FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 228946. March 4, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.DENNIS ROSALES y KALADKAD, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 4, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 228946 (People of the Philippines vs. Dennis Rosales y Kaladkad)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in the assailed Decision 1 dated July 28, 2016 to warrant the exercise of this Court's appellate jurisdiction.
From the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt the elements of statutory rape punishable under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code. Statutory rape is committed when (1) the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age, and (2) the accused had carnal knowledge of her, regardless of whether there was force, threat or intimidation, whether the victim was deprived of reason or consciousness, or whether it was done through fraud or grave abuse of authority. What the law punishes in statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve (12) years old. Thus, force, intimidation and physical evidence of injury are not relevant considerations; the only pertinent concern is the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge indeed took place. 2
In this case, the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant Dennis Rosales y Kaladkad had carnal knowledge of AAA 3 on August 26, 2010, when AAA was just eight (8) years old. In her testimony, AAA narrated how Dennis molested her, and described in great detail the incident that occurred on that day. Her testimony is supported by the findings of Dr. Julieta Cumpio-Tan, the doctor who examined her a few hours after the incident and confirmed the injuries she sustained.
In line with prevailing jurisprudence, particularly People v. Jugueta, 4 We modify the monetary award imposed by the Regional Trial Court and affirmed by the CA. Exemplary damages should be increased to P75,000.00. 5 In addition, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed on all monetary awards from date of finality of this decision until fully paid. 6
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 28, 2016 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION increasing the amount of exemplary damages to P75,000.00. All monetary awards shall earn six percent (6%) interest per annum until fully paid. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Edward B. Contreras with Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig, concurring; rollo, pp. 4-10.
2.People of the Philippines v. Marlon Manson y Resultay, 801 Phil. 130 (2016).
3. The real name of the victim, her personal circumstances and other information which tend to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall not be disclosed to protect her privacy and fictitious initials shall, instead, be used, in accordance with People v. Cabalquinto (533 Phil. 703 [2006]) and A.M. No. 12-7-15-SC.
4. 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
5.Id.
6.Nacar v. Gallery Frames and/or Felipe Bordey, Jr., G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013.