SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243342. February 11, 2019.]
ALEJANDRO CAASI, JR. y CAMERO, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated11 February 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243342 (Alejandro Caasi, Jr. y Camero v. People of the Philippines)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the June 7, 2018 Decision 2 and the November 14, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 39060 for failure of petitioner Alejandro Caasi, Jr. y Camero (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in finding him GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of Homicide and one (1) count of Frustrated Homicide, defined and penalized under Article 249, in relation to Article 250, of the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, he is sentenced, as follows: (a) in Criminal Case No. 4481-A for Frustrated Homicide, an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years of prision mayor, as maximum, and to pay the victim Joel Carranza the amounts of P30,000.00 as civil indemnity, P30,000.00 as moral damages, 4 and the costs of suit; (b) in Criminal Case No. 4482-A for Homicide, an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to pay the heirs of Geraldo Cariño the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P50,000.00 as temperate damages, 5 and the costs of suit; and (c) in Criminal Case No. 4483-A for Homicide, an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, and seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to pay the heirs of Rey Caluya the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P50,000.00 as temperate damages, and the costs of suit. Moreover, all monetary awards shall earn an interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until full payment. 6
As correctly ruled by the CA, the prosecution competently established petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on the eyewitnesses' positive identification of him as the assailant which prevails over his uncorroborated defense of denial. 7 Well-established is the rule that the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses' testimonies is entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed, unless it has overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts of circumstances which would alter the result of the case, 8 none of which was shown in this case.
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order Nos. 2629 and 2630 dated December 18, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 12-26.
2.Id. at 32-46. Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, concurring.
3.Id. at 48-50.
4.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 852 (2016).
5.Id. at 853.
6.Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267, 283 (2013).
7. See rollo, p. 45.
8. See People v. Pacayra, G.R. No. 216987, June 5, 2017, 825 SCRA 633, 645.