PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.

RODOLFO
GRABADOR JR. ET AL.
G.R. No. 227504, June 13, 2018

Doctrine/s:

1. TREACHERY - The offender commits any of the crimes

against the person, employing means, methods or forms in
the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to
insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended part might make. The offended
party was not given an opportunity to make a defense.
2. EVIDENT PREMEDITATION - has reference to the ways of
committing the crime, implies a deliberate planning of the
act before executing it. The criminal act must be preceded by
cool thought and reflection upon the decision to carry out the
criminal intent during the time interval sufficient to arrive at
a calm judgment

Facts:
It was alleged that on April 13, 2001, Rodolfo Grabador Jr.,
Roger Abierra, Date Abierra and Alex Abierra conspired and
confederated to kill with treachery and evident premeditation
Dennis Sumugat using an improvised firearm (sumpak). Gunshot
wounds were inflicted towards the victim and died on April 21, 2001.
Noel Sumugat (Dennis’ brother) narrated that prior to the
incident, he saw his brother talking to Rodolfo. He was about 7
meters away from the two talking. The two ended their talk with a
shake hand though they had an altercation. After some time,
Rodolfo returned with the other accused together with a sumpak.
And then suddenly, Alex shot Dennis.
Alex argued that during the time of the incident, he was
residing in Bicol and was in Naga to attend the wake of his father.
He only moved to Manila in 2004.
Issue/s:
(1) Whether or not the murder was qualified by treachery?
(2) Whether or not the killing was attended by evident
premeditation?
Ruling:
The main essence of treachery is that “the attack comes
without a warning and in a swift, deliberate and unexpected
manner, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim
no chance to resist or escape the sudden blow”. In the case, Dennis
had no idea about the attack considering that Dennis assumed that
the issue between Rodolfo and him had been settled by their prior
talk and hand shaking. It was also confirmed in the medico-legal
that the victim sustained multiple gunshot wounds. The court ruled
that treachery was present in the case.
However, the court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove
the presence of evident premeditation. The requisites of Evident
premeditation were not met including (1) the time when the
offender determined to commit the crime (2) act manifestly
indicating that he clung to his determination and (3) sufficient lapse
of time between the determination and execution, to allow him to
reflect about the consequences of his act. In the turn of events in the
case, the court ruled that the lapse of 15 minutes preceding the
attack is not a sufficient to conclude that evident premeditation is
present.