Submitted by: Romualdo A. Oaferina Jr.