SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 234881. January 22, 2018.]
JOSE MARCON ENCIO DESALISA, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 22 January 2018 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 234881 (Jose Marcon Encio Desalisa v. People of the Philippines)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the June 16, 2017 Decision 1 and October 19, 2017 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 38812 finding petitioner Jose Marcon Encio Desalisa (petitioner) GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of Attempted Homicide with Serious Physical Injuries, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to four (4) years, nine (9) months, and ten (10) days of prision correccional, as maximum, and to pay the victim the following amounts: (a) P1,076,704.16 as actual damages; (b) P25,000.00 as civil indemnity; (c) P25,000.00 as moral damages; and (d) P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, with legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum on all monetary awards from the date of finality of this Resolution until full payment, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. 3
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner cannot excuse himself from criminal liability since he failed to prove that he was acting in self-defense, noting that at the time he fired the shot, unlawful aggression on the part of the victim ceased to exist and petitioner had no right to kill or injure the former. Neither can petitioner's claim that he was performing his official duty justify his act, as the injury caused on the victim was not a necessary consequence of such lawful exercise, 4 which is a requisite thereof.
Moreover, the positive and unequivocal declarations of the eyewitnesses pointing to petitioner as the assailant prevail over his denial which was not duly established. It is settled that the findings and conclusions of the trial court, when affirmed on appeal, are entitled to great weight and respect, 5 as in this case.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 81-94. Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Rodil V. Zalameda concurring.
2.Id. at 103-105.
3. See People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 6, 2016, 788 SCRA 331, 382; citations omitted.
4. See People v. Catbagan, 467 Phil. 1044, 1069 (2004), which states that: "a person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office does not incur any criminal liability. Two requisites must concur: 1) the accused must have acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office and 2) the injury caused or the offense committed should have been the necessary consequence of such lawful exercise." In this case, nothing was mentioned that he was there to effect an arrest on the assailant.
5.People v. Dejillo, 700 Phil. 643, 660-661 (2012); citation omitted.