SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 254377. May 10, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ROLANDO SAMSON AMBROCIO, JR., accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 May 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 254377 (People of the Philippines v. Rolando Samson Ambrocio, Jr.). — The Court NOTES (1) the manifestation and motion (in lieu of supplemental brief) dated May 3, 2021 of the Office of the Solicitor General, dispensing with the filing of supplemental brief as its brief filed before the Court of Appeals (CA) has thoroughly discussed all issues raised by accused-appellant Rolando Samson Ambrocio, Jr. (Ambrocio), and stating that the instant manifestation is timely filed in view of Memorandum Order No. 28-2021 1 issued by the Court on April 30, 2021; with prayer that the instant manifestation be noted and considered sufficient compliance with the Resolution dated January 11, 2021; and (2) the manifestation (in lieu of supplemental brief) dated May 4, 2021 of the Public Attorney's Office, adopting its brief filed before the CA as its supplemental brief since the same had adequately discussed all the matters pertinent to Ambrocio's defense.
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal 2 for failure to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming the conviction of Ambrocio of the crime of Murder, as defined and penalized under Article 248 3 of the Revised Penal Code.
The CA correctly ruled that all the elements of Murder 4 are present in this case, considering that the prosecution had adequately established that Ambrocio entered the house, suddenly took the three (3)-year old victim, Hanna M. Lope (Hanna), and thereafter, slit her neck, resulting in her death. 5 Case law instructs that treachery exists whenever an adult person illegally attacks a child, 6 as in this case.
However, in the absence of any other circumstance aside from treachery which had already qualified the killing to Murder, there is a need to delete the phrase 'without eligibility for parole' in Ambrocio's penalty, pursuant to A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC. 7 Furthermore, and pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, 8 there is also a need to adjust the monetary awards due in favor of the victim's heirs to P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 as temperate damages, all of which shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until full payment.
WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision 9 dated July 26, 2018 of the CA in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09247 and AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION said Decision finding accused-appellant Rolando Samson Ambrocio, Jr. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to indemnify the heirs of Hanna M. Lope in the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 as temperate damages, all of which shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until full payment.
SO ORDERED. (Lopez, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021)."
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Memorandum Order No. 28-2021 entitled 'WORK ARRANGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL CAPACITY TO BE OBSERVED IN THE OFFICES OF THE SUPREME COURT.'
2. See Notice of Appeal dated August 22, 2018; CA rollo, pp. 136-137.
3. Article 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of Murder, and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.
xxx xxx xxx
4. 'Jurisprudence dictates that the elements of murder are as follows: (a) that a person was killed; (b) that the accused killed him; (c) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248; and (d) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide.' (People v. Kalipayan, 824 Phil. 173, 183 [2018], citing People of the Philippines v. Bensig, 437 Phil. 748, 763 [2002]).
5.Rollo, p. 5.
6. See People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 819 (2016).
7. See A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC entitled 'GUIDELINES FOR THE PROPER USE OF THE PHRASE 'WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE' IN INDIVISIBLE PENALTIES,' (August 4, 2015).
8.People v. Jugueta, supra note 6.
9.Rollo, pp. 4-37. Penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos with Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi, concurring.