People v. Bobila CA4/1

── People v. Bobila CA4/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 03, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/3/26 P. v. Bobila CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, D084211 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN435057) CHRISTIAN BOBILA, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Anthony J. Campagna, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Ronda G. Norris, under the appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Assistant Attorney General, Collette C. Cavalier and James H. Flaherty III, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.  Christian Bobila killed his father- and brother-in-law following a years- long family dispute. A jury convicted him on two counts of first degree murder, and the court sentenced him to two consecutive life terms in prison without the possibility of parole. On appeal, he claims the prosecution failed to disprove that the murders were the result of extended provocation and thus he should only have been convicted of second degree murder. We disagree and find the evidence of premeditation and deliberation was sufficient to find first degree murder as to both victims. Bobila also argues the court erred by imposing a $10,000 parole revocation fine even though he is not eligible for parole. The Attorney General concedes this fine should be stricken. We agree with the parties and strike the fine. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Factual Background Bobila began dating his wife, Lylah, in 2007. Lylah lived with her mother (Carmelita Reyes), her father (Vicent Reyes), and her brother (Vince Reyes) in north San Diego County.1 For many years, Lylah had been instrumental to supporting her family by working at a company called Primerica. Carmelita began working with Primerica in the 1980s, and Lylah began working for her mother while she was still a teenager. Primerica earnings are entirely commission-based. Salespeople recruit others to sell Primerica products and then can receive additional commissions based on those recruits’ sales. The subordinate 1 Because several individuals share the same last names, we refer to parties by their first names to avoid confusion. No disrespect is intended. 2 salespeople recruit more salespeople, and a portion of all the commissions funnel up to the top of the salesperson pyramid. The entire pyramid works under a specific commission code that is owned by the original salesperson. That code can be sold by the owner. Carmelita developed a valuable business under her Primerica commission code, principally through Lylah’s sales efforts. Lylah described an abusive and controlling dynamic with her mother, claiming she had to drop out of college and work long hours to pay off Carmelita’s debts and support Vince. Carmelita controlled all of Lylah’s earnings, which were deposited into Carmelita’s account. Carmelita was displeased when Lylah began dating Bobila, as she thought it was distracting Lylah from work. She further disapproved of Bobila, who made less money than Lylah and came from a different Filipino ethnic group than Carmelita’s family. Carmelita nonetheless “ordered”