FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237519. June 18, 2018.]
NELSON REPATO y DELA CRUZ, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 18, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 237519 — Nelson Repato y Dela Cruz v. People of the Philippines
Acting on petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking an additional period of 30 days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file his petition, the Court resolves to GRANT the same.
After carefully reviewing the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court resolves to DENY the same for failure of the petitioner to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 37501 committed any reversible error in affirming the March 31, 2015 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, Ligao City (RTC) finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide as defined and penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. SaCIDT
Having interposed self-defense, it behooved upon petitioner to prove the concurrence of the following elements: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. The trial court, as affirmed by the CA, however, rejected petitioner's claim of self-defense because his testimony given during his direct examination had flaws and was inconsistent with his testimony during his cross-examination. On the other hand, said courts found the testimony of prosecution witness Mary Joy Quimno to be credible and convincing. In these regard, the settled rule is that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court. 1 The CA thus aptly ratiocinated that:
Furthermore, according to the RTC, "[t]he account of Mary Joy as to how her brother Alvin was assaulted by herein [petitioner] was given in a categorical, credible, convincing and straightforward manner." This Court is aware that it is the peculiar province of the trial court to determine the credibility of witnesses and related questions of fact because of its superior advantage in observing the conduct and demeanor of witnesses while testifying. Hence, absent any showing that the trial court overlooked substantial facts and circumstances that would affect the final disposition of the case, appellate courts are bound to give due deference and respect to its evaluation of the credibility of an eyewitness and [her] testimony as well as its probative value amidst the rest of the other evidence on record.
Thus, this Court is not in a position to disturb anymore the uniform findings and conclusions of the courts below regarding the credibility of petitioner, as well as of prosecution witness Mary Joy Quimno. Besides, it is not the duty of this Court in a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below. 2 cHECAS
Under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal which is from 12 years and 1 day to 20 years. Considering the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender of petitioner, reclusion temporal shall be imposed in its minimum period, which is 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum, term of the indeterminate sentence is prision mayor the range of which is 6 years and 1 day to 12 years. The RTC was, therefore, correct in imposing the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 6 years and 10 days of prision mayor, as minimum, to 12 years and 10 days of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The awards of civil indemnity, temperate damages, and moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 each, as well as the imposition of legal interest of 6% per annum thereon from the date of finality of judgment until full payment, are likewise correct and in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed July 6, 2017 Decision and February 7, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 37501. aTHCSE
SO ORDERED." Leonardo-de Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member of the First Division per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.People v. De Guzman, 550 Phil. 374, 384 (2007).
2.Conde v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 228 Phil. 145, 149 (1986).