January 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2011 > January 2011 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 190344 : January 12, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. RICARDO ENCALLADO :
[G.R. No. 190344 : January 12, 2011]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. RICARDO ENCALLADO
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 12 January 2011 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 190344: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RICARDO ENCALLADO*
After a careful review of the records of the case, the Court finds no reversible error in the assailed decision. However, we increase the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000 pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision dated 22 June 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00702, finding appellant Ricardo (Richard) Encallado guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape and AFFIRMS said Decision with the MODIFICATION that the award of exemplary damages is increased to P30,000 pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 190344: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RICARDO ENCALLADO*
After a careful review of the records of the case, the Court finds no reversible error in the assailed decision. However, we increase the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000 pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision dated 22 June 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00702, finding appellant Ricardo (Richard) Encallado guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape and AFFIRMS said Decision with the MODIFICATION that the award of exemplary damages is increased to P30,000 pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[*] The name of the accused as stated in the Information is Richard Encallado but the court a quo mistakenly referred to him as Ricardo Encallado. This was mentioned by appellant himself in his brief filed before the Court of Appeals.