Republic Act 9346 An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines

-RA 8177: Death by Lethal Injection is hereby repealed; RA7659: Death Penalty Law is Indicators of Conspiracy
repealed People vs. Rudy Sicad, Carmelo Lobaton, Melchor Sicad, Johnny Guiez and Paquito Bernil
-Instead of death penalty, the penalty of (a) reclusion perpetua is imposed when the law -The accused killed a Roberto Asturias, Jr. by throwing a dynamite to the victim and from a
violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC or (b) life imprisonment distance, some of them fired and shot at the victim. 2 of the accused stood as lookout by a tree
when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC and then they all escaped toward the house of Melchor.
-Persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua or whose sentences will be -There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act commission of a felony and decide to commit it. As a rule, conspiracy must be proved as
No, 4103, Indeterminate Sentence Law convincingly and indubitably as the crime itself. It is not necessary, however, that conspiracy
be proved by direct evidence of a prior agreement to commit the crime. Conspiracy may be
deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the
Republic Act 10159- An Act Amending Article 39 of Act No. 3815, As Amended, otherwise acts of the accused which show a joint or common purpose and design, a concerted action and
known as the RPC a community of interest among the accused.
Art. 39. Subsidiary Penalty. If the convict has no property with which to meet the -This Court holds that the trial court did not err when it found that conspiracy exists in this case.
fine mentioned in paragraph 3 of the next preceding article, he shall be subject to a While there is no direct evidence to show that accused-appellants agreed to commit the crime,
subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for each amount equivalent to the however, their acts and the attendant circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime
highest minimum wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at the time of the rendition of disclose a common design that would make all of them co-principals in the crime committed.
judgment of conviction by the trial court, subject to the following rules: -All of them performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to unmistakably
indicate a common purpose of bringing about the death of the victim. Moreover, the
1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision correccional or arresto and fine, he shall simultaneous convergence of the accused-appellants at the crime scene, their specific acts in
remain under confinement until his fine referred in the preceding paragraph is satisfied, the commission of the crime, and their simultaneous flight toward the house of Melchor Sicad
but his subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-third of the term of the sentence, pointed to a conspiracy among them.
and in no case shall it continue for more than one year, and no fraction or part of a day -The contention of Melchor Sicad and Johnny Guiez, who acted as lookouts, that their mere
shall be counted against the prisoner. presence in the scene of the crime did not make them co-conspirators does not persuade us.
One who participates in the material execution of the crime by standing guard or lending moral
2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the subsidiary imprisonment shall support to the actual perpetrators thereof is criminally responsible to the same extent as the
not exceed six months if the culprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less latter. In a conspiracy, it is not necessary to show that all the conspirators actually hit and killed
grave felony, and shall not exceed fifteen days, if for a light felony. the victim. Indeed, the accused-appellants' synchronous presence at the place was not a mere
coincidence but was in pursuance of a design to kill Roberto Asturias, Sr., with whom Melchor
3. When the principal penalty imposed is higher than prision correccional, no subsidiary Sicad had a previous fight.
imprisonment shall be imposed upon the culprit. -Accused-appellants Rudy Sicad, Camelo Lobaton, Johnny Guiez and Paquito Bernil further
claim that they had no motive to kill the victim as it was only accused-appellant Melchor Sicad
4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be executed by confinement in a penal who had an axe to grind against the victim. Again, this argument cannot exculpate them from
institution, but such penalty is of fixed duration, the convict, during the period of time criminal liability. Proof of ill-motive on the part of Melchor's co-conspirators is irrelevant in view
established in the preceding rules shall continue to suffer the same deprivations as of their having been positively identified by the prosecution eyewitnesses. Motive assumes
those of which the principal penalty consists. significance only when there is no showing who the perpetrators of the crime were. There being
conspiracy among the accused-appellants, they are liable as co-principals regardless of the
5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may have suffered by reason of manner and extent of their participation since, in point of law, the act of one is the act of all.
his insolvency shall not relieve him from the fine in case his financial circumstances
should improve

1
People vs. Reyes approached them and stopped them by saying
-The accused are guilty of the crime of kidnapping for ransom to extort money of P5M and Hindi na kayo naawa. The accused went in the restaurant and drank beer.
killed Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymong Yao by choking them to death.
-Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, there is conspiracy when two or more persons People vs. Regalario
agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy presupposes unity of purpose -We agree with the findings of the two courts below as to the presence of conspiracy.
and unity in the execution of the unlawful objective among the accused. When the accused by Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
their acts aimed at the same object, one performing one part and the other performing another commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found, for
part as to complete the crime, with a view to the attainment of the same object, conspiracy criminals do not write down their lawless plans and plots. The agreement to commit a crime,
exists. however, may be deduced from the mode and manner of the commission of the offense or
-As can be gleaned from the credible testimonies and sworn statements of Abagatnan, Robert inferred from acts that point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of
and Yao, appellant Reyes and Pataray approached and poked their guns at Yao San, and intent. It does not matter who inflicted the mortal wound, as the act of one is the act of all, and
thereafter dragged the latter into the van. Appellant Flores then took the driver's seat and drove each incurs the same criminal liability.
the van, while each member of the Yao family was blindfolded by appellants Reyes and Arnaldo -All five accused-appellants caught up with the victim, blocked all means through which the
and their cohorts inside the van. Thereafter, appellant Flores instructed Yao San to produce victim could escape and ensured the achievement of their plan to kill Rolando Sevilla even as
the amount of P5 million as ransom money in exchange for the release of Chua Ong Ping Sim, the latter already fell to the ground. Accused-appellant Marciano hit the victim on his jaw and
Robert, Raymond and Abagatnan. Appellant Reyes and appellant Arnaldo were among the later, ordered his co-accused to kill and tie the victim. Upon hearing Marciano's instruction,
kidnappers who guarded Abagatnan, Robert, Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond in the safe- Bienvenido Regalario tied Rolando's neck, hands and feet with a rope. The collective act of the
house. They also accompanied Abagatnan and Robert in going to the poultry farm to search accused-appellants is sufficient to make them co-principals to the killing.
for and remind Yao San about the ransom demanded. Further, appellants Arnaldo and Flores
narrated in their respective extra-judicial confessions 64 how they planned and executed the People vs. Malibiran
kidnapping of the Yao family. Their extra-judicial confessions also detailed the particular -Accused planted a grenade at the drivers side of the car and killed her ex-lover Reynaldo
role/participation played by each of appellants and their cohorts in the kidnapping of the family. -Based on the foregoing, the testimonies of Janet and Oswaldo clearly link appellant to the
Clearly, the foregoing individual acts of appellants and their cohorts demonstrated their unity planning of the crime. True, as intimated by appellant, she may not have been at the scene of
of purpose and design in kidnapping the Yao family for the purpose of extorting ransom. the crime at the time of the explosion; but then again, if she was, then she would have suffered
the same fate as Reynaldo.
People vs. Marcelo Aleta, Ferdinand Aleta, Rogelio Aleta, Marlo Aleta, Jovito Aleta -In fact, the very manner in which it was carried out necessitated prior scheming and execution
-Accused struck their two victims with pieces of wood and while they were already lying for it to succeed. Thus, appellant's absence from the actual scene of the crime does not negate
prostrate on the ground, they continued to club their victims; Oki ni inayo conspiracy with Rolando in plotting the death of her husband. A conspiracy exists even if not
-Contrary to the contention of appellants, conspiracy was present during the attack. When two all the parties committed the same act, but the participants performed specific acts that
or more persons aim their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each indicated unity of purpose in accomplishing a criminal design. Moreover, direct proof of
doing a part so that their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact connected and previous agreement to commit an offense is not necessary to prove conspiracy conspiracy
cooperative indicating closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment, may be proven by circumstantial evidence.
conspiracy may be inferred. And where there is conspiracy, the act of one is deemed the act
of all. When there is no conspiracy
People vs. Rufino Gensola, Fidelina Tan and Felicisimo Tan
People vs. Amodia -Defendants were found guilty as principals of murder and are sentenced to reclusion perpetua
-The witness, Roda, went out of the restaurant to invite customers in however, he saw 7 -The lower court found them guilty as principals for murder on the assumption that there was
persons mauling someone. He saw all the accused who were taking turns in beating up the conspiracy among them. The SC does not agree for the ff. reasons:
victim. One of the accused, who had a knife saw Roda and threatened to kill him. He still

2
1. Fidelina Tan's intention revealed by the words she muttered to herself, "He does not appear The accused's acts after the fact, by themselves, are inadequate to show that previous
because I will kill him," was not shared by Felicisimo Tan who kept silent. Silence is not a agreement.
circumstance indicating participation in the same criminal design. -Joseph Biare is acquitted on reasonable doubt.
2. When Miguel Gayanilo was crossing Gerona St., it was only Rufino Gensola who followed
closely behind Fidelina Tan and Felicisimo Tan were in the middle of the street. The words People vs. Timbol
shouted by Fidelina Tan, "Rufino, strike him," were meant as a command and did not show Up until now, the Supreme Court has assumed the direct appellate review over all
previous concert of criminal design. criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life
3. The blows given with pieces of iron on the back of the head and on the forehead by Felicisimo imprisonment (or lower but involving offenses committed on the same occasion or
and Fidelina after Rufino had struck with a piece of stone the left face of Miguel, do not in and arising out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more serious offense for which
by themselves show previous concert of criminal design. Particularly when it is considered that the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment is imposed). The practice
Rufino immediately left thereafter while Felicisimo and Fidelina remained for a few seconds finds justification in the 1987 Constitution.
observing the prostrate body of Miguel until Fidelina muttered, "He is already dead." In passing, during the deliberations among the members of the Court, there has been
-In the absence of conspiracy, the liability of the three appellants is individual, that is, each a marked absence of unanimity on the crucial point of guilt or innocence of herein
appellant is liable only for his own act. appellant. Some are convinced that the evidence would appear to be sufficient to
-Is appellant Fidelina Tan also liable for the offense considering that she gave the command convict; some would accept the recommendation of acquittal from the Solicitor General
"Rufino, strike him"? on the ground of inadequate proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, the
-The second class of principals, according to Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code, comprises occasion best demonstrates the typical dilemma, i.e., the determination and
"those who directly force or induce others to commit it (the act)." Those who directly induce appreciation of primarily factual matters, which the Supreme Court has had to face with
others to commit the act are called "principals by inducement" or "principals by induction. The in automatic review cases; yet, it is the Court of Appeals that has aptly been given the
word "inducement" comprises, in the opinion of Viada and the Supreme Court of Spain, reward, direct mandate to review factual issues.
promise of reward, command, and pacto. With respect to command, it must be the moving While the Fundamental Law requires a mandatory review by the Supreme Court of
cause of the offense. In the case at bar, the command shouted by Fidelina, "Rufino, strike him," cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death,
was not the moving cause of the act of Rufino Gensola. The evidence shows that Rufino would nowhere, however, has it proscribed an intermediate review. If only to ensure utmost
have committed the act of his own volition, even without said words of command. circumspection before the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is
imposed, the Court now deems it wise and compelling to provide in these cases a
People vs. Alex Padrones and Joseph Biare review by the Court of Appeals before the case is elevated to the Supreme Court.
-Facts: Victim was in a bar celebrating his birthday. The accused arrived around midnight, Where life and liberty are at stake, all possible avenues to determine his guilt or
exchanged pleasantries and separated after. Victim approached Padrones, squeezed his innocence must be accorded an accused, and no care in the evaluation of the facts
mouth and uttered challenging words. Padrones saw a knife and they began parrying against can ever be overdone. A prior determination by the Court of Appeals on, particularly,
each other which started the fight. Biare, all the while, remained seated. When the fight ended, the factual issues, would minimize the possibility of an error of judgment. If the Court
Padrones was crawling on the floor bloodied and asked Biare to bring his to his house to nurse of Appeals should affirm the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment,
his injuries. It turned out, on the other hand, that Sison was also wounded. it could then render judgment imposing the corresponding penalty as the
-SC finds that based on the evidence, the trial judge erred in his judgment. circumstances so warrant, refrain from entering judgment and elevate the entire
-It has been held that conspiracy, like the offense itself, must shown to exist beyond reasonable records of the case to the Supreme Court for its final disposition.
doubt. So also has it been held that conspiracy "transcends companionship." Hence, the fact Procedural matters, first and foremost, fall more squarely within the rule-making
that the two accused may have happened to leave together, and one of them left a closing prerogative of the Supreme Court than the law-making power of Congress. The rule
warning, cannot instantly support a finding of conspiracy. The prosecution is, in addition, hard here announced additionally allowing an intermediate review by the Court of Appeals,
put to adduce evidence demonstrating facts that the parties had priorly come to an agreement a subordinate appellate court, before the case is elevated to the Supreme Court on
to commit the crime with which they are charged. Although the act of agreeing need not be automatic review, is such a procedural matter.
demonstrated, evidence of the fact of agreement must nonetheless be convincingly shown.

3
2 ways of becoming principal by induction -By the foregoing standards, the remark of Jeanette to "take care of the two" does not
People vs. Yanson-Dumancas constitute the command required by law to justify a finding that she is guilty as a principal by
-Of the 13 accused charged with Kidnapping for Ransom with Murder of one Rufino Gargar, inducement.
Jr., 3 accused were acquitted, 9 were convicted as principals and 1 accused was convicted as -As we held in U.S. vs. Indanan, "a chance word spoken without reflection, a wrong
accessory. appreciation of a situation, an ironical phrase, a thoughtless act, may give birth to a thought of,
-On appeal, the Supreme Court acquitted 3 more accused, ruling: (1) the remark of accused or even a resolution to crime in the mind of one for some independent reason predisposed
Jeanette to "take care of the two" did not constitute the words of command which may be thereto without the one who spoke the word or performed the act having any expectation that
considered sufficient basis to convict her as principal by inducement; (2) accused Police his suggestion would be followed or any real intention that it produce the result. In such case,
Inspector Abeto's presence at the scene of the crime in order to serve the search warrant and while the expression was imprudent and the results of it grave in the extreme, he (the one who
to interrogate the two victims did not by itself establish conspiracy to commit the crime. The spoke the word or performed the act) would not be guilty of the crime committed."
Court considered accused Abeto's constitutional right to the presumption of innocence coupled -The utterance which was supposedly the act of inducement, should precede the commission
with the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions; (3) accused Col. of the crime itself (People vs. Castillo, 17 SCRA 721). In the case at bar, the abduction, which
Torres passed away during the pendency of this appeal. His death extinguished his criminal is an essential element of the crime charged (kidnapping for ransom with murder) has already
liability and the civil liability solely based thereon. taken place when Jeanette allegedly told accused-appellant Geroche to "take care of the two."
PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT Said utterance could, therefore, not have been the inducement to commit the crime charged in
1. the inducement be made with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime this case.
2. such inducement be the determining cause of the commission by the material executor -People vs. Manambit: if the evidence is susceptible of two interpretations, one consistent
To constitute inducement, there must exist on the part of the inducer the most positive with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, the accused
resolution and the most persistent effort to secure the commission of the crime, together with must be acquitted
the presentation to the person induced of the very strongest kind of temptation to commit the
crime. Principals by indispensable cooperation
-Upon review of the testimony of all the witnesses of the prosecution, we find nothing to People vs. Carriaga
conclude that Jeanette used irresistible force or caused uncontrollable fear upon the other -Carriaga brothers and Ben Palis are guilty of murder of Ernesto de Guzman
accused-appellants. From the factual findings of the trial court, it is patent that the plan to -Under the facts of the case, we deem it necessary that we distinguish the nature of the
abduct and liquidate the victims was hatched on August 5, 1992 (10:30 A.M.) without Jeanette's participation of appellants Nestor, Cosme and Palis. In the present case, it is clear that
involvement or participation whatsoever. The record is entirely bereft of any evidence to show appellants Nestor and Cosme are principals by direct participation. Both of them with the same
that Jeanette directly forced the participants of the said meeting to come up with such plan, by purpose and design hacked Ernesto repeatedly to kill the victim.
either using irresistible force or causing uncontrollable fear. The only basis relied upon by the -What is the nature of participation of appellant Palis?
trial court in arriving at its conclusion that Jeanette is guilty of the crime as principal by -It is an established fact borne by the prosecution evidence that the three appellants went inside
inducement, is the supposed "commands" or order given by her to accused-appellant the house of Ernesto without prior notice or permission from the occupants of the house; that
Dominador Geroche on two occasions. By no stretch of the imagination may these so-called appellant Palis merely stood by the door of the house while his co-appellants hacked Ernesto
"commands", standing alone, be considered as constituting irresistible force or causing to death; that he left the scene of the crime together with the other appellants; and that they
uncontrollable fear. were altogether found riding in a jeepney and arrested by the police. That Palis just stood by
-The Court finds no evidence, as did the trial court, to show that Jeanette offered any price, the door without saying anything cannot therefore be considered as a mere passive presence
reward, or promise to the rest of accused-appellants should they abduct and later kill the victims that would have negated his participation as a conspirator. However, there are no other facts
in this case. If at all, the prosecution witness mentioned the name of Ricardo Yanson as having established by the prosecution that would prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Palis
lent money to accused-appellant Col. Torres to be used for paying the latter's debts or committed acts in the killing of Ernesto that would categorize him as a principal by induction,
obligations. But definitely, no money ever came from Jeanette herself. The trial court's surmise by direct participation or by indispensable cooperation. What is certain from the facts
that the money delivered by Ricardo Yanson to the group was with the knowledge and approval established by the prosecution, is that he had the same purpose and design as the other
of Jeanette is completely baseless. appellants as shown by the fact that he went inside the house of the victim, uninvited and

4
unannounced together with his co-appellants Nestor and Cosme who were armed with bolos; -Under paragraph 2 of said codal provision, the concealment or the destruction of the body of
and that after the hacking, he left the house together with appellants Nestor and Cosme and the crime or of the effects or the instruments thereof must have been done in order to prevent
rode a jeepney together. the discovery of the crime. That, precisely, is wanting in the present case.
-In such case, we apply our ruling in People vs. Ubia where we held that when an accused -In his testimony, appellant stated that because he was afraid his co-accused would hurt him if
does not fall under any of the three concepts defined in Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code, he refused, he agreed to assist the latter in carrying the victim towards the river. The fact that
he may only be considered guilty as an accomplice. appellant left thereafter likewise indicated his innocence of the charge. Verily, he adequately
-Treachery qualified the killing to murder and absorbed the abuse of superior strength alleged explained his conduct prior to the stabbing incident as one born of fear for his own life. It is not
in the information. incredible for an eyewitness to a crime, especially if unarmed, to desist from assisting the victim
-Crime was not attended by either aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the penalty to be if to do so would put the former's life in peril.
imposed against appellants Carriaga brothers, as principals by participation, should be
reclusion perpetua Duration of Penalties
People vs. Lucas
Accessories -nature of the penalty of reclusion perpetua in the light of Section 21 of RA No. 7659, which
People vs. Wilfredo Tolentino and Jonathan Fabros amended Art. 27 of the RPC by specifically fixing the duration of reclusion perpetua at twenty
-prosecution failed to prove the existence of conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt, neither was (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years
it able to show the appellant was an accomplice or accessoryhe must be acquitted on - Since no corresponding amendment to Article 76 of the Revised Penal Code was made, the
reasonable ground said law has not made explicit an intention to convert reclusion perpetua into a divisible penalty.
-Fabros appealed to the SC. He denied killing the victim. It shall then remain as an indivisible penalty.
-Facts: When he went home from work, Tolentino came over to their house and called for - In People vs. Reyes, this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Florenz D. Regalado, stated:
Sheila. Fabros heard Sheila crying and when they asked her why, she disclosed of Tolentinos The imputed duration of thirty (30) years for reclusion perpetua, therefore, is only to serve as
plan to kill Sheilas stepfather, the victim Hernan Sagario. When Tolentino saw the victim the basis for determining the convict's eligibility for pardon or for the application of the three-
coming home, he ordered the Fabros and his cousins to go home. Hernan ordered Fabros to fold rule in the service of multiple penalties. Since, however, in all the graduated scales of
boil water. Tolentino talked with Sagario for a few minutes. Tolentino went to his house and penalties in the Code, as set out in Article
Sagario told Fabros to check if water was already boiling. When he did, he heard a sound and 25, 70 and 71, reclusion perpetua is the penalty immediately next higher to reclusion temporal,
saw Tolentino holding a piece of woodit was then that he saw his uncle fall down, his chest it follows by necessary implication that the minimum of reclusion perpetua is twenty (20) years
hitting the table. Tolentino asked Fabros to carry Sagario by his feet and they brought his and one (1) day with a maximum duration thereafter to last for the rest of the convicts natural
unconscious body near the river. When Sagario was gaining consciousness, Fabros ran to the life although, pursuant to Article 70, it appears that the maximum period for the service of
banana plantation where he saw Tolentino stab his uncle and waded the dead body to the penalties shall not exceed forty (40) years. It would be legally absurd and violative of the scales
water. of penalties in the Code to reckon the minimum of reclusion perpetua at thirty (30) years since
-Tolentino declared that Fabros was the one who killed Sagario however retracted the there would thereby be a resultant lacuna whenever the penalty exceeds the maximum twenty
statement by executing an affidavit later on (conscience-stricken) admitting sole responsibility (20) years of reclusion temporal but is less than thirty (30) years.
for Sagarios death.
-RTC observed the overt and positive acts of the appellant which manifested his approval of Confiscation and Forfeiture of proceeds of the crime
the killing and the concurrence of his acts with those of the accused. RTC concluded that PDEA vs. Brodett
Fabros was a co-conspirator and should be held equally responsible for the murder. -Objects of lawful commerce confiscated in the course of an enforcement of the
-SCs ruling: Fabros should be acquitted Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (Republic Act No. 9165) that are the property of
-No conspiracy. Not a principal by indispensable cooperation. Not an accomplice. Not an a third person are subject to be returned to the lawful owner who is not liable for the unlawful
accessory either. act. But the trial court may not release such objects pending trial and before judgment.

5
-Brodett is accused of selling drugs. He filed a Motion to Return Non-Drug Evidence because -Up until now, the Supreme Court has assumed the direct appellate review over all criminal
PDEA had seized several personal non-drug effects from him including a car and PDEA cases in which the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment (or lower
refused to return his personal effects despite repeated demands. but involving offenses committed on the same occasion or arising out of the same occurrence
-It appeared to the CA, however, that the car belonged to Myra Brodett (not guilty of the crime that gave rise to the more serious offense for which the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua,
accused) and not to the accused or life imprisonment is imposed). The practice finds justification in the 1987 Constitution under
-It is not open to question that in a criminal proceeding, the court having jurisdiction over the Article VIII, Section 5.
offense has the power to order upon conviction of an accused the seizure of (a) the instruments -In passing, during the deliberations among the members of the Court, there has been a
to commit the crime, including documents, papers, and other effects that are the necessary marked absence of unanimity on the crucial point of guilt or innocence of herein appellant.
means to commit the crime; and contraband, the ownership or possession of which is not Some are convinced that the evidence would appear to be sufficient to convict; some would
permitted for being illegal. As justification for the first, the accused must not profit from his accept the recommendation of acquittal from the Solicitor General on the ground of inadequate
crime, or must not acquire property or the right to possession of property through his unlawful proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, the occasion best demonstrates the typical
act. As justification for the second, to return to the convict from whom the contraband was dilemma, i.e., the determination and appreciation of primarily factual matters, which the
taken, in one way or another, is not prudent or proper, because doing so will give rise to a Supreme Court has had to face with in automatic review cases; yet, it is the Court of Appeals
violation of the law for possessing the contraband again. Indeed, the court having jurisdiction that has aptly been given the direct mandate to review factual issues.
over the offense has the right to dispose of property used in the commission of the crime, such -While the Fundamental Law requires a mandatory review by the Supreme Court of cases
disposition being an accessory penalty to be imposed on the accused, unless the property where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death, nowhere,
belongs to a third person not liable for the offense that it was used as the instrument to commit. however, has it proscribed an intermediate review. If only to ensure utmost circumspection
-In case of forfeiture of property for crime, title and ownership of the convict are absolutely before the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is imposed, the Court now
divested and shall pass to the Government. But it is required that the property to be forfeited deems it wise and compelling to provide in these cases a review by the Court of Appeals before
must be before the court in such manner that it can be said to be within its jurisdiction. the case is elevated to the Supreme Court.
-We rule that henceforth the Regional Trial Courts shall comply strictly with the provisions of -Where life and liberty are at stake, all possible avenues to determine his guilt or innocence
Section 20 of R.A. No. 9165, and should not release articles, whether drugs or non-drugs, for must be accorded an accused, and no care in the evaluation of the facts can ever be overdone.
the duration of the trial and before the rendition of the judgment, even if owned by a third person A prior determination by the Court of Appeals on, particularly, the factual issues, would
who is not liable for the unlawful act minimize the possibility of an error of judgment.
-Procedural matters, first and foremost, fall more squarely within the rule-making prerogative
Section 20. Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instruments of the Unlawful Act, Including the Properties or of the Supreme Court than the law-making power of Congress. The rule here announced
Proceeds Derived from the Illegal Trafficking of Dangerous Drugs and/or Precursors and Essential Chemicals.
additionally allowing an intermediate review by the Court of Appeals, a subordinate appellate
Every penalty imposed for the unlawful importation, sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution, court, before the case is elevated to the Supreme Court on automatic review, is such a
transportation or manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical, the cultivation procedural matter.
or culture of plants which are sources of dangerous drugs, and the possession of any equipment, instrument, apparatus -Case is REMANDED and all pertinent records thereof ordered to be FORWARDED to the
and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs including other laboratory equipment, shall carry with it the confiscation
and forfeiture, in favor of the government, of all the proceeds derived from unlawful act, including, but not limited to,
Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.
money and other assets obtained thereby, and the instruments or tools with which the particular unlawful act was
committed, unless they are the property of a third person not liable for the unlawful act, but those which are not of Compound Crime
lawful commerce shall be ordered destroyed without delay pursuant to the provisions of Section 21 of this Act. Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro

Automatic Review by the CA in case the penalty of rec perp or life imprisonment Complex Crime Proper
People vs Mateo Celino vs CA
-Mateo is alleged to have committed 10 counts of rape against Imelda Mateo (daughter of his -Accused was charged in 2 separate informations for his violation of the gun ban during
live in partner) when the latters mother was not at home. elections and illegal possession of firearms (armalite rifle).

6
-Prior to his arraignment, he filed a motion to Quash contending that he cannot be prosecuted commission of the crime to murder, this circumstance could no longer be appreciated anew as
for illegal possession of firearms if he was also charged of having committed another crime of a generic aggravating circumstance to warrant the imposition of the supreme death penalty.
violating the COMELEC gun ban under the same set of facts. - The penalty for the crime of murder is reclusion perpetua to death. The two penalties being
-Petition fails both indivisible, and there being neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the
-The law is indeed clear. The accused can be convicted of illegal possession of firearms, commission of the deed, the lesser of the two penalties should be applied pursuant to the
provided no other crime was committed by the person arrested. The word "committed" taken second paragraph of Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.
in its ordinary sense, and in light of the Constitutional presumption of innocence, necessarily -We grant civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00. This is automatically awarded without
implies a prior determination of guilt by final conviction resulting from successful prosecution need of further evidence other than the fact of the victim's death.
or voluntary admission. -We reduce the actual damages awarded by the trial court from P100,000.00 to P35,120.00,
-Petitioner's reliance on Agote, Ladjaalam, Evangelista, Garcia, Pangilinan, Almeida, and which reduced amount is duly supported by receipts. It is settled that the Court can only give
Bernal is, therefore, misplaced. In each one of these cases, the accused were exonerated of credence to expenses supported by receipts and which appear to have been genuinely
illegal possession of firearms because of their commission, as shown by their conviction, of incurred in connection with the death, wake and burial of the victim.
some other crime. In the present case, however, petitioner has only been accused of -Moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 is upheld in accordance with recent
committing a violation of the COMELEC gun ban. As accusation is not synonymous with guilt, jurisprudence. The victim's common-law wife stated that she was hurt by her husband's death
there is yet no showing that petitioner did in fact commit the other crime charged. Consequently, and that the children lost their father.
the proviso does not yet apply. -The exemplary damages awarded by the trial court is eliminated considering that these can
-In sum, when the other offense involved is one of those enumerated under R.A. 8294, any only be recovered in criminal cases when the crime is committed with one or more aggravating
information for illegal possession of firearm should be quashed because the illegal possession circumstances. There is no aggravating circumstance in this case.
of firearm would have to be tried together with such other offense, either considered as an
aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide, or absorbed as an element of rebellion, ISLaw Rule under the RPC and Special Penal Laws, application
insurrection, sedition or attempted coup d'etat. Conversely, when the other offense involved is People vs Laureano Gonzalez
not one of those enumerated under R.A. 8294, then the separate case for illegal possession of -Offense charged and admitted by the appellant constitutes a complex crime of estafa through
firearm should continue to be prosecuted. Petition dismissed. falsification of a public document
-Accused, a laborer of the Dept of Labor, falsified a public document, which is a reimbursement
Penalties, in general expense receipt, by preparing the said receipt and writing thereon the signature of someone
People vs. Reynes else.
-Facts: A little past midnight, victim Claro Bernardino and his common law wife, Norma Padilla -Upon arraignment, the defendant pleaded guilty.
returned home. Couple went inside the house. Norma went in to prepare coffee. Claro told -The offense he committed comes under No. 4, Article 315, in connection with Article 171 of
Norma to help him bring the motorcycle inside the house. Norma was going out of the house, the RPC, the penalty being, pursuant to Article 48 of the said code, that which is provided for
saw Claro urinating at the front left side of the house when the accused emerged from the wall the more serious offense to be applied in its maximum period. The penalty provided for the
and while he was approximately 3m from the victim, shot Claro 3 times with a firearm. Accused more serious offense falsification of a public document by a public officer is prision mayor
ran away. and a fine not to exceed P5,000. Since appellant is entitled to the mitigating circumstances of
- TC rendered the accused guilty of murder, aggravated by treachery, and sentenced him to voluntary surrender and plea of guilty, the penalty next lower to that provided by law should be
death penalty imposed in accordance with Rule 5, Article 64, of the Revised Penal Code.
-SC sustains the conviction of the appellant of murder but the penalty imposed was reduced -In the construction of laws absurdities should be avoided if possible. And the absurdities above
from death to reclusion perpetua indicated may be avoided if we hold, as we hold now that though as a general rule, when the
-Treachery was present. TC seriously erred in considering treachery twice. penalties prescribed by law are constituted by only one or 2 periods of divisible
-When more than one of said circumstances is proven, the others must be considered as penalties, the higher and the lower ones are formed by the same number of periods
generic aggravating. When other circumstances are absorbed or included in one qualifying immediately following, this should not be done when, as in this case, the law prescribes
circumstance, they cannot be considered as generic aggravating. Since treachery qualified the

7
the penalty in connection with another composed of 3 divisible periods, and the promulgation of the judgment or from notice of the final order appealed from." In Palo v.
graduation should therefore be made in accordance with Rule 4 of Article 61 of the RPC Militante, this Court held that what the law requires is that the application for probation must be
-In other words, for purposes of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty next lower should filed within the period for perfecting an appeal. The need to file it within such period is intended
be determined without regard as to whether the basic penalty provided by the Code should be to encourage offenders, who are willing to be reformed and rehabilitated, to avail themselves
applied in its maximum or minimum period as circumstances modifying the liability may require. of probation at the first opportunity.
When, however and this may be the only exception to the rule - the number of mitigating -The law expressly requires that an accused must not have appealed his conviction before he
circumstances is such as to entitle the accused to the penalty next lower in degree, this penalty, can avail himself of probation. This outlaws the element of speculation on the part of the
in the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, should be taken as the starting point for accused to wager on the result of his appeal that when his conviction is finally affirmed
the determination of the penalty next lower. on appeal, the moment of truth well nigh at hand and the service of his sentence inevitable, he
-Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law to the accused, the maximum of the penalty to be now applies for probation as an "escape hatch", thus rendering nugatory the appellate court's
imposed upon him shall be the maximum period of prision correccional that is, from 4 years, 2 affirmance of his conviction. Consequently, probation should be availed of at the first
months and 1 day to 6 years. The minimum of the indeterminate penalty shall be within the opportunity by convicts who are willing to be reformed and rehabilitated; who manifest
range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense. spontaneity, contrition and remorse.
-Prision correccional is the penalty provided by law for the offense and the penalty next lower -This just obviously manifests the intention of petitioner to benefit from the remedy of probation
is arresto mayor which may be applied in any of its periods in the discretion of the court, taking just in case the remedy of appeal is not given due course. Prevailing jurisprudence treats
into account not only the circumstances attending the crime but such other circumstances as appeal and probation as mutually exclusive remedies because the law is unmistakable about
are material for the determination of a penalty adequate to the peculiar situation of the accused. it and, therefore, petitioner cannot avail herself of both.
As we have said in People vs. Ducosin, 59 Phil. 109, 117-118, "keeping in mind the basic
purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence Law 'to uplift and redeem valuable human material, Colinares vs People
and prevent unnecessary and excessive deprivation of personal liberty and economic -Colinares is charged with frustrated homicide. Complainant Rufino P. Buena (Rufino) and
usefulness' . . . it is necessary to consider the criminal, first, as an individual and, second, as a Jesus Paulite (Jesus) went out to buy cigarettes at a nearby store. On their way, Jesus took a
member of society. This opens up an almost limitless field of investigation and study which it is leak by the roadside with Rufino waiting nearby. From nowhere, Arnel sneaked behind and
the duty of the court to explore in each case as far as is humanly possible, with the end in view struck Rufino twice on the head with a huge stone. Rufino fell unconscious as Jesus fled.
that penalties shall not be standardized but fitted as far as is possible to the individual, with due -On July 1, 2005 the RTC rendered judgment,finding Arnel guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
regard to the imperative necessity of protecting the social order." frustrated homicide and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment from two years and four months
of prision correccional, as minimum, to six years and one day of prision mayor, as maximum.
Since the maximum probationable imprisonment under the law was only up to six years, Arnel
Probation Law did not qualify for probation.
Sable vs People -Issue: Given a finding that Arnel is entitled to conviction for a lower offense and a reduced
-Petitioner is accused of falsification of public documents. They allegedly falsified an probationable penalty, whether or not he may still apply for probation on remand of the case to
Extrajudicial Declaration of Heirs with Waiver of Rights and Partition Agreement, as the the trial court.
signatures contained therein were not the signatures of the true owners of the land. Petition -Here, however, Arnel did not appeal from a judgment that would have allowed him to apply for
devoid of merit. probation. He did not have a choice between appeal and probation. He was not in a position to
-Probation is a special privilege granted by the state to a penitent qualified offender. It say, "By taking this appeal, I choose not to apply for probation." The stiff penalty that the trial
essentially rejects appeals and encourages an otherwise eligible convict to immediately admit court imposed on him denied him that choice. Thus, a ruling that would allow Arnel to now seek
his liability and save the state the time, effort and expenses to jettison an appeal. probation under this Court's greatly diminished penalty will not dilute the sound ruling in
-In the present petition before Us, petitioner filed the application for probation on 25 August Francisco. It remains that those who will appeal from judgments of conviction, when they have
2003, almost eight months from the time the assailed judgment of the RTC became final. the option to try for probation, forfeit their right to apply for that privilege.
Clearly, the application for probation was filed out of time pursuant to Rule 122, Sec. 6 of the -In a real sense, the Court's finding that Arnel was guilty, not of frustrated homicide, but only of
Rules of Court, which states that an "appeal must be taken within fifteen (15) days from attempted homicide, is an original conviction that for the first time imposes on him a

8
probationable penalty. Had the RTC done him right from the start, it would have found him be filed against the executor or administrator of the estate of the accused pursuant to Sec. 1,
guilty of the correct offense and imposed on him the right penalty of two years and four months Rule 87 of the Rules of Court.
maximum. This would have afforded Arnel the right to apply for probation 1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as
-The Probation Law never intended to deny an accused his right to probation through no fault well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard,
of his. The underlying philosophy of probation is one of liberality towards the accused. Such "the death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the
philosophy is not served by a harsh and stringent interpretation of the statutory provisions. As civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed, i.e., civil liability
Justice Vicente V. Mendoza said in his dissent in Francisco, the Probation Law must not be ex delicto in senso strictiore."
regarded as a mere privilege to be given to the accused only where it clearly appears he comes 2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if the
within its letter; to do so would be to disregard the teaching in many cases that the Probation same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the
Law should be applied in favor of the accused not because it is a criminal law but to achieve Civil Code enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise
its beneficent purpose. as a result of the same act or omission:
a) Law
Total extinction of Criminal Liability b) Contracts
People vs Bayotas c) Quasi-contracts
-Rogelio Bayotas was convicted of rape. Pending appeal of his conviction, Bayotas died in the d) . . .
National Bilibid Hospital due to cardiac arrest. SC dismissed the criminal aspect of the appeal e) Quasi-delicts
-Does the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguish his civil liability? In 3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above, an action for recovery
People vs. Castillo, SC settledyes. therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section
-Issue was resolved by stating that: Article 89 of the RPC is the controlling statute. 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate civil action
ART. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. Criminal liability is totally may be enforced either against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused,
extinguished: depending on the source of obligation upon which the same is based as explained above.
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to the 4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this separate
pecuniary penalties liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender civil action by prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of the criminal action and
occurs before final judgment; prior to its extinction, the private-offended party instituted together therewith the civil action. In
-With reference to Castillos criminal liability, the law is plainsaid liability is extinguished. such case, the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the
-Civil liability is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. pendency of the criminal case, conformably with provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil Code,
-Final judgment. Sec. 7, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court which states that a judgment in a that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible
criminal case becomes final after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal or when the privation of right by prescription.
sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served, or the defendant has expressly waived
in writing his right to appeal. The term final judgment employed in the Revised Penal Code People vs Santiago
means judgment beyond recall. As long as judgment has not become executory, it cannot -Felipe Santiago is guilty of the offense of rape. Accuseds wife was the aunt of Felicita
be truthfully said that defendant is definitely guilty of the felony charged against him. Masilang, 18 and the victim of the crime. Therefore, victim is the accuseds niece by marriage.
-SC rules then that: if the private offended party, upon extinction of the civil liability ex delicto After committing the rape, the accused brought the victim to the house of his uncle where he
desires to recover damages from the same act or omission complained of, he must subject to had a protestant minister marry them. After the marriage, he gave the girl a few pesos and sent
Section 1, Rule 111 (1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended) file a separate civil her home.
action, this time predicated not on the felony previously charged but on other sources of -The trial court found that the offense of rape had been committed, as above stated, and that
obligation. The source of obligation upon which the separate action is premised determines the marriage ceremony was a mere ruse by which the appellant hoped to escape from the
against whom the same shall be enforced. criminal consequences of his act. We concur in this view of the case. The manner in which the
-If the same act or omission complained of also arises from quasi-delict or may, by provision appellant dealt with the girl after the marriage, as well as before, shows that he had no bona
of law, result in an injury to person or property (real or personal), the separate civil action must fide intention of making her his wife, and the ceremony cannot be considered binding on her

9
because of duress. The marriage was therefore void for lack of essential consent, and it another. Viewing things pragmatically, we can readily see that what gives rise to the
supplies no impediment to the prosecution of the wrongdoer. civil liability is really the obligation and moral duty of everyone to repair or make whole
the damage caused to another by reason of his own act or omission, done intentionally
Civil Liability or negligently, whether or not the same be punishable by law.
Abellana vs People Simply stated, civil liability arises when one, by reason of his own act or omission, done
Based on the evidence presented by both parties, the trial court found that petitioner intentionally or negligently, causes damage to another. Hence, for petitioner to be civilly
did not intend to defraud the spouses Alonto; that after the latter failed to pay their liable to spouses Alonto, it must be proven that the acts he committed had caused
obligation, petitioner prepared a Deed of Absolute Sale which the spouses Alonto damage to the spouses.
actually signed; but that the Deed of Absolute Sale was notarized without the spouses Moreover, we cannot sustain the alternative sentence imposed upon the petitioner, to
Alonto personally appearing before the notary public. From these, the trial court wit: to institute an action for the recovery of the properties of spouses Alonto or to pay
concluded that petitioner can only be held guilty of Falsification of a Public Document them actual and other kinds of damages. First, it has absolutely no basis in view of the
by a private individual under Article 172 (1) in relation to Article 171 (2) of the Revised trial court's nding that the signatures of the spouses Alonto in the Deed of Absolute
Penal Code (RPC) and not estafa through falsification of public document as charged Sale are genuine and not forged. Second, "[s]entences should not be in the alternative.
in the Information. There is nothing in the law which permits courts to impose sentences in the alternative."
Thus, the CA opined that the conviction of the petitioner for an oense not alleged in While a judge has the discretion of imposing one or another penalty, he cannot impose
the Information or one not necessarily included in the oense charged violated his both in the alternative. "He must x positively and with certainty the particular penalty."
constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him. People vs Jadap
It is an established rule in criminal procedure that a judgment of acquittal shall state Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659,
whether the evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. In view of the attendant
accused or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In either case, circumstance of treachery, the crime committed by Jadap is murder. Records also
the judgment shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability might show that Jadap was not a licensed firearm holder. Pursuant to Section 1 of Republic
arise did not exist. When the exoneration is merely due to the failure to prove the guilt Act No. 8294, when an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of the crime, it
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the court should award the civil liability in should be considered as an aggravating circumstance. Hence, the penalty imposed
favor of the oended party in the same criminal action. In other words, the "extinction should be the maximum penalty, which is death.
of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of civil liability unless the However, in view of the effectivity of Republic Act No. 9346, entitled An Act Prohibiting
extinction proceeds from a declaration in a nal judgment that the fact from which the the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines, on June 24, 2006, the penalty
civil [liability] might arise did not exist." imposed must be reduced from death to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
RTC AND CA: Here, the CA set aside the trial court's Decision because it convicted As to damages, when death occurs due to a crime, the following may be awarded: (1)
petitioner of an oense dierent from or not included in the crime charged in the civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory
Information. To recall, petitioner was charged with estafa through falsication of public damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; and (5) temperate damages.
document. However, the RTC found that the spouses Alonto actually signed the Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof
document although they did not personally appear before the notary public for its other than the commission of the crime. In cases of murder and homicide, moral
notarization. Hence, the RTC instead convicted petitioner of falsication of public damages may be awarded without need of allegation and proof of the emotional
document. On appeal, the CA held that petitioner's conviction cannot be sustained suffering of the heirs, other than the death of the victim, since the emotional wounds
because it infringed on his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the from the vicious killing of the victim cannot be denied. To conform with recent
accusation against him. The CA, however, found no reversible error on the civil liability jurisprudence, Jadap is ordered to pay P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and another
of petitioner as determined by the trial court and thus sustained the same. amount of P75,000.00 as moral damages.
SC: While an act or omission is felonious because it is punishable by law, it gives rise As to actual damages, the rule is that only receipted expenses can be the basis of
to civil liability not so much because it is a crime but because it caused damage to actual damages arising from [medical] funeral expenditures. All the prosecution

10
 presented was a receipt from the funeral parlor amounting to P2,500.00. Since the sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured or a punishment for those
receipted expenses of the victims family was less than P25,000.00, temperate guilty of outrageous conduct. These terms are generally, but not always, used
damages in the said amount can be awarded in lieu of actual damages. Accordingly, interchangeably. In common law, there is preference in the use of exemplary damages
the heirs of the victim are not entitled to actual damages but to temperate damages in when the award is to account for injury to feelings and for the sense of indignity and
the amount of P25,000.00. humiliation suffered by a person as a result of an injury that has been maliciously and
Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals awarded the heirs of Robert Alisbo the wantonly inflicted, the theory being that there should be compensation for the hurt
amount of P720,000.00 by reason of the victims loss of earning capacity. As a rule, caused by the highly reprehensible conduct of the defendantassociated with such
documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for damages for circumstances as willfulness, wantonness, malice, gross negligence or recklessness,
loss of earning capacity. By way of exception, damages for loss of earning capacity oppression, insult or fraud or gross fraudthat intensifies the injury. The terms punitive
may be awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence when (1) the deceased or vindictive damages are often used to refer to those species of damages that may
is self-employed and earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, in be awarded against a person to punish him for his outrageous conduct. In either case,
which case judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceased's line of work these damages are intended in good measure to deter the wrongdoer and others like
no documentary evidence is available; or (2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage him from similar conduct in the future.
worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws. In this case, no Being corrective in nature, exemplary damages, therefore, can be awarded, not only
documentary evidence was presented to prove the claim of the victims heirs for in the presence of an aggravating circumstance, but also where the circumstances of
damages by reason of loss of earning capacity. However, the victims father testified the case show the highly reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the offender.
that at the time of his sons death, he was only 20 years old and was working as a In the case at bar, the minority of AAA was sufficiently established by presenting her
mason with a monthly income of P3,000.00. We find the fathers testimony sufficient to birth certificate in court. All considered, the award of exemplary damages in the amount
justify the award of damages for loss of earning capacity. The computation arrived at of P30,000.00 is, therefore, in order.
by the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, was in accordance with the
formula for computing the award for loss of earning capacity Simple rape
People vs Dalisay
People vs Rante In a determination of guilt for the crime of rape, primordial is the credibility of the
In the determination of the innocence or guilt of the accused in rape cases, the courts complainant's testimony, because, in rape cases, the accused may be convicted solely
consider the following principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility on the testimony of the victim, provided it is credible, natural, convincing and consistent
and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, with human nature and the normal course of things. Here, the victim, in the painstaking
though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that in the nature of things, only two and well-nigh degrading public trial, related her painful ordeal that she was raped by
persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant appellant. Her testimony was found by the trial court, which had the undisputed
should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must vantage in the evaluation and appreciation of testimonial evidence, to have been made
stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the in "a simple, straightforward and spontaneous manner."
weakness of the evidence for the defense. Prior to the eectivity of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, 29 courts generally
We, therefore, affirm the decisions of the trial court and the Court of Appeals. However, awarded exemplary damages in criminal cases when an aggravating circumstance,
we deem it necessary to modify the civil liability of the appellant to include exemplary whether ordinary or qualifying, had been proven to have attended the commission of
damages. the crime, even if the same was not alleged in the information. This is in accordance
By focusing only on Article 2230 as the legal basis for the grant of exemplary with the aforesaid Article 2230. However, with the promulgation of the Revised Rules,
damagestaking into account simply the attendance of an aggravating circumstance in courts no longer consider the aggravating circumstances not alleged and proven in the
the commission of a crime, courts have lost sight of the very reason why exemplary determination of the penalty and in the award of damages. Thus, even if an aggravating
damages are awarded. circumstance has been proven, but was not alleged, courts will not award exemplary
Also known as punitive or vindictive damages, exemplary or corrective damages are damages.
intended to serve as a deterrent to serious wrong doings, and as a vindication of undue

11
 Nevertheless, P e o ple v. C a t u big laid down the principle that courts may still award such facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked,
exemplary damages based on the aforementioned Article 2230, even if the aggravating misapprehended or misinterpreted by the trial and appellate courts.
circumstance has not been alleged, so long as it has been proven, in criminal cases As to the penalty, Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides:
instituted before the eectivity of the Revised Rules which remained pending ART. 266-B. Penalties. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be
thereafter. C a t u big reasoned that the retroactive application of the Revised Rules punished by reclusion perpetua.
should not adversely aect the vested rights of the private oended party. xxxx
Thus, we find, in our body of jurisprudence, criminal cases, especially those involving The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the
rape, dichotomized: one awarding exemplary damages, even if an aggravating following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
circumstance attending the commission of the crime had not been suciently alleged l) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant,
but was consequently proven in the light of C a t u big ; and another awarding step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the
exemplary damages only if an aggravating circumstance has both been alleged and common-law spouse of the parent of the victim;
proven following the Revised Rules. The dierence between the two sets rests on 2) When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities or any law
when the criminal case was instituted, either before or after the effectivity of the enforcement or penal institution;
Revised Rules. 3) When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse, parent, any of the children or other
In the instant case, the information for rape was led in 2003 or after the eectivity of relatives within the third civil degree of consanguinity;
the Revised Rules. Following the doctrine in the second set of cases, the Court can 4) When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation or calling and is
very well deny the award of exemplary damages based on Article 2230 because the personally known to be such by the offender before or at the time of the commission of the
special qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship, as mentioned above, crime;
were not sufficiently alleged. Nevertheless, by focusing only on Article 2230 as the 5) When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old;
legal basis for the grant of exemplary damages taking into account simply the 6) When the offender knows that he is afflicted with Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus
attendance of an aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime, courts have (HIV)/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any other sexually transmissible
lost sight of the very reason why exemplary damages are awarded. disease and the virus or disease is transmitted to the victim;
In this case, nding that appellant, the father gure of the victim, has shown such an 7) When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or para-military
outrageous conduct in sexually abusing his ward, a minor at that, the Court sustains units thereof or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency or penal
the award of exemplary damages to discourage and deter such aberrant behavior. institution, when the offender took advantage of his position to facilitate the commission of the
However, the same is increased to P30,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence. crime;
8) When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical
Qualified rape mutilation or disability;
People vs Garcia 9) When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of the commission
A rape victim who testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank of the crime; and
manner, and remains consistent, is a credible witness. 10) When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical
In resolving rape cases, primordial consideration is given to the credibility of the victims handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime. (Emphasis supplied.)
testimony. The settled rule is that the trial courts conclusions on the credibility of Under Article 266-B, paragraph 6, subsection 1, the death penalty shall be imposed if the crime
witnesses in rape cases are generally accorded great weight and respect, and at times of rape is committed when the victim is under 18 years old and the offender is a parent,
even finality, unless there appear in the record certain facts or circumstances of weight ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree,
and value which the lower court overlooked or misappreciated and which, if properly or the common law spouse of the parent of the victim. The circumstances that qualify a crime
considered, would alter the result of the case. Having seen and heard the witnesses should be alleged and proved beyond reasonable doubt as the crime itself, as these attendant
themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, the trial court stood circumstances alter the nature of the crime of rape and increase the penalty. They are in the
in a much better position to decide the question of credibility. Here, we note that no nature of qualifying circumstances.The age of the victim and her relationship with the offender

12
must, therefore, be both alleged in the information and proven during the trial; otherwise, the be held guilty beyond reasonable doubt for killing him pursuant to the above-quoted
death penalty cannot be imposed provision. He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.
Here, the Information alleged that AAA is appellants grandniece by affinity. It should The penalty for Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code is r e clu sio n
be pointed out, however, that this relationship does not make the appellant a relative t e m p o r al the range of which is from 12 years and one day to 20 years. Applying
of the victim by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree. Hence, the the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty next lower in degree is p risio n m a y o
provision in Article 266-B, paragraph 6, subsection 1, is not applicable in this case. r the range of which is from six years and one day to 12 years. In this case, we nd
Nevertheless, it is provided under Article 266-B, paragraph 6, subsection 5, that the that the mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that
death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed when the victim committed, attended the commission of the crime. Thus, the appellate court correctly
is a child below seven (7) years old. The special qualifying circumstance that the victim imposed the indeterminate penalty of six years and one day of p risio n m a y o r , as
was below seven (7) years of age at the time of the commission of the rape was minimum, to 12 years and one day of r e clu sio n t e m p o r al , as maximum.
properly alleged in the Information and proved during trial by the testimonies of the As regards the amount of damages, civil indemnity must also be awarded to the heirs
complainant and her grandmother. It was also supported by the copy of the birth of Lucrecio without need of proof other than the fact that a crime was committed
certificate establishing that the victim was only five (5) years old when the rape was resulting in the death of the victim and that petitioner was responsible therefor.
committed. Thus, appellant was, at that time, correctly sentenced to death by the trial Accordingly, we award the sum of P50,000.00 in line with current jurisprudence.
court. In view of the enactment of Rep. Act No. 9346 on June 24, 2006, repealing the However, the other awards of damages must be modied. It is error for the trial court
Death Penalty Law, the Court of Appeals also correctly modified the death penalty and the appellate court to award actual damages of P30,000.00 for the expenses
imposed upon appellant to reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole incurred for the death of the victim. We perused the records and did not nd evidence
We likewise uphold the award of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity made by the courts a to support the plea for actual damages. The expenses incurred in connection with the
quo as the award is in line with existing case law. We have held that if the rape is death, wake and burial of Lucrecio cannot be sustained without any tangible document
perpetrated with any of the attending qualifying aggravating circumstances that require to support such claim. While expenses were incurred in connection with the death of
the imposition of the death penalty, the civil indemnity for the victim shall be Lucrecio, actual damages cannot be awarded as they are not supported by receipts
P75,000.00. The award of P135,331.00 for the loss of earning capacity was also in order. 27 The
Also, in rape cases, moral damages are awarded without need of proof other than the prosecution satisfactorily proved that the victim was earning an annual income of
fact of rape, because it is assumed that the victim has suffered moral injuries entitling P14,000.00 from the harvest of pineapples. Besides, the defense no longer impugned
her to such an award. The moral damages awarded in the instant case, however, this award of the trial court.
should be increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00 pursuant to current jurisprudence In lieu of actual damages, the heirs of the victim can still be awarded temperate
on qualified rape. Exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00 are also called for, damages. When pecuniary loss has been suered but the amount cannot, from the
by way of public example, and to protect the young from sexual abuse. nature of the case, be proven with certainty, temperate damages may be recovered.
Temperate damages may be allowed in cases where from the nature of the case,
Homicide denite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be adduced, although the court is convinced
Seguritan vs People that the aggrieved party suered some pecuniary loss. In this regard, the amount of
We are not impressed with petitioner's argument that he should be held liable only for P25,000.00 is in accordance with recent jurisprudence.
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide due to the absence of intent to kill Lucrecio. Moral damages was correctly awarded to the heirs of the victim without need of proof
When death resulted, even if there was no intent to kill, the crime is homicide, not just other than the fact that a crime was committed resulting in the death of the victim and
physical injuries, since with respect to crimes of personal violence, the penal law looks that the accused was responsible therefor. The award of P50,000.00 as moral
particularly to the material results following the unlawful act and holds the aggressor damages conforms to existing jurisprudence
responsible for all the consequences thereof.
Petitioner committed an unlawful act by punching Lucrecio, his uncle who was much Temperate Damages and Actual damages
older than him, and even if he did not intend to cause the death of Lucrecio, he must Quidet vs People

13
 We are not impressed with petitioner's argument that he should be held liable only for Moral damages was correctly awarded to the heirs of the victim without need of proof
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide due to the absence of intent to kill Lucrecio. other than the fact that a crime was committed resulting in the death of the victim and
When death resulted, even if there was no intent to kill, the crime is homicide, not just that the accused was responsible therefor. The award of P50,000.00 as moral
physical injuries, since with respect to crimes of personal violence, the penal law looks damages conforms to existing jurisprudence
particularly to the material results following the unlawful act and holds the aggressor
responsible for all the consequences thereof. What is included in civil liability
Petitioner committed an unlawful act by punching Lucrecio, his uncle who was much People vs Lagat
older than him, and even if he did not intend to cause the death of Lucrecio, he must For carnapping: As there was no aggravating circumstance attendant in the
be held guilty beyond reasonable doubt for killing him pursuant to the above-quoted commission of the crime, the RTC properly imposed the penalty of r e clu sio n p
provision. He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused. erpetua.
The penalty for Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code is r e clu sio n In conformity with prevailing jurisprudence, we arm the award of P50,000.00 as
t e m p o r al the range of which is from 12 years and one day to 20 years. Applying civil indemnity e x d elict o for the death of Jose Biag and P50,000.00 as moral
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty next lower in degree is p risio n m a y o damages for the proven mental suering of his wife as a result of his untimely
r the range of which is from six years and one day to 12 years. In this case, we nd death. However, when actual damages proven by receipts during trial amount to
that the mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that less than P25,000.00, as in this case, the award of temperate damages for
committed, attended the commission of the crime. Thus, the appellate court correctly P25,000.00 is justied in lieu of actual damages of a lesser amount. Thus, an
imposed the indeterminate penalty of six years and one day of p risio n m a y o r , as award of P25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of the amount of P14,900.00
minimum, to 12 years and one day of r e clu sio n t e m p o r al , as maximum. that the Court of Appeals awarded as actual damages is proper in this case.
As regards the amount of damages, civil indemnity must also be awarded to the heirs Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals failed to consider that under Article 2206
of Lucrecio without need of proof other than the fact that a crime was committed of the Civil Code, the accused are also jointly and severally liable for the loss of
resulting in the death of the victim and that petitioner was responsible therefor. the earning capacity of Biag and such indemnity should be paid to his heirs.
Accordingly, we award the sum of P50,000.00 in line with current jurisprudence. Biag's widow, Florida, testied that Biag worked as a farmer, t a n o d, and tricycle
However, the other awards of damages must be modied. It is error for the trial court driver, and that his income amounted to P40,000.00 per cropping season as a
and the appellate court to award actual damages of P30,000.00 for the expenses farmer, P2,000.00 per month as a t a n o d, and P300.00 per day as a tricycle
incurred for the death of the victim. We perused the records and did not nd evidence driver. However, since the prosecution failed to present any document pertaining
to support the plea for actual damages. The expenses incurred in connection with the to Biag's appointment as a t a n o d, or that he actually worked as a farmer, we
death, wake and burial of Lucrecio cannot be sustained without any tangible document shall consider only his earnings as a tricycle driver. According to the death
to support such claim. While expenses were incurred in connection with the death of certicate submitted by the prosecution, Biag was 56 years old at the time of his
Lucrecio, actual damages cannot be awarded as they are not supported by receipts death.
The award of P135,331.00 for the loss of earning capacity was also in order. 27 The The amount of damages recoverable for the loss of earning capacity of the
prosecution satisfactorily proved that the victim was earning an annual income of deceased is based on two factors: 1) the number of years on the basis of which
P14,000.00 from the harvest of pineapples. Besides, the defense no longer impugned the damages shall be computed; and 2) the rate at which the losses sustained by
this award of the trial court. the heirs of the deceased should be xed. The rst factor is based on the formula
In lieu of actual damages, the heirs of the victim can still be awarded temperate (2/3 x 80-age of the deceased at the time of his death = life expectancy) which is
damages. When pecuniary loss has been suered but the amount cannot, from the adopted from the American Expectancy Table of Mortality. Net income is computed
nature of the case, be proven with certainty, temperate damages may be recovered. by deducting from the amount of the victim's gross income the amount of his living
Temperate damages may be allowed in cases where from the nature of the case, expenses. As there is no proof of Biag's living expenses, the net income is
denite proof of pecuniary loss cannot be adduced, although the court is convinced estimated to be 50% of the gross annual income.
that the aggrieved party suered some pecuniary loss. In this regard, the amount of
P25,000.00 is in accordance with recent jurisprudence. People vs Villar

14
-Accused and his companions simultaneously emerged from the ice cream store; successively
shot the victim; and fled from the crime scene together. The CA also disregarded appellant's
alibi that he was in Quezon City at the time of the shooting for being uncorroborated and self-
serving, and in view of his positive
identification by the deceased's daughters.
-Lower court found appellant guilty of murder and properly sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua. Appellant is thus, not eligible for parole pursuant to Sec. 3 of RA 9346.
-Damages:
1. Moral damages-P50,000
2. Civil Indemnity-P75,000
3. Exemplary Damages-P30,000
-Award of P11,575 actual damages by lower court. SC modified award. As we held in People
vs. Villanueva, "when actual damages proven by receipts during the trial amount to less than
P25,000.00, as in this case, the award of temperate damages of P25,000.00 is justified in lieu
of actual damages of a lesser amount." Thus, we delete the award of P11,575.00 as actual
damages; in lieu thereof, we grant temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00.
-interest of 6% per annum from the date of finality of the judgment until fully paid
-Indemnity for lost earnings: "the formula that has gained acceptance over time has limited
recovery to net earning capacity; . . . [meaning], less the necessary expense for his own living."
-Under Article 2206 of the Civil Code, the heirs of the victim are entitled to indemnity for loss of
earning capacity. Compensation of this nature is awarded not for loss of earnings, but for loss
of capacity to earn. The indemnification for loss of earning capacity partakes of the nature
of actual damages which must be duly proven by competent proof and the best
obtainable evidence thereof. Thus, as a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to
substantiate the claim for damages for loss of earning capacity. By way of exception, damages
for loss of earning capacity may be awarded despite the absence of documentary evidence
when (1) the deceased is self-employed and earning less than the minimum wage under
current labor laws, in which case, judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceased's
line of work no documentary evidence is available; or (2) the deceased is employed as a daily
wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.
-Actual damages. For one to be entitled to actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual
amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and the
best evidence obtainable by the injured party. Actual damages are such compensation or
damages for an injury that will put the injured party in the position in which he had been before
he was injured. They pertain to such injuries or losses that are actually sustained and
susceptible of measurement. To justify an award for actual damages, there must be competent
proof of the actual amount of loss. Credence can be given only to claims which are duly
supported by receipts.

15