Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your, information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 8 2003.

G.R. No. 128512 (Dario P. Belonghilot vs. Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga del Norte, Branch 7, Hon. Jesus O. Angeles.)

G.R. No. 128963 (People of the Philippines vs. Dario P. Belonghilot, Rino M. Castillo and Rolando T. Barcelonia.)

A motion for reconsideration was filed by appellant Dario p. Belonghilot seeking a reversal of this court’s decision promulgated on April 30, 2003. The Court found Dario P. Belonghilot and his co-accused, Rino M. Castillo and Rolando T. Barcelonia, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape with homicide. For their crime Dario P. Belonghilot was sentenced to death, while Rino M. Castillo and Rolando T. Barcelonia were both sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, for the reason that they were still minors at the time the crime was committed. All three were held jointly and severally liable to the heirs of the victim, Salvi Mecoliar Pasco, for P100,000 as civil liability, P50,000 as moral damages, P25,000 as exemplary damages, and P600,000 for the victim’s loss of earning capacity.

The motion for reconsideration sets out three grounds to reverse the decision. The first grounds argues that this Court failed to touch upon appellant’s plea to remand the case to the Court of Appeals for initial disposition. In sum, the Court was asked to amend the rules on appeal, in cases where the penalties of death and reclusion perpetua were imposed, to allow such convictions to be first appealed to the Court of Appeals so that the accused in these cases may be given the same opportunities for appeal as those convicted of lesser penalties, under the constitutional mandate of equal protection of the laws.

It should be noted that this argument was not contained in any of the briefs filed,[1] But Was First Raised In A Subsequent Motion for Leave to Add Issue of Equal Protection.[2] However, in a resolution dated April 27, 1999,[3] the Court denied the motion for lack of merit, hence disposing of the issue. The Court thus refrained from further discussing it in the decision.

The two remaining grounds argue on the admissibility of the extrajudicial confessions and the insufficiency of the evidence against appellants. These are basic issues which the court has already passed upon in the decision and the motion for reconsideration failed to raise any substantial argument that would warrant a reversal of this Court’s findings.

Nevertheless, although not raised in the motion for reconsideration, the Court deems it appropriate to reduce the award of damages for loss of earning capacity from P600,000 to P300,000.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY. However, the damages awarded for loss of earning capacity is reduced to P300,000.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

[1] Two briefs were filed for the appellant: one by Atty. Briones and the other by the Movement of Attorneys for Brotherhood, Integrity & Nationalism, Inc. (MABINI).