G.R.

NO 117818 APRIL 18, 1997

PEOPLE VS ROMAN DERILO ET AL

PEOPLE – plaintiff-appelle

Roman Derillo – accused ; Isidoro Baldimino y Quillo – Accused- appellant

REGALADO, J.:

Roman Derilo, Isidoro Baldimo y Quillo, Lucas Donos, Alejandro Cofuentes and one John Doe were
charged with crime of murder by a band. The information filed therefor alleges:

 On January 1, 1982 at 6pm at sitio Palaspas, Taft, Eastern Samar, Philippines, the accused with
treachery and evident premeditation, with intent to kill, with the use of firearms and bolos,
confederating and mutually helping one another did shot and stabbed one named Perpetua
Adalim which caused injuries resulting to her death.
 Of the 5 accused, only accused-appellant Baldimo was apprehended.
o At his arraignment on March 18, 1985, he pleaded not guilty
 By the time the People finished presenting its evidence on August 6, 1986, the appellant,
through his counsel, manifested to the court a que, that he withdraw his earlier of plea of not
guilty, and substitute it with one of guilty.
 The court questioned the voluntariness and comprehension of the consequences in making his
new plea of guilty.
 The trial court then convicted him of the crime of murder as defined and punished under Article
248 of the RPC.
 A detailed account of the killing was brought up by eyewitness Cresencio Lupido
o According to Lupido, Adalim went to his house in the early evening of Jan 1, 1982 to
look for farmlands willing and desiring to work in her ricefields
o Lupido is an agricultural tenant of Perpetua, and lived on one of the properties owned
o Perpetua instructed Lupido’s wife to get food from her house in the Poblacion as
Perpetua decided to spend the night at Sitio Palaspas.
 While Perpetua was waiting and standing in the yard of the house, 5 armed men confronted her.
o Lupido recognized 2 of the men as Roman Derilo and Appellant Baldimo as these 2
frequently passed by his house. He did not know the 3 other men but was willing to
attempt in identify if he knows them.
 Derilo talked momentarily with Perpetua. Then without any warning, Derilo shot Perpetua
o The appellant also stabbed her several times with a knife
o The 3rd also stabbed afterwards
o After the stabbing the gang walked around the yard for some time and left, walking in
the directions of the mountains. All of them carrying long firearms
 Lupido then hurriedly went to Perpetuas house in Poblacion of Taft where he informed the
family about the incident.

The Appellant pleaded guilty in hopes of reducing the death penalty to life imprisonment (relying on P7,
Art. 13 of RPC)
  Unfortunately, that decision relied upon by the appellant is inapplicable to his case.
 As per People Vs. Coronel, et al. It was modified to life imprisonment. Not because of P10, Art
13 of the code but because the number of votes of then required to affirm a sentence of death
was not secured.
 As per p7 Art.13 of the RPC, the plea of guilt as a mitigating can not apply because of its
rationale that an accused spontaneously and willingly admits his guilt at the first opportunity as
an act of repentance.

However, as there is no direct proof to show when appellant and his co-accused meditated and
reflected upon their decision to kill the victim, and the intervening time that elapsed before this plan
was carried out, the circumstance of evident premeditation cannot be presumed against appellant.

his Court has come a long way in adopting a mandatory rule with regard to the presentation of evidence
in capital cases where the accused pleads guilty to the criminal charge. From granting trial courts in the
earlier Rules of Court 32 sufficient discretion in requiring evidence whenever guilt is admitted by the
accused, the Court has now made it mandatory on the part of the lower courts to compel the
presentation of evidence and make sure that the accused fully comprehends the nature and
consequences of his plea of guilty.

It can thus be said that evident premeditation can only be deduced from conspiracy if in the course of
directly proving conspiracy, the elements of evident premeditation were likewise presented and proven.
But then, in such a case, evident premeditation would not merely be presumed but actually established.
Hence, it follows that there is really a need for the presentation of evidence indicating the existence of
premeditacion conocida, which was not done in this case.