FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 258553. November 29, 2022.]
FRANCE REY OLLETE y TULINGAN, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 29, 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 258553 (France Rey Ollete y Tulingan v. People of the Philippines). — The petitioner's Motion for an Extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
After a review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari1 (Petition) for failure of petitioner France Rey Ollete y Tulingan (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its Decision 2 dated 14 October 2020 and the Resolution 3 dated 14 December 2021 in CA-G.R. CR No. 43786, as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
Petitioner would have the Court re-examine the evidence on record. However, petitions brought under Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court pertain only to questions of law and not to factual issues. The Court is not a trier of facts. It is not the Court's function to examine, review or evaluate the evidence all over again. 4
In any case, We agree with the CA that all the elements of the crime of Lascivious Conduct have been established in the case. The 16-year-old victim, AAA, 5 positively identified petitioner as the perpetrator of the lascivious acts committed against her.
The CA ordered petitioner to pay moral and exemplary damages, civil indemnity, as well as fine, all to earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum. There is, however, a need to delete the imposition of legal interest on the fine. Although a fine is among the pecuniary liabilities which may be imposed against a convict, it is not considered as a civil liability from which an award of interest may spring. 6
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated 14 October 2020 and the Resolution dated 14 December 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 43786 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the imposition of legal interest on the fine is DELETED.
The petitioner's Manifestation praying, among others, that the copy of the manifestation (in lieu of reply brief) intended as Annex E of the petition be admitted, is NOTED.
SO ORDERED." Marquez, J., on official business.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 15-34.
2. Id. at 36-49. Penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales and concurred in by Associate Justices Pablito A. Perez and Alfredo D. Ampuan.
3. Id. at 51-52. Penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales and concurred in by Associate Justices Pablito A. Perez and Alfredo D. Ampuan.
4. Manotok Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty Development Corporation, 512 Phil. 679 (2005).
5. The identity of the victim or any information which could establish or compromise her identity is withheld pursuant to SC Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015.
6. People v. Dapitan, G.R. No. 253975, 27 September 2021.