FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 260256. October 5, 2022.]
XXX, 1petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated October 5, 2022, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 260256 (XXX v. People of the Philippines). — The Court resolves to DENY the petition for review on certiorari for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed judgment as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction in this case pursuant to Section 6, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, and for lack of merit in the appeal pursuant to Sec. 5, Rule 45 in relation to Sec. 5 (b), Rule 56 of the Rules of Court.
The nomenclature of the crime committed by the accused as found by the Regional Trial Court and as affirmed by the Court of Appeals should, however, be modified. Instead of "Rape under paragraph 2 of Article 266-A under the Revised Penal Code or for Sexual Assault," the crime should be denominated as "Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610."
People v. Tulagan2 explains that the acts of "Sexual Assault committed against children exploited in prostitution or other sexual abuse" and "Rape by Sexual Assault" committed against children under 12 years of age should be properly designated as "Sexual Assault under Article 266-A (2) of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610," which is punishable by reclusion temporal in its medium period, while the same acts committed against children 12 years old to below 18 years of age is "Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610," punishable by reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua."
In the case at bar, the Information merely alleged that AAA 3 is a minor without specifying her exact age. Thus, relying on the doctrine that all doubts must be resolved in favor of the accused 4 and noting that the penalty of "Sexual Assault under Article 266-A (2) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610" will be more advantageous to the accused than if he was found guilty of "Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610," the accused is found to be guilty of the former. CAIHTE
Moreover, the maximum of the indeterminate sentence imposed by the Court of Appeals is short by one day. As modified, the proper penalty should be twelve (12) years, ten (10) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum. 5 The appellate court's directive for petitioner to pay the victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, is in conformity with current jurisprudence. The imposition of legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum on all damages awarded is also consistent with recent jurisprudence. 6
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The October 20, 2020 Decision and the March 24, 2022 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 43180 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that petitioner XXX is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610 and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate sentence of twelve (12) years, ten (10) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
SO ORDERED." Marquez, J., on official leave.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Initials were used to identify the accused-appellant pursuant to the Supreme Court Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017 entitled "Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances."
2. G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019.
3. "The identity of the victim or any information which could establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610, An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, Providing Penalties for its Violation, and for Other Purposes; Republic Act No. 9262, An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes; and Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the Rule on Violence against Women and their Children, effective November 15, 2004." (People v. Dumadag, 667 Phil. 664, 669 [2011]).
4. Bongalon v. People, 707 Phil. 11, 21 (2013).
5. See People v. XXX, G.R. No. 233661, November 6, 2019.
6. People v. XXX, G.R. No. 240750, June 21, 2021.