SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 246518. June 29, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARIEL VICENCIO y DIZON A.K.A. 'ARIEL' AND 'CORONEL' AND GERRY SORIANO y PENOLLAR A.K.A. 'SPUNKIE', accused,
EDUARDSON SORIANO y GELUA A.K.A. 'EDUARD,' SALLY BOY SAN DIEGO y GARCIA A.K.A. 'SONNY,' AND RODEL LEGASPI y TATEL A.K.A. 'DOC', accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 29 June 2020 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 246518 (People of the Philippines v. Ariel Vicencio y Dizon a.k.a. 'Ariel' and 'Coronel' and Gerry Soriano y Penollar a.k.a. 'Spunkie,' Accused; Eduardson Soriano y Gelua a.k.a. 'Eduard,' Sally Boy San Diego y Garcia a.k.a. 'Sonny,' and Rodel Legaspi y Tatel a.k.a. 'Doc,' Accused-Appellants). — After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal 1 for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its assailed Decision as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction. However, in light of prevailing jurisprudence, 2 the Court deems it proper to modify the award of damages, and delete the award of attorney's fees and expenses of litigation for lack of basis. 3
WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the August 13, 2018 Decision 4 of the CA in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09664 and AFFIRMS said Decision finding accused-appellants Eduardson Soriano y Gelua a.k.a. 'Eduard,' Sally Boy San Diego y Garcia a.k.a. 'Sonny,' and Rodel Legaspi y Tatel a.k.a. 'Doc' (accused-appellants) GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Simple Robbery and Kidnapping for Ransom, defined and penalized under the Articles 294 (5) and 267 (2) of the Revised Penal Code, respectively. Accordingly, each of them is sentenced to suffer the following penalties: (a) in Crim. Case No. 150108-SJ, for the crime of Simple Robbery, the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of four (4) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years of prision mayor, as maximum; and (b) in Crim. Case No. 150109-SJ, for the crime of Kidnapping with Ransom, the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole. 5 Accused-appellants are likewise ordered to jointly and severally return the properties stolen from the victims, or, if restitution is no longer possible, to pay their equivalent value 6 in the total amount of P1,800,000.00, as found by the courts a quo. 7 Furthermore, accused-appellants are ordered to jointly and severally pay private complainants the following amounts: (a) P100,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) P100,000.00 as moral damages; and (c) P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, plus costs of suit. All monetary awards shall earn an interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until full payment.
SO ORDERED. (Gaerlan, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2780 dated May 11, 2020. Carandang, J., designated Additional Member vice Inting, J.)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Notice of Appeal dated September 6, 2018; rollo, pp. 22-23.
2. See People v. Lidasan, G.R. No. 227425, 817 Phil. 698-712 (2017).
3. "The settled rule is that the matter of attorney's fees cannot be mentioned only in the dispositive portion of the decision. The same goes for the award of litigation expenses. The reasons or grounds for the award thereof must be set forth in the decision of the court. The discretion of the court to award attorney's fees under Article 2208 of the Civil Code demands factual, legal, and equitable justification, without which the award is a conclusion without a premise, its basis being improperly left to speculation and conjecture," as in this case. (See Tolentino v. Laurel, 682 Phil. 527-542 [2012].)
4.Rollo, pp. 3-21. Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a member of the Court), concurring.
5. See A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC entitled "GUIDELINES FOR THE PROPER USE OF THE PHRASE 'WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE' IN INDIVISBLE PENALTIES," dated August 4, 2015.
6. See People v. Bacyaan, G.R. No. 238457, September 18, 2019; People v. Villanueva, Jr., 611 Phil. 152-179 (2009).
7. See rollo, p. 12.