FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 250198. July 28, 2020.]
JOSEPH CASUGBU y ARTUS, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 28, 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 250198 — JOSEPH CASUGBU y ARTUS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Under Rule 45, Section 4 (b) 1 of the Rules of Court, a petition for review on certiorari before this Court must state the material dates showing when notice of the subject judgment, final order, or resolution was received; when a motion for new trial or reconsideration was filed; and when notice of its denial was received. Failure to comply with this rule is a ground to dismiss the petition. 2
Here, the petition should be dismissed outright for non-compliance with the material date rule. This leaves the Court, therefore, without any reckoning point for the purpose of determining whether the petition was filed on time.
But even on the merits, the petition must fail. For the Court of Appeals (CA) was not shown to have committed reversible error in denying petitioner Joseph Casugbu y Artus' appeal as to warrant the Court's exercise of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
Petitioner was positively identified to have inflicted the fatal injury which directly caused the victim Vidal I. Cortez's death. His intent to kill was manifest when he deliberately punched the victim in the face and continued to punch and hit his face, using his knee, even though the latter was already unconscious and bleeding. Besides, intent to kill is presumed when the victim died due to injury deliberately inflicted by the accused. 3 Petitioner's theory of incomplete self-defense, more specifically, the supposed lack of sufficient provocation on his part and the unlawful aggression which purportedly emanated from the victim, was correctly rejected by both the trial court and the CA for being unsubstantiated.
In any event, petitioner's belated presentation of the medico-legal report allegedly showing that he, too, sustained injuries from the victim's supposed act of aggression was properly turned down by the trial court. It was not formally offered in evidence; nor was its belated presentation, justified.
Too, the CA correctly affirmed the penalty of nine (9) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
In accordance with People v. Jugueta, 4 the award of civil indemnity should be decreased from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00, and moral damages of P50,000.00 should be awarded. In addition, temperate damages 5 of P50,000.00 6 should also be awarded as the heirs of the deceased are presumed to have spent for his interment. 7 Finally, legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum should be imposed on these amounts from finality of this resolution until fully paid.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for non-compliance with the material date rule and for utter lack of merit. The Decision dated February 7, 2019 and Resolution dated October 17, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 40969 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Petitioner JOSEPH CASUGBU y ARTUS is found guilty of homicide and sentenced to the indeterminate penalty of nine (9) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. He is further required to pay the heirs of Vidal I. Cortez the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00, as temperate damages. These amounts shall earn six percent (6%) interest per annum from finality of this resolution until fully paid.
SO ORDERED." Peralta, C.J., took no part, Perlas-Bernabe, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated February 19, 2020.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Section 4. Contents of petition. — The petition shall x x x; (b) indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received; x x x.
2. Section 5, Rule 45 in relation to Section 5 (d), Rule 56 of the Rules of Court.
3.People v. Espina y Balasantos, G.R. No. 219614, July 10, 2019.
4.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 852 (2016).
5. Article 2224 of the Civil Code.
6.Supra note 4, at 853; Padua y Migano v. People, G.R. No. 241998, April 1, 2019.
7.People v. Oandasan, 787 Phil. 139, 165 (2016).