SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241384. October 1, 2018.]
LEANDRO B. INTALAN, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated01 October 2018which reads as follows: SDHTEC
"G.R. No. 241384 (Leandro B. Intalan v. People of the Philippines)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the March 22, 2018 and June 29, 2018 Resolutions 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 153259 for failure of petitioner Leandro B. Intalan (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in dismissing his petition for non-compliance with Section 3, 3 Rule 42 of the Rules of Court and its November 29, 2017 Resolution 4 directing him to rectify the errors in his petition, as well as in upholding his conviction for Acts of Lasciviousness, as defined and penalized under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code.
As correctly ruled by the CA, failure to comply with the requirements under Section 3, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court with regard to the service of the petition and the required attachments is a sufficient ground to dismiss the petition, 5 as in this case. Worse, when directed to rectify the defects in the petition, petitioner failed to comply once more. 6 As such, the CA cannot be faulted for dismissing the same. Moreover, even on the merits, the present petition must likewise fail, considering the factual findings of the courts a quo on the guilt of petitioner. 7 On this score, the Court finds no reason to depart from the well-settled rule that factual findings of the lower courts deserve the utmost respect and are not to be disturbed on appeal. 8 However, in addition to the damages already awarded by the courts a quo, the amount of P10,000.00 by way of exemplary damages is likewise awarded. Moreover, all monetary awards shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until full payment. 9 AScHCD
SO ORDERED." (CAGUIOA, J., on official business; REYES, J., JR., J., designated as Additional Member per Special Order No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 8-15.
2.Id. at 27-28 and 19-25, respectively. Penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Maria Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla, concurring.
3. Section 3, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 3. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. — The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.
4. Not attached to the rollo.
5. See People v. Duca, 618 Phil. 154, 168 (2009). See also rollo, p. 21.
6. See rollo, pp. 21 and 23.
7. See id. at 24.
8. See Northwest Airlines v. Chong, 557 Phil. 289, 299 (2008); citations omitted.
9. See People v. Bongbonga, G.R. No. 214771, August 9, 2017.