CO, SELYNN
Article III. Section 14. Right to be Informed. Absence of Qualifying Circumstances.
People v. Baldogo – G.R. 128106-07 [2003]
FACTS: Gonzalo Baldogo alias Baguio was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and
Kidnapping, imposing on him the penalty of death and reclusion perpetua respectively. The Informations against
him stated that on February 22, 1996, while serving sentence at the Iwahig Prison and Penal Farm for homicide,
Jorge Camacho was killed by the accused and co-accused, Bermas, while Julie Camacho, his sister, who was 12
years old, was detained and deprived of her liberty by the accused, for more than 5 days. Jorge and Julie were the
children of a security guard in the prison, who resided there.
The trial court convicted accused-appellant of murder with the qualifying aggravating circumstance of evident
premeditation. The trial court also appreciated against accused-appellant the qualifying aggravating circumstance of
abuse of superior strength.
ISSUE: W/N the qualifying circumstances of murder apply in this case?
HELD: While the Court agrees that accused-appellant is guilty of murder, it does not agree with the rulings of the
trial court that the crime was qualified by evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength. To warrant a finding
of evident premeditation, the prosecution must establish the confluence of the following requisites:
x x x (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. x x x
The qualifying aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation, like any other qualifying circumstance, must be
proved with certainty as the crime itself. A finding of evident premeditation cannot be based solely on mere
lapse of time from the time the malefactor has decided to commit a felony up to the time that he actually commits it.
The prosecution must adduce clear and convincing evidence as to when and how the felony was planned and
prepared before it was effected. The prosecution is burdened to prove overt acts that after deciding to commit the
felony, the felon clung to his determination to commit the crime. The law does not prescribe a time frame that must
elapse from the time the felon has decided to commit a felony up to the time that he commits it. Each case must be
resolved on the basis of the extant factual milieu.
In this case, the prosecution failed to prove evident premeditation. The barefaced fact that accused-appellant and
Bermas hid the bag containing their clothing under a tree located about a kilometer or so from the house of Julio Sr.
does not constitute clear evidence that they decided to kill Jorge and kidnap Julie. It is possible that they hid their
clothing therein preparatory to escaping from the colony. There is no evidence establishing when accused-appellant
and Bermas hid the bag under the tree. The prosecution even failed to adduce any evidence of overt acts on the part
of accused-appellant, nor did it present evidence as to when and how he and Bermas planned and prepared to kill
Jorge and kidnap Julie and to prove that the two felons since then clung to their determination to commit the said
crimes. Although accused-appellant and Bermas were armed with bolos, there is no evidence that they took
advantage of their numerical superiority and weapons to kill Jorge. Hence, abuse of superior strength cannot be
deemed to have attended the killing of Jorge. Nighttime cannot likewise be appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance because there is no evidence that accused-appellant and Bermas purposely sought nighttime to
facilitate the killing or to insure its execution or accomplishment or to evade their arrest. Neither is dwelling
aggravating because there is no evidence that Jorge was killed in their house or taken from their house and killed
outside the said house.
In light of the evidence on record, it is clear that the killing of Jorge was qualified by treachery. When Jorge was
killed by accused-appellant and Bermas, he was barely 14 years old. The Court has previously held that the killing
of minor children who by reason of their tender years could not be expected to put up a defense is attended by
treachery. Since treachery attended the killing, abuse of superior strength is absorbed by said circumstance.
