G.R. No. 241632 , October 14, 2020
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Angelito Dayrit y Himor, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

The case involves the murder of spouses Ariel and Lourdes Serenilla. On the evening of August 31, 2013, witness Lloyd Ontiveros saw accused-appellant Angelito Dayrit, wearing a helmet and black jacket on a motorcycle, acting suspiciously by observing a group that included Ariel. Dayrit left but soon returned with a similarly attired companion. They drove back and forth along the street. Later, as Ariel and Lourdes boarded a tricycle, Dayrit and his companion blocked it and fired shots, killing both victims before fleeing.
The ponencia affirmed Dayrit’s conviction for two counts of murder, appreciating the aggravating circumstances of treachery, use of a motor vehicle, and evident premeditation. The majority found evident premeditation from the accused’s acts of monitoring the victims and driving around while disguised, which indicated planning and a waiting period for the perfect opportunity to attack.

ISSUE

Whether the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation was correctly appreciated against the accused-appellant.

RULING

Justice Lopez, in a Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, agreed with the affirmance of the murder convictions and the appreciation of treachery and use of a motor vehicle. However, he dissented on the finding of evident premeditation. The legal logic is that for evident premeditation to exist, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the time the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating he clung to that determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution to allow for cool reflection.
Justice Lopez emphasized that while the acts of scouting and wearing disguises indicate planning, they are insufficient by themselves to prove the specific time of the initial criminal resolve and the sufficient intervening period for cool thought. Citing jurisprudence, he noted that such a period must be clearly established, with cases recognizing intervals ranging from one hour to one month as sufficient, provided there is positive evidence. Here, the prosecution evidence only showed the stalking and subsequent attack on the same night, without proving how long before the attack the plan was conceived. Mere inferences of planning from the accused’s conduct, without clear evidence of the temporal element for reflection, cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the element of a sufficient lapse of time for cool reflection was not satisfactorily established.