FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 239462. August 15, 2018.]
LUIS CARCUEVA Y CAÑEDO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 15, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 239462 — Luis Carcueva y Cañedo vs. People of the Philippines
The Court resolves to DENY petitioner's Motion for Extension seeking an additional period of 30 days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file his Petition for Review on Certiorari since the petition lacks P1,000.00 for Sheriff's Trust Fund per A.M. No. 17-12-09-SC.
After carefully reviewing the allegations, arguments, and issues in the Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court further resolves to DENY the same for late filing in view of the denial of petitioner's Motion for Extension. Hence, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) was already final.
In any case, petitioner failed to show that the CA committed any reversible error in issuing its Decision dated April 11, 2016 and Resolution dated April 4, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR No. 02474 as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction. On the contrary, the CA's Decision and Resolution are in accord with the facts and applicable laws and jurisprudence.
Petitioner was charged with homicide for stabbing, hacking, and killing the victim Antonio Velasco with the use of a bolo. In his defense, petitioner claims that he acted in self-defense after the victim ran towards him with a bolo in his hand and hacked him three times.
For self-defense to be appreciated as a justifying circumstance, the following elements must be established by clear and convincing evidence: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
In this case, the CA was correct in ruling that the severity, location, and number of wounds suffered by the victim were indicative of a serious intent to inflict harm on the part of petitioner. These circumstances clearly disprove his theory of self-defense. Notably, petitioner was unscathed. Further, the Court upholds the finding of the CA that the petitioner had an ample opportunity to outrun the victim, who was then 67 years old, and escape the latter's perceived attack. Despite this, petitioner still stabbed, hacked, and killed the victim.
The Court likewise upholds the penalty of imprisonment imposed by the CA of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum. The penalty for homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) is reclusion temporal. Since there was a mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the penalty shall be imposed in its minimum period pursuant to Article 64 (2) of the RPC. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, which states that the minimum term shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed for the offense, the minimum term should be taken from prision mayor which ranges from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years. In view of the foregoing, the CA imposed the correct penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
With regard to the award of damages, the Court sustains the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, specifically People v. Jugueta, 1 where the Court ruled that in crimes that result in the death of a victim such as Homicide, the proper amounts of civil indemnity and moral damages shall both be P50,000.00 if the crime was consummated. Thus, the CA's reduction of the award of moral damages from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00 was correct.
Furthermore, the award of P50,000.00 as temperate damages is justified under Article 2224 of the Civil Code which provides that temperate damages may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty.
Finally, the amounts of damages awarded were properly subjected to interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until they are fully paid.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to DENY the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari.
SO ORDERED."Peralta, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2582 (Revised) dated August 8, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. 788 SCRA 331, 386, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016.