Dagohoy, Jr. y Repulledo v. People

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 254775. January 25, 2021.]

EDUARDO DAGOHOY, JR. y REPULLEDO, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated25 January 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 254775 (Eduardo Dagohoy, Jr. y Repulledo v. People of the Philippines). — The Court resolves to:

1. GRANT the motion 1 of petitioner Eduardo Dagohoy, Jr. y Repulledo (petitioner) for an extension of fifteen (15) days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari; and

2. NOTE the Manifestation 2 dated November 10, 2020 of counsel for petitioner, submitting the attached postal money order checks 3 amounting to P4,530.00 as payment for filing fees.

After a judicious review of the case, the Court further resolves to DENY the instant petition 4 and AFFIRM the Decision 5 dated April 30, 2019 and the Resolution 6 dated August 28, 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 03167 for failure of petitioner to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in finding him guilty of the crime of Homicide. Accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and ordered to pay the heirs of the late John Carlo Esquira (Esquira) 7 P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as temperate damages, 8 with legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until full payment. HTcADC

As correctly ruled by the CA, the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of Homicide, 9 considering that: (a) it is conclusive that Esquira was killed inside the kamalig; (b) when eyewitness Linger Garcia 10 saw petitioner, the latter was near Esquira's head which was already bloodied; (c) there could be no other perpetrator of the crime as there was no other person inside the kamalig aside from them; and (d) there was no circumstance that would qualify the killing to Murder, Parricide, or Infanticide. Since there is no indication that the lower courts overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finds no reason to deviate from their factual findings. In this regard, it should be noted that the trial court was in the best position to assess and determine the credibility of the witnesses presented by both parties. 11 CAIHTE

SO ORDERED. (Rosario, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2797 dated November 5, 2020)."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 3-6.

2.Id. at 15-16.

3.Id. at 17.

4.Id. at 18-30.

5.Id. at 61-77. Penned by Chairperson and Executive Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos (now a member of the Court) with Associate Justices Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga, concurring.

6.Id. at 44-45. Penned by Associate Justice Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga with Associate Justices Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Lorenza Redulla Bordios, concurring.

7.Id. at 62.

8. See People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).

9. The elements of Homicide are the following: (a) a person was killed; (b) the accused killed him without any justifying circumstance; (c) the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and (d) the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of Murder, or by that of Parricide or Infanticide. See Wacoy v. People, 761 Phil. 570 (2015).

10.Rollo, p. 63.

11. See Cahulogan v. People, 828 Phil. 742 (2018), citing Peralta v. People, 817 Phil. 544, 2017, further citing People v. Matibag, 757 Phil. 286, 293 (2015).