SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 219114. January 27, 2016.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BHUFINDER SINGH A.K.A. "JONY" AND RAKISH KUMAR A.K.A "ROY/OMAR/UMAR", accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated27 January 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 219114 (People of the Philippines v. Bhufinder Singh a.k.a "Jony" and Rakish Kumar a.k.a "Roy/Omar/Umar")
The records of this case were elevated to this Court on July 30, 2015, pursuant to the Court of Appeals (CA) Resolution, dated June 6, 2014, which gave due course to the notice of appeal filed by accused-appellants Bhufinder "Jony" Singh (Singh) and Rakish "Omar" Kumar (Kumar).
On September 2, 2015, the Court issued a Resolution 1 notifying the parties that they could file their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired, within thirty (30) days from notice.
On November 6, 2015, the Office of the Solicitor General filed its manifestation in lieu of supplemental brief 2 stating that it would dispense with the filing of a supplemental brief considering that the issues had been discussed in its brief, dated October 29, 2013, filed before the CA. On November 25, 2015, Kumar and Singh filed their manifestation in lieu of supplemental brief, 3 stating that they would no longer file a supplemental brief since the relevant issues had been exhaustively discussed in their briefs.
After a perusal of the records of the case, the Court resolves to dismiss the present appeal in view of Singh and Kumar's failure to sufficiently show reversible error in the challenged decision to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
The Court, however, finds that the award of damages by the CA should be modified pursuant to recent jurisprudence. In People v. Gambao, 4 the Court set the minimum indemnity and damages where death is the penalty warranted by the facts but is not imposable under the present law, as follows:
1. P100,000.00 as civil indemnity;
2. P100,000.00 as moral damages which the victim is assumed to have suffered and thus needs no proof; and
3. P100,000.00 as exemplary damages to set an example for the public good.
Further, the award of damages should be subject to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.
WHEREFORE, the May 29, 2012 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Tarlac City, Branch 64, in Criminal Case No. 14814 is AFFIRMED however, it is MODIFIED to read as follows:
WHEREFORE, finding the accused Bhufinder Singh a.k.a "Jony" and Rakish Kumar a.k.a "Roy/Omar/Umar" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Kidnapping with Homicide, the Court hereby sentences them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346; and to pay, jointly and severally, the heirs of Harpreet Singh the amounts of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, P25,000.00 as temperate damages. The amounts of damages awarded shall have an interest of 6% per annum from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED." AaCTcI
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 28.
2. Id. at 30-32.
3. Id. at 34-35.
4. G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013, 706 SCRA 508.