G.R. NO. 173050 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. AC-MAD PANDAPATAN Y DIMALAPANG, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the Prosecution, having proved the guilt of the accused, Acmad Malawi Pandapatan, beyond reasonable doubt in Crim. Case No. 120306, he is hereby meted the capital punishment of DEATH. He is likewise hereby ordered to pay the offended party, [AAA], the amount of P75,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages without the necessity of proving the same. An award of P25,000.00 to complainant as exemplary damages is also in order, to deter fathers with perverse behavior from sexually abusing their daughters. Insofar as Crim. Case Nos. 120008-H, 120307-H to 120392-H are concerned, said accused is hereby ACQUITTED thereof, for insufficiency of evidence. The Warden of the Pasig City Jail, Nagpayong, Pinagbuhatan, Pasig City is hereby directed to transfer immediately the accused to the Bureau of Corrections, New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City. [5] Inasmuch as the penalty it imposed was the death penalty, the trial court forwarded the records of the case to the Supreme Court for automatic review pursuant to Section 10, Rule 122 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure. [6] However, pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo , [7] the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition. [8] On 22 February 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed the disposition of the RTC, to wit: UPON THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THIS CASE, THUS, the appealed Decision dated November 14, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 261, in Crim. Case No. 120306-H, finding the accused-appellant AC-MAD PANDAPATAN y DIMALAPANG guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death and to pay his daughter-victim, [AAA] the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages and P25,000 as exemplary damages is AFFIRMED. Should no motion for reconsideration be filed in this case by the accused-appellant within the allowable reglementary period, or after the lapse thereof, let the entire records of this case be forwarded to the Honorable Supreme Court for appropriate action hereon. [9] As no Motion for Reconsideration was filed with the Court of Appeals, the latter forwarded the records of the case to this Court on 10 July 2006. [10] On 18 July 2006, this Court resolved to require the parties to submit Supplemental Briefs. [11] On 19 September 2006, this Court noted (1) the Manifestation in Lieu of Supplemental Brief dated 28 August 2006 filed by the Public Attorney's Office for the accused-appellant, stating that the accused-appellant opted not to file a supplemental brief since there were no new issues material to the case which were not elaborated upon in the Appellant's Brief and that the accused-appellant had exhaustively argued all the relevant issues in his brief; and (2) the Manifestation and Motion in Lieu of Supplemental Brief dated 29 August 2006 filed by the Office of the Solicitor General, stating, among other things, that the penalty of reclusion pe