WHEREFORE, premises considered, the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City, Branch XIV, in Criminal Case No. C-4692 dated February 29, 1996 imposing the death penalty on the accused-appellant Ludigario Candelario and reclusion perpetua on accused-appellant Gerry Legarda is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellants shall be ordered to indemnify the victim Maribel Degala in the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages, respectively for each count of the offense charged.

Costs against accused-appellants.

In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659, amending Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, upon finality of this decision, let the records of this case be forthwith forwarded to the Office of the President for possible exercise of executive clemency.

SO ORDERED.1 [Rollo, pp. 227-228.]

COMES NOW, the Department of Social Welfare and Development, Field Office VI, Molo, Iloilo City through the Regional Director, respectfully submits the Final Report on the above youth offender who was committed to the Regional Rehabilitation Center for Youth, Concordia, Nueva Valencia, Guimaras on March 26, 1996 per Court Order of this Honorable Court dated March 6, 1996 pursuant to the provision of Article 192 of Presidential Decree 603, otherwise known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code as amended.

1.....That, Jerry Legarda, 18 years and 11 months old, was placed under the custody of the Department of Social Welfare and Development, Regional Rehabilitation center for Youth, Concordia, Nueva Valencia, Guimaras.

2.....That, before Jerry was admitted to the DSWD-Regional Rehabilitation Center for Youth, He had stayed at the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, Roxas City for almost one (1) year for his preventive detention. His record showed that he had properly behaved and willing to undergo reformation process.

3.....That, Jerry has been staying at RRCY for a period of three (3) years and eight (8) months. He was afforded with various rehabilitation programs and services.

4.....That during Jerry's stay in the center, he actively responded to his rehabilitation plans and activities as agreed upon by both the rehabilitation team and Jerry himself. He demonstrated the following behaviors and attitudes that can qualify him as developed person in terms of his intellectual, physical, moral and emotional being;

5.....That, Jerry has manifested leadership skills wherein he can lead the group and has developed respect and encourage cooperation among minors most especially during work activities, youth development training and practical endeavors conducted or offered by the center.

6.....That, the rehabilitation team has consolidated their efforts necessary for the total rehabilitation of Jerry by conducting case conferences, updating the plans and regularly evaluating his performance inside and outside the center.

7.....That, numerous skills training acquired by Jerry which can be of great help for his independent living so to earn income and support in augmenting family income. Likewise, his desire to go on schooling will be given proper attention with the commitment of his father and supervision of the Social Worker in the area.

8.....That, per assessment report submitted by Merbeth S. Duran, Social Welfare Officer II in Sorsogon, Sorsogon revealed that minor's father, Mr. Emilio Legarda, who is residing in Pinamancaan, Mandaon, Masbate is ready and capable to take custody of his son. Mr. Legarda expressed his commitment to send Jerry to school to continue his formal education.

9.....That, four (4) progress reports were submitted to RTC, Branch 14, Roxas City under Judge Salvador Gubaton where the case was originally filed. It was noted that the findings were consistently satisfactory considering the progress in Jerry's personality. He has behaved properly and has shown his capability to be useful member of the community.

10.....That, in order to substantiate the contents of our final reports, the undersigned respectfully submits the following documents before this Honorable Supreme Court;

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the undersigned respectfully recommends to the Honorable Supreme Court that the case of the herein subject be dismissed and his custody be transferred from Regional Rehabilitation Center for Youth, DSWD-Field Office VI, Concordia, Nueva Valencia, Guimaras to his father, Mr. Emilio Legarda, of Pinamancaan, Mandaon, Masbate for his best welfare and interest.

Department of Social Welfare and Development Regional Rehabilitation Center for Youth Concordia, Nueva Valencia, Guimaras, November 3, 1999.

"The offense charged in this case, Robbery with Homicide, is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death (Art. 294(1), R.P.C.). As a matter of fact, the herein appellants were sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Consequently, the suspension of sentence as provided under Art. 192 of P.D. 603, as amended, does not apply to accused Raquel Tagalog and Ricky Galit.

Nonetheless, considering that the decision against accused Ricky Galit and Raquel Tagalog had become final, this Court can no longer alter the judgment rendered by the trial court however erroneous it may have been. This Court has no jurisdiction to pass judgment on an accused who did not appeal the sentence of conviction imposed by the trial court (People v. Medrano, 122 SCRA 586 [1983]).

This brings us to the manifestation dated April 17, 1993 filed by counsel for accused Ricky Galit praying for his release from the National Training School for Boys (NTSB) as recommended in the Final Report submitted by the Senior Officer of the NTSB on the ground that Ricky Galit had complied with the conditions of his rehabilitation.

In his Comment dated October 15, 1993, the Solicitor General interposed no objection to the final release of Ricky Galit from the custody of the NTSB, DSWD, Tanay, Rizal, provided accused Galit's civil liability is not extinguished as provided in Articles 198 and 201 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code.

Be that as it may, it is not the responsibility of this Court to order the release of accused Ricky Galit without the benefit of a review of the recommendation of the Department of Social Welfare by the trial court. Art. 196 of PD 603 provides:

It is therefore clear that in cases where the DSWD recommends the discharge of a youthful offender, it is the trial court before whom the report and recommendation is subject to judicial review. Recommendation alone is not sufficient to warrant the release of a youthful offender. In reviewing the DSWD's recommendation, the trial judge must not base his judgment on mere conclusions but should seek out concrete, material and relevant facts to confirm that the youthful offender has indeed been reformed and is ready to re-enter society as a productive and law-abiding citizen.

Caution, however, is given to the trial court. To begin with, the youthful offender is not to be tried anew for the same act for which he was charged. The inquiry is not a criminal prosecution but is rather limited to the determination of the offender's proper education and rehabilitation during his commitment in the Training Center and his moral and social fitness to re-join the community."