SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232226. November 20, 2017.]
CRESENCIANO ENRIQUEZ y ANTONIO, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated20 November 2017which reads as follows: cHECAS
"G.R. No. 232226 (Cresenciano Enriquez y Antonio 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 August 30, 2016 Decision 1 and May 30, 2017 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 36244 finding petitioner Cresenciano Enriquez y Antonio (petitioner) GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Frustrated Homicide, as defined and penalized under Article 249, in relation to Article 250 of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for the indeterminate period of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, and ordering him to pay the victim, Romeo Enriquez, the following amounts: P30,000.00 as civil indemnity, P30,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as temperate damages, with legal interest of six percent (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, all the elements of the crime of Frustrated Homicide 4 are present in this case as it was proven that petitioner indeed inflicted numerous mortal wounds on the victim, and that the latter would have died had it not been for his timely medical intervention. Moreover, the CA is also correct in not accepting petitioner's invocation of self-defense 5 as he failed to prove the existence of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. 6
SO ORDERED. (REYES, JR., J., on official leave)"
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 26-39. Penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez with Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and Mario V. Lopez concurring.
2.Id. at 41-42.
3.People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331, 387-388.
4. "The elements of frustrated homicide are: (1) the accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault; (2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal wound but did not die because of timely medical assistance; and (3) none of the qualifying circumstances for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is present." (De Guzman v. People, 748 Phil. 452, 458 [2014], citing Serrano v. People, 637 Phil. 319, 337 [2010])
5. "In order for self-defense to be appreciated, the accused must prove by clear and convincing evidence the following elements: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself." (People v. Roman, 715 Phil. 817, 831 (2013), citing People v. Del Castillo, 679 Phil. 233, 250 [2012])
6. "Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is the primordial element of the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Without unlawful aggression, there can be no justified killing in defense of oneself. The test for the presence of unlawful aggression under the circumstances is whether the aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person defending himself; the peril must not be an imagined or imaginary threat. Accordingly, the accused must establish the concurrence of three elements of unlawful aggression, namely: (a) there must be a physical or material attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must be actual, or, at least, imminent; and (c) the attack or assault must be unlawful." (People v. Nugas, 677 Phil. 168, 177 [2011])