SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241515. June 3, 2019.]
JAIME GALON y TORRATO, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated03 June 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241515 (Jaime Galon y Torrato v. People of the Philippines)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the March 28, 2018 Decision 2 and the August 15, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 39721 for failure of petitioner Jaime Galon y Torrato (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in convicting him of the crime of Homicide, defined and penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. However, in light of prevailing jurisprudence, particularly People v. Jugueta, 4 the Court deems it proper to adjust the award of damages as follows: (a) P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P50,000.00 as moral damages; and (c) P74,359.27 as actual damages. In addition, all monetary awards shall earn an interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until full payment. cDHAES
As correctly held by the CA, the prosecution established with moral certainty all the elements 5 of the crime, given that: (a) Ernesto Ramos, Jr. (Ramos) was killed; 6(b) the witnesses positively identified petitioner as the killer; 7(c) there was intent to kill on the part of petitioner, considering the weapon he used, the location of Ramos' wound, and other attending circumstances; 8 and (d) the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of Murder, Parricide or Infanticide. 9 Moreover, the CA was correct in holding that petitioner was not entitled to the claim of self-defense, considering that the elements of unlawful aggression 10 and reasonable necessity of the means employed 11 were not proven. 12
It is settled that the assessment and findings of the trial court are generally accorded great weight, and are conclusive and binding to the Court if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence, 13 as in this case. ASEcHI
SO ORDERED. (CAGUIOA, J., on official leave.)"
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 12-27.
2.Id. at 31-40. Penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda with Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Renato C. Francisco, concurring.
3.Id. at 42-43.
4. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
5. It is settled that 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, 578 [2015], citing Villanueva v. Caparas, 702 Phil. 609, 616 [2013]. See also rollo, p. 35.)
6. See rollo, pp. 35-36.
7. See id. at 36.
8. See id.
9. See People v. Alejandro, 807 Phil. 221, 229 (2017).
10. See People v. Gonzales, 687 Phil. 556, 561 (2012). See also People v. Malicdem, 698 Phil. 408, 417-418(2012).
11. See Velasquez v. People, G.R. No. 195021, March 15, 2017, 820 SCRA 438, 452.
12. See rollo, p. 38.
13. See People v. Bagamano, 793 Phil. 602, 608 (2016).