G.R. No.

L-37633 January 31, 1975 "Homicide through reckless imprudence" alleged to have been
committed as follows:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, 
vs. That on or about the 16th of May, 1971, in the
FELICISIMO MEDROSO, JR., accused-appellant. barrio of San Roque, municipality of Bombon,
province of Camarines Sur, Philippines, and
Office of the Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Assistant within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
Solicitor General Eduardo C. Abaya and Trial Attorney Josefina said accused without any license to drive motor
C. Castillo for plaintiff-appellee. vehicles issued by competent authority, did then
and there wilfully and unlawfully manage and
Crispo B. Borja for accused-appellant. operate a BHP dump truck bearing Plate No.
7329, S. 1969 and with BHP truck No. 14-H3-12P
and while passing along the said barrio in a
 
negligent, careless and imprudent manner,
without due regard to traffic laws, rules and
MUÑOZ PALMA, J.: regulations to prevent accident to persons and
damage to property, caused by such negligence
The only question or issue involved in this appeal is the and imprudence, said truck driven and operated
correctness of the judgment rendered by the Court of First by him to bump and hit one Iñigo Andes thereby
Instance of Camarines Sur in Criminal Case No. 403 wherein causing his death. (p. 4, Rollo)
accused-appellant, Felicisimo Medroso Jr., on a plea of guilty,
was convicted of "Homicide through reckless imprudence" and The case was called for trial on July 18, 1972, on which date
sentenced appellant with the assistance of his counsel pleaded guilty to the
charge with two mitigating circumstances in his favor, viz: plea of
to suffer the penalty of, from TWO (2) YEARS, guilty and voluntary surrender, to which the prosecuting fiscal
FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY, as offered no objection.
minimum, to SIX (6) YEARS, as maximum,
of prision correccional and ordered to pay the In its decision, the trial court, presided by Hon. Delfin Vir Sunga,
heirs of the deceased in the sum of P12,000.00 after appreciating the above-mentioned mitigating circumstances
as actual damages, P4,000.00 as moral damages and considering as an aggravating circumstance the fact that
and P4,000.00 as exemplary damages, Philippine appellant drove the vehicle in question without a license,
currency, and to pay the cost of this proceeding. sentenced the accused as indicated above.
(p. 11, Rollo)
Not content with the penalty imposed, accused appealed to the
Sometime on August 6, 1971, the Provincial Fiscal of Camarines Court of Appeals.
Sur filed with the local Court of First Instance an Information
accusing the herein appellant, Felicisimo Medroso Jr., of
On September 19, 1973, the Appellate Court, through its Second discretion in its imposition, without being bound by what We may call
Division at the time, certified the case to this Court on the ground the mathematical formula provided for in Article 64 of the Revised
that the appeal covers pure questions of law. Penal Code. On the basis of this particular provision, the trial court
was not bound to apply paragraph 5 of Article 64 in the instant case
Appellant is charged with homicide thru reckless imprudence for even if appellant had two mitigating circumstances in his favor with
no aggravating circumstance to offset them.
which the penalty provided for in Paragraph 6, sub-section 2 of
Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code is prision correccional in
its medium and maximum periods or from two years, four months In People vs. Agito, 1958, 103 Phil. 526, the accused, Simplicio
and one day to six years. Agito, was charged with triple homicide and serious physical
injuries thru reckless imprudence before the Court of First
Instance of Negros Occidental of Mindoro. He pleaded guilty and
Appellant now contends that inasmuch as he has two mitigating
the trial court, applying Article 365, paragraph 6, sub-section 2 of
circumstances in his favor without any aggravating circumstance,
the Revised Penal Code, sentenced him to suffer an
as driving without a license is not to be considered such, he is
indeterminate penalty from one year and one day to three years,
entitled to a penalty one degree lower than that prescribed by law
six months and twenty one days of prison correccional. The
pursuant to Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code 1 or, arresto
mayor  in its maximum period to correct in its minimum period, that is, accused appealed questioning the propriety of the penalty
from "four months and one day to two years, four months and one imposed and appellant contended inter alia that the trial court
day," and that applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the trial erred in not considering the mitigating circumstance of plea of
court should have imposed a minimum within the penalty still one guilty so as to reduce the penalty to a minimum period. This
degree lower, which is arresto mayor minimum and medium periods contention was held by this Court to be untenable for to uphold it
(1 month and 1 day to 4 months) and to a maximum of not more than would be contrary to Article 365, paragraph 5, of the Revised
two years, four months, and one day ofprision correccional. Penal Code as amended by R.A. 384 which provides that "(I)n
the imposition of these penalties (referring to the penalties
Appellant's proposition would indeed be correct if he were defined in Article 365), the courts shall exercise their sound
charged with any of the offenses penalized in the Revised Penal discretion without regard to the rules prescribed in Article 64."
Code other than Article 365 thereof, But because appellant is (Portion in parenthesis supplied)
accused under Article 365, he is not entitled as a matter of right to
the provisions of Article 64 of the Code. In the case now before Us, the penalty for homicide thru reckless
imprudence with violation of the Automobile Law is prision
Paragraph 5 of Article 365 expressly states that in the imposition correccional in its medium and maximum periods with a duration
of the penalties provided for in the Article, the courts shall from two years, four months, and one day to six years. Applying
exercise their sound discretion without regard to the rules the Indeterminate Sentence Law to which appellant is entitled 3
prescribed in Article 64. 2 The rationale of the law can be found in the imposable penalty covers a minimum to be taken from the
the fact that in quasi-offenses penalized under Article 365, the penalty one degree lower than that prescribed by law or arresto
carelessness, imprudence or negligence which characterizes the mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
wrongful act may vary from one situation to another, in nature, minimum period, i.e. four months and one day to two years and
extent, and resulting consequences, and in order that there may be a four months, and a maximum to be taken in turn from the penalty
fair and just application of the penalty, the courts must have ample prescribed for the offense the duration of which is from two years,
four months and one day to six years. The determination of The determination of the amount which would adequately
the minimum and maximum termsis left entirely to the discretion compensate the victim or his family in a criminal case of this
of the trial court, the exercise of which will not be disturbed on nature is left to the discretion of the trial judge whose assessment
appeal unless there is a clear abuse. 4 will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a manifest showing
that the same is arbitrary or excessive, for it has been said that
The penalty imposed by the trial court is well within the periods "(T)here can be no exact or uniform rule for measuring the value
we have given above except for the one dayexcess in the of a human life and the measure of damages cannot be arrived at
minimum thereof. The minimum of the indeterminate sentence by precise mathematical calculation, but the amount recoverable
given by His Honor the trial Judge should have been "two years depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case."
and four months of prision correccional" instead of "two years, (25 C.J.S., 1241, cited in Alcantara vs. Surro, et al., 93 Phil. 472,
four months and one day", because with the addition of one day 477)
the minimum term fell within the range of the penalty prescribed
for the offense in contravention of the provisions of the With respect to the exemplary damages awarded by the trial
Indeterminate Sentence Law. On this score, there is need to court, the same are justified by the fact that the herein appellant
correct the minimum of the indeterminate penalty imposed by the without having been issued by competent authority a license to
court a quo. drive a motor vehicle, wilfully operated a BHP dump truck and
drove it in a negligent and careless manner as a result of which
As regards the second issue raised by appellant, We do not find he hit a pedestrian who died from the injuries sustained by him.
any reversible error in the judgment awarding to the heirs of the Exemplary damages are corrective in nature and are imposed by
deceased P4,000.00 as moral damages and another P4,000.00 way of example or correction for the public good (Art. 2229, Civil
as exemplary damages in addition to P12,000.00 byway of actual Code), and the situation before Us calls for the imposition of this
damages. kind of damages to deter others from taking into their hands a
motor vehicle without being qualified to operate it on the
Moral damages compensate for mental anguish, serious anxiety highways thereby converting the vehicle into an instrument of
and moral shock suffered by the victim or his family as the death.
proximate result of the wrongful act, 5 and they are expressly
recoverable where a criminal offense result in physical injuries as in WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby MODIFIED in
the instant case before Us which in fact culminated in the death of that the minimum term is reduced by one day. The herein
the victim. 6 appellant is sentenced therefore to an indeterminate penalty
ranging from TWO (2) YEARS and FOUR (4) MONTHS of prision
In People vs. Pantoja, L-18793, Oct. 11, 1968, 25 SCRA 468, this correccional as minimum to SIX (6) YEARS also of prision
Court fixed the sum of P12,000.00 as compensatory damages for correccional as maximum. In all other respects, the decision
a death caused by a crime (Art. 2206 of the Civil Code) and it was stands. Without pronouncement as to costs.
there stated that, in proper cases, the courts may adjudge
additional sums by way of moral damages and exemplary Castro (Chairman), Teehankee, Makasiar and Esguerra, JJ.,
damages. concur.