SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 247751. September 30, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. XXX, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated30 September 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 247751 (People of the Philippines v. XXX). — Considering the allegations, issues and arguments presented in the Appellants' 1 and the Appellee's Briefs 2 which the parties adopted instead of filing their respective supplemental briefs, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal 3 of XXX (accused-appellant) for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its assailed Decision 4 dated March 5, 2019 as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
However, the Court deems it proper to modify the penalty imposed by the CA upon accused-appellant for Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. (RA) 7610 in Criminal Case No. 22349. The CA erred in ruling that accused-appellant should have been sentenced to the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period.
To stress, AAA 5 was 14 years old (over 12 years of age and under 18 years of age) at the time of the commission of the offense. Pursuant to Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610, the proper penalty to be imposed is reclusion temporal medium (which ranges from fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months) to reclusion perpetua. Moreover, there being no modifying circumstances in the case, the maximum term of the penalty shall be within the range of reclusion temporal in its maximum period, which ranges from seventeen (17) years and four (4) months and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. 6
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term should be within the range next lower in degree to that prescribed by the law for the offense. Thus, the minimum term of the penalty is prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period which is from eight (8) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months. 7
Thus, the indeterminate prison term should be modified to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
Furthermore, the Court finds it proper to modify the award of damages in Criminal Case No. 22349. In accordance with People v. Tulagan, 8 the award of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages must be increased to P50,000.00 each.
WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision dated March 5, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01855-MIN, and AFFIRMS the Judgment finding accused-appellant XXX GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the following: (1) Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 in Criminal Case No. 22349; and (2) Simple Rape in Criminal Case No. 22350, with MODIFICATION as to the penalty in Criminal Case No. 22349.
Accordingly, in Criminal Case No. 22349, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period of 10 (ten) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum; and to pay AAA P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, and a fine of P15,000.00.
In Criminal Case No. 22350, accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; and to pay AAA P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P75,000.00 as moral damages.
All monetary awards shall earn a legal interest rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED." (BALTAZAR-PADILLA, J., on leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, 16-27.
2.Id. at 49-58.
3.Id. at 93-95.
4.Rollo, 5-26; penned by Associate Justice Walter S. Ong with Associate Justices Edgardo T. Lloren and Florencio M. Mamauag, Jr., concurring.
5. In People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703 (2006) the Court resolved to withhold the real name or the victim-survivor and shall use fictitious initials instead to represent her. Likewise, the personal circumstances of the victims-survivors or any other information tending to establish or compromise their identities, as well those of their immediate family or household members, shall not be disclosed. Thus, the name of the victim and her immediate family members shall appear as "AAA" and "BBB" and so forth.
6.Flores v. People, (Notice), G.R. No. 227980 February 7, 2018; People v. Matias, 687 Phil. 386, 391 (2012).
7.Id.
8. G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.