Evident premeditation– The qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation, on the other hand, requires that the execution of the criminal act be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon a resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. Evident premeditation needs proof of the time when the intent to commit the crime is engendered in the mind of the accused, the motive which gives rise to it, and the means which are beforehand selected to carry out that intent. All such facts and antecedents which make notorious the pre-existing design to accomplish the criminal purpose must be proven to the satisfaction of the court.[1]
Simply put, there is evident premeditation when the following elements concur: (1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the accused had clung to his or her determination to commit the crime; and (3) the lapse of a sufficient length of time between the determination and execution to allow him or her to reflect upon the consequences of his or her act.
“To qualify the killing of a person to the crime of murder, evident premeditation must be proven with certainty. Facts regarding “how and when the plan to kill was hatched” are indispensable. The requirement of deliberate planning should not be based merely on inferences and presumptions but on clear evidence.”[2]
“It is indispensable for the prosecution to establish “how and when the plan to kill was hatched or how much time had elapsed before it was carried out. In People v. Abadies, this Court underrscored the requirement, thus:
[Evident premeditation must be based on external facts which are evident, not merely suspected, which indicate deliberate planning. There must be direct evide3nce showing a plan or preparation to kill, or proof that the accused meditated and reflected upon his decision to kill the victim. Criminal intent must be evidenced by notorious outward acts evidencing a determination to commit the crime. In order to be considered an aggravation of the offense, the circumstance must not merelt be “premeditation” but must be “evident premeditation.”
The date and, if possible, the time when the malefactor determined to commit the crime is essnetial because the lapse of time for the purpose of the third requisite is computed from such date and time.”[3] (Citations omitted)
[1] People v. Recepcion, 440 Phil, 227 (2002(, cited in People v. Pilen, G.R. No. 254875, February 13, 2023
[2] People v. Ordona, G.R. No. 227863, September 20, 2017
[3] People v. Ordona, G.R. No. 227863, September 20, 2017