SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242564. February 13, 2019.]
ROSNEL SERRANO y CABAGUIO, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 13 February 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242564 — Rosnel Serrano y Cabaguio versus People of the Philippines
After reviewing the Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the Court of Appeals' (CA) Decision 1 dated January 23, 2018 and Resolution 2 dated October 4, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR No. 39756, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition for failure of petitioner Rosnel Serrano y Cabaguio (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in the assailed Decision and Resolution as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
It is an established rule in appellate review that the trial court's factual findings — including its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, the probative weight of their testimonies, and the conclusions drawn from the factual findings — are accorded great respect and even conclusive effect. 3 These factual findings and conclusions assume greater weight if they are affirmed by the CA, as in this case. 4
In the present case, the CA correctly ruled that all elements of Attempted Homicide were present in this case. The factual findings of the Metropolitan Trial Court and the Regional Trial Court, as affirmed by the CA showed that petitioner attempted to stab private complainant with a pair of scissors; however, private complainant was able to push petitioner away giving her and her mother a chance to run and hide from petitioner.
Also, there was intent to kill on the part of petitioner. It has been held that that evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist, inter alia, in the means used by the malefactors, the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim, the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time, or immediately after the killing of the victim, the circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the accused. 5
Here, intent to kill was evident in the following: (1) petitioner's use of a pair of scissors in attempting to stab private complainant; (2) petitioner's words of "Putang ina mo, papatayin din kita" when private complainant ran to her mother's aid; and (3) petitioner's act of opening the locked door of the room where private complainant and her mother fled and threatening to burn the house.
As to the award of civil indemnity and damages, the Court deems it necessary to award civil indemnity and moral damages in the amount of P20,000.00 following recent jurisprudence. 6
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION the Decision dated January 23, 2018 and Resolution dated October 4, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR No. 39756 of the Court of Appeals. Petitioner Rosnel Serrano y Cabaguio is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Attempted Homicide and shall suffer the indeterminate penalty of IMPRISONMENT ranging from six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum. As modified, he is also ordered to pay private complainant Babylyn Serrano the amounts of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) as civil indemnity and TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) as moral damages, all with legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of judgment until fully paid. aScITE
SO ORDERED. (HERNANDO, J., designated additional Member per S.O. No. 2630 dated December 18, 2018)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 30-43. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz, with Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Pablito A. Perez concurring.
2.Id. at 45. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz, with Associate Justices Maria Luisa Quijano-Padilla and Pablito A. Perez concurring.
3.People v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 219952, November 20, 2017, 845 SCRA 227, 238, citing People v. Diu, 708 Phil. 218, 232 (2013).
4.Id. at 238.
5.Rivera v. People, 515 Phil. 824, 832 (2006).
6.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).