This case has been cited 5 times or more.
2012-10-17 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
The CA, however, in reducing the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua, failed to state in the dispositive portion that the reduction should be without eligibility for parole as held in the case of People v. Antonio Ortiz.[47] This should be rectified. | |||||
2011-11-16 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
In imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua in Criminal Case Nos. 01-247, 01-249 and 01-250, however, the courts below failed to qualify that the penalty of reclusion perpetua is without eligibility for parole as held in the case of People v. Antonio Ortiz.[16] This should be rectified. | |||||
2010-07-05 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
With respect to the penalty, the Court of Appeals failed to state that the reduction from death to reclusion perpetua is without eligibility for parole as held in the case of People v. Antonio Ortiz.[48] This should be rectified. | |||||
2010-04-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
In fine, there is no iota of doubt in our mind that the accused is guilty of the crime of rape. In reducing the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua, the Court of Appeals failed to state that the reduction is without eligibility for parole as held in the case of People v. Antonio Ortiz. [26] This should be rectified. | |||||
2010-03-09 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
In line with prevailing jurisprudence, the civil indemnity to be awarded should be P75,000.00, not P50,000.00, since the crime committed is qualified by a circumstances that warrants the imposition of the death penalty.[22] Likewise, consistent with jurisprudence, the amount of moral damages is increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00, without any further need of proof. And while the award of exemplary damages is also called for to deter other individuals with aberrant sexual tendencies, the amount fixed therefor by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, is reduced from P50,000.00 to P30,000.00.[23] |