Scribd
Upload
22 views2 pages

People vs. Manansala GR. No 88752

case digest

Uploaded by

Kate Amug
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
22 views2 pages

People vs. Manansala GR. No 88752

case digest

Uploaded by

Kate Amug
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 

plaintiff-
appellee, vs. DANILO MANANSALA y PALISOC,  accused-
appellant.
[G.R. No. 88752. July 3, 1992.]

Facts:
Accused Daniel Manansala was pinpoint by Fe Nisperos as
one of the involve in the killing of her boyfriend, Pat. Hector
Polmo. As to Nisperos, as they are waiting for a bus ride, she saw
three men sitting in the bench while talking where in suddenly a
gun shot was fired, After such she saw her boyfriend bled to
death while one of the gunman pointed a gun to her. However,
she was able to shout for help but her boyfriend dies.
Moreover, upon investigation, Nisperos hesitated and could not
readily point to the accused as the assailant. Also, for his part,
Manansala testified that at the time of the incident in question, he was
not in Bicutan but in Caloocan City. Subsequently, he was charged with
the crime of robbery with homicide committed in conspiracy with two
unidentified persons and with the aggravating circumstances of evident
premeditation and treachery.
|||

Issue:
Is there a evident premeditation in the crime committed?
Ruling:
No, there is no evident premeditation.
Evident premeditation is not inherent in robbery with homicide. In
such an offense, the evident premeditation must relate to the killing
and not to the robbery. According to Chief Justice Ramon C. Aquino:
Under normal conditions, where conspiracy is directly established, with
proof of the attendant deliberation and selection of the method, time
and means of executing the crime, the existence of evident
premeditation can be taken for granted. But in the case of implied
conspiracy, evident premeditation may not be appreciated, in the
absence of proof as to how and when the plan to kill the victim was
hatched or what time elapsed before it was carried out, so that it
cannot be determined if the accused had "sufficient time between its
inception and its fulfillment dispassionately to consider and accept the
consequences." There should be a showing that the accused had the
opportunity for reflection and persisted in effectuating his criminal
design.|
Such a showing being absent in the case at bar, this aggravating
circumstance should be rejected.
||

You might also like