February 13, 2023

PSMS Jansen Rey G San Pedro C42 PSSLC Class Charlie, NCRTC

Subject: Criminal Law

Atty. Juvi Gayatao

1. What is evident premeditation?

Answer:
In my own understanding, evident premeditation is the timeframe of planning of a
person/s prior to committing a crime. After reading some Supreme Court Decisions particularly
in Murder cases, I may say that evident premeditation is very essential in the successful
conviction of the suspects. As a homicide investigator, we need to establish the span of
planning of the suspects before perpetrating the crime. In that way, the trial judges will not think
twice in giving the maximum penalty/sentence to the accused.

2. Discuss the difference in the period “sufficient lapse of time” in two cases.
Answer:
After analyzing the Supreme Court Decisions of the two cases, “sufficient lapse of time”
was not given credit. It was stated therein that all the accused planned the killings merely an
hour (People vs Dumdum, Jr et al) and for just two (2) hours (People vs Crisostomo et al). Thus,
evident premeditation was not present. Nevertheless, the four accused were still meted the
maximum penalty.

3. In the charge “robbery with homicide” accompanied by arson, is arson

aggravating?
Answer:
In my opinion, the case of robbery with homicide accompanied by arson, arson is
aggravating. Though, arson gave severity, the charge of robbery with homicide is sufficient
enough since it will not increase the penalty to be given to the offender.

4. Can “community service” as a penalty be availed of after an appeal is denied?

Answer:
Based on my research on the SC guidelines on R.A. 13362 (Community Service Act), if
the imposable penalty is arresto menor or arresto mayor, the respondent has the privileged to
apply for community service to the place where he/she violated the law. However, if the accused
opted to appeal the decision of the court, he/she cannot apply for community service.

5. Is “TIP” enough to justify warrantless search?

Answer:
A “TIP” is not a passage to apply the warrantless search. In drug cases, information
given by confidential informants has to be verified. Narcotics operatives must first coordinate to
PDEA for the conduct of surveillance and validation to verify the veracity of the report.
Thereafter, if the information has positive result, operatives will now hatch a plan for the
apprehension of the persons responsible in the proliferation illegal drugs and will again
coordinate to PDEA. In my observation, drug cases have a low conviction rates due to the poor
interpretation of police officers in R.A 9165. I may suggest that all police officers assigned at
DEU must undergo refresher/seminar to give them better understanding of the said law.