Case Brief

G.R.NO. 140897
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. EFIPANIA DELA CRUZ GO
(at large) and RIZ JARLOS Y MATEO, accused-appellant.

Prepared by:
Sherry L Pepito
LLB-1

Submitted to:
Judge Teresita Saa
 EN BANC
G.R.NO. 140897 February 19, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. EFIPANIA DELA CRUZ GO
(at large) and RIZ JARLOS Y MATEO, accused-appellant.

Case Facts

Prosecution eyewitness, Arman Gunio, testified that around 8:45 PM of November 20,
1997, he was standing on the street in front of his residence in Calderon St,
Calumpang, Marikina, having a conversation with his neighbors. About 12 meters away,
a white Mitsubishi Lancer was suddenly cut by a maroon Mitsubishi Space Wagon while
it was traveling down the road. There was an exchange of shouts and then the driver of
the maroon vehicle alighted, positioned himself at the driver’s side of the white car and
shot its driver. The body of the driver was slightly exposed outside the vehicle so the
assailant shot him again. Four (4) successive shots were heard so the eyewitness and
the neighbors ran for cover. But before the witness Gunio ran, the assailant turned his
face towards him and the witness was able to see the assailant’s face which was
illuminated by the white car’s headlights. The assailant was later identified as Riz Jarlos
and the driver of the white car as Ronald Beda Pillejera.
Dr. Anthony Llamas, Medico-legal Officer of the Philippine National Police Crime
Laboratory, conducted the autopsy of Pillejera’s remains and found a total of eight (8)
gunshot wounds, six (6) of which proved to be fatal. He further testified that the first shot
hit the victim on the left trunk. Based on the position of the wound, the gun was pointed
slightly downwards which means that the victim was probably seated with the
assailant’s gun level with the victim when fired. According to his expert opinion, the last
shot made was aimed at the head, hitting the victim on the right side of the head before
the ear. Based on the tattooing, it was fired at close range or at least six (6) inches to
two (2) feet away from the victim
Expert witness Police Inspector Maritess Bugnay who conducted the ballistic
examination testified that the eight (8) fired cartridges and three (3) metallic fragments
found at the scene of the crime matched with the three (3) test bullets of the 9-mm pistol
retrieved from Jarlos which led to the conclusion that these were fired from one and the
same pistol.
Prosecution witness Firearm and Explosives Officer of the Philippine National Police
Romeo de Guzman testified that appellant Jarlos was a registered firearm holder of the
pistol used in the crime as evidenced by the certificate and license issued by the
Firearms and Explosives office.
Appellant invoked self-defense. He alleged that the vehicle he was driving was bumped
from behind so he went out of his vehicle to confront the offending driver. But instead he
saw a hand poke out from the passenger’s seat window, wielding a gun which fired at
him. He then crawled back to his car and retrieved his own gun. He heard the driver’s
car door open and saw the driver run away. He then exchanged fire with the gunman in
the white car and when the latter fell down, he recognized him to be the victim Pillejera,
with whom he earlier had two altercations. Appellant added Pillejera had previously filed
a case against appellant for grave threats. Appellant believed Pillejera was jealous
because appellant and co-accused Go were former sweethearts while Pillejera was her
current lover.
The trial court found the appellant GUILTY of the crime of Murder for the killing of
Ronald Beda Pillejera qualified by treachery and evident premeditation and sentenced
him to suffer the penalty of Death by lethal injection.
For automatic review of the Supreme Court the appellant assigns the following errors, to
wit:

1. The trial court gravely erred in finding that treachery and evident premeditation
have qualified the killing,
2. The capital punishment as imposed by the trial court is not warranted.

Issue

1. Was the killing qualified by treachery and aggravated by evident premeditation?

2. Did the trial court err in sentencing the appellant to death?

Holdings

1. The Supreme Court held that the killing was qualified by treachery but there is no
showing on record that it was aggravated by evident premeditation.
2. The Supreme Courts AFFIRMS the decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Marikina that the appellant Riz Jarlos is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Murder with the MODIFICATION that the penalty imposed on him is
reduced to RECLUSION PERPETUA.
Rule of Law

Under Article 2481 of the Revised Penal Code murder is punishable with the penalty of
Reclusion Perpetua to Death. Since neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance is
shown, the lesser penalty of Reclusion Perpetua should be imposed on the appellant
following Article 63(2)2 of the Revised Penal Code.

Reasoning

Evident premeditation requires proof showing: (1) the time when the accused decided to
commit the crime; (2) the overt act manifestly indicating that he clung to his
determination; (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the decision and the execution,
allowing the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act. The prosecution failed
to present conclusive proof of evident premeditation. Previous altercations are
insufficient to establish that the appellant meditated and reflected on his intention
between the time the plan was conceived and the time the crime was actually
committed. Furthermore, there was not an iota of evidence to show that there was even
a conceived plan to begin with. Hence, the aggravating circumstance of evident
premeditation cannot be appreciated.

1ART. 248. Murder.-Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of
murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua, to death if committed with any of the following circumstances:
With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken
the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity;
2 ART. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. – In all cases in which the law prescribes a single divisible
penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may
have attended the commission of the deed.
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules
shall be observed in the application thereof:
XXXXX
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the
lesser penalty shall be applied.