SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 249709. September 2, 2020.]
MARCO CRUZ y RUIZ AND NASSIB DIMAAGAL, petitioners,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated02 September 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 249709 (Marco Cruz y Ruiz and Nassib Dimaagal 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 20, 2019 Decision 2 and the October 3, 2019 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 42268 finding petitioners Marco Cruz y Ruiz (Cruz) and Nassib Dimaagal (Dimaagal; collectively, petitioners) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Attempted Murder. Accordingly, they are each sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of two (2) years, ten (10) months, and twenty (20) days of prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years, one (1) month, and eleven (11) days of prision correccional, as maximum, and to each pay the victim, Nelson R. Sacristia (Sacristia), the following amounts: (a) P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P50,000.00 as moral damages; and (c) P50,000.00 as exemplary damages.
The principal and essential element of the crime of Attempted or Frustrated Murder is the intent on the part of the assailant to take the life of the person attacked. Such intent must be proven in a clear and evident manner to exclude every possible doubt as to the homicidal intent of the aggressor. 4 In this case, the prosecution was able to establish the intent on the part of petitioners to kill Sacristia, since it was established that: (a) Cruz shot Sacristia repeatedly, while Dimaagal drove the van, ensuring ease of escape; (b) Sacristia was hit on his abdomen, arm, and leg before the gun jammed; (c) because of Sacristia's presence of mind, he was able to run from petitioners, and as a result, petitioners failed to perform all the acts of execution, which should have produce the felony; and (d) the attempt to kill was qualified by treachery, since Sacristia, unarmed and unable to defend himself, was attacked using a gun in a stealthy manner. Moreover, the totality of circumstances 5 in this case 6 shows that Sacristia positively identified petitioners as his assailants. Finally, there being no indication that the courts a quo overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finds no reason to deviate from their factual findings. 7
SO ORDERED. (Baltazar-Padilla, J., on leave.)"
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 14-32.
2.Id. at 38-49. Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando with Associate Justices Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob and Gabriel T. Robeniol, concurring.
3.Id. at 51-52.
4.Pentecostes, Jr. v. People, 631 Phil. 500, 514 (2010).
5. "People v. Teehankee, Jr. introduced in this jurisdiction the totality of circumstances test, which relies on factors already identified by the United States Supreme Court in Neil v. Biggers [409 U.S. 188 (1972)]: (1) the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness' degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and, (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure." (See People v. Nuñez, G.R. No. 209342, October 4, 2017).
6. Records revealed that the victim was able to petitioners' faces because the van they were riding was only one (1) meter away from him, the street was sufficiently illuminated by the light from the gas station, and there was a heavy traffic in the area so the van was moving slowly (see rollo, pp. 44-45 and 79).
7. See Cahulogan v. People, G.R. No. 225695, March 21, 2018.