THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 214475. March 9, 2016.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROGER PEDRES Y MATUCIÑO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 9, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 214475 (People of the Philippines vs. Roger Pedres y Matuciño). — After an exhaustive review of the allegations, issues and arguments presented by the parties, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal for failure to sufficiently prove that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in its disputed Decision dated May 18, 2014 as to warrant the exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated May 18, 2014 finding accused-appellant Roger Pedres y Matuciño GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape in Criminal Case No. 5642 and acts of lasciviousness in Criminal Case No. 5643 and is, accordingly, meted the following penalties:
(1) In Criminal Case No. 5642, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole 1 and to pay the victim P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
(2) In Criminal Case No. 5643, he is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and is ordered to pay the victim civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00 each.
(3) The six percent (6%) interest per annum imposed on all monetary award computed from the date of finality of the decision until full payment thereof is likewise AFFIRMED."
(Peralta, J. and Jardeleza, J., no part; Leonen, J. and Brion, J., Additional Members per Raffle dated October 22, 2014.) aDSIHc
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. The phrase "without eligibility for parole" is not deleted in view of the guidelines provided for in A.M. 15-08-02 SC dated August 4, 2015 which states that "(2) When circumstances are present warranting the imposition of the death penalty, but this penalty is not imposed because of R.A. No. 9346, the qualification of "without eligibility for parole" shall be used to qualify reclusion perpetua in order to emphasize that the accused should have been sentenced to suffer death penalty had it not been for R.A. No. 9346."