FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 217660. February 7, 2018.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. CARMELO ONG AND JAZZY RON JOSOL, accused, JAZZY RON JOSOL, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 7, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 217660 — People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, v. Carmelo Ong and Jazzy Ron Josol, accused; Jazzy Ron Josol, accused-appellant.
After a careful review of the records of the case, the Court finds that the appeal should be dismissed. Appellant Jazzy Ron Josol continuously eludes the jurisdiction of the courts over his person by refusing and failing to surrender or submit himself despite the issuance of a warrant for his arrest by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Digos City, Davao del Sur, Branch 18 in its August 28, 2014 Order. By continuously evading his apprehension, appellant could no longer pursue his exoneration and is considered to have forfeited his right to appeal. In other words, appellant cannot be afforded the right to appeal unless he voluntarily submits himself to the jurisdiction of the RTC or is otherwise arrested within 15 days from notice of the judgment against him. While at large, he cannot seek relief from the court, as he is deemed to have waived the appeal. 1
Nonetheless, there is a need to modify the November 19, 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals. The courts below were correct in ruling that the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua and in sentencing accused Carmelo Ong accordingly. They also did not err in reducing by one degree lower the prison term of appellant due to his minority during the commission of the crime. This is the penalty of reclusion temporal. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, reclusion temporal shall be imposed in its medium period which ranges from fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months. 2 Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the penalty shall be prision mayor which ranges from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years, the medium period of which is eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years. 3 "Due to the seriousness of the crime and the manner it was committed, the penalty must be imposed in its most severe range." 4 Thus, appellant must suffer the indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. 5
The Court of Appeals' awards of moral damages in the amount of P75,000.00, in addition to the trial court's award of civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00 to be paid in solidum by accused and appellant to the heirs of the victim, are in line with recent jurisprudence. 6 Exemplary damages in the amount of P75,000.00, and temperate damages in the amount of P50,000.00, in lieu of actual damages, must also be awarded to the heirs of the victim in line with recent jurisprudence. 7 The additional damages in the mentioned amounts must be paid solely by appellant. 8 Moreover, interest shall be imposed on all monetary awards at the rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of judgment until fully paid.
WHEREFORE, the November 19, 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01090 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Appellant Jazzy Ron Josol must suffer the indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Aside for the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages in the amounts of P75,000.00 each to be paid in solidum by accused and appellant to the heirs of the victim, exemplary damages in the amount of P75,000.00, and temperate damages in the amount of P50,000.00, in lieu of actual damages, must also be awarded in line with recent jurisprudence. 9 These additional damages must be paid solely by appellant since it is not favorable to the accused. 10 Interest shall be imposed of all monetary awards at the rate of 6% per annum from date of finality of judgment until fully paid.
Let the records of this case be remanded to the trial court for the issuance of mittimus.
SO ORDERED."(J. Carpio designated as additional member per November 29, 2017 raffle vice J. Jardeleza who recused due to prior action as Solicitor General.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.People v. Ang Gioc, 73 Phil. 366, 369 (1941).
2.People v. Agacer, 701 Phil. 37, 42 (2013).
3.Id.
4.Id.
5.Id.
6.People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331, 381-382.
7.Id. at 388.
8. Rule 122, Section 11 (a) of the Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused. —
(a) An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter.
9.People v. Jugueta, id. at 388.
10. Rule 122, Section 11 (a) of the Rules of Court Provides:
Sec. 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused. —
(a) An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter.