G.R. No.

76338-39 February 26, 1990

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
RENATO TAC-AN Y HIPOS, accused-appellant.
The Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Amadeo D. Seno for accused-appellant.

People of the Philippines vs. Renato Tac-an Y. Hipos G.R No. 76338-39 February
26, 1990
Facts: Accused Renato Tac-an appeals from the decision rendered by the Regional
Trial Court of Tagbilaran City convicting him of qualified illegal possession of
Firearms and ammunition pursuant to P.D 1866 and of murder imposing upon
him the penalty of death for both cases. The accused and the victim Francis
Ernest Escano were friends and high school classmates. Their relationship
deteriorated since the withdrawal of the victim from the Bronx gang into which
both of them are members. On December 14 1984 the two got into a quarrel while
their English class is ongoing it was assumed settled by their teacher however
the accused slipped out of the classroom went home and get a gun, fifteen
minutes later the accused burst into the room wherein their math teacher Mr.
Domosa had just started the class for such subject. The accused shut the door
and with both hands held the revolver and shouted where is Francis? Upon seeing
the victim, he fired the gun which hit different objects first before he was able to
hit the victim while rushing towards the door. Thereafter he went out and pace
between the adjacent rooms and was approached by another teacher Mr. Pablo
Baluna apparently unaware that he was the one who fired at the victim, asked
the accused to help the victim as the latter was still alive, the accused thereupon
returned, close the door behind him aimed at the chest of the victim and fired
once more causing his death.

Issue: WON there has been treachery? WON there was an evident premeditation.
WON the crime was committed in contempt of or with insult to the public
authorities.

Ruling: The court held that there has been treachery on the case at bar, the way
the accused carry over the crime manifested the accused’s conscious choice of
means of execution which directly and especially ensured the death of the victim
without the risk to himself. However, the court found no showing that the
accused had formed the intention and determination to take the life of the victim
since the requisites to evident premeditation are not present(A) Time when the
offender has clung to his determination to commit the crime(B) Action manifestly
indicating that the offender had clung to his determination to commit the
crime(C) The passage of sufficient interval of time between the determination to
commit the crime and the actual execution of it that allows him to reflect upon
the consequences of his act. Hence the accuse get back barely 15 mins to commit
the crime. Lastly, the Highest court ruled that a teacher is not considered under
the provisions of Revised Penal Code as person of authority; it is being defined as
person who are mandated by the law to carry out such duties especially provided
to them such as police officer, barangay Captain etc