You are on page 1of 11

That on or about July 29, 2003, in the municipality of Gattaran

,
province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused armed with a gun, with intent to kill,
with evident premeditation and with treachery, conspiring together
and helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously assault, attack and shot (sic) one Edgardo Tamanu y
EN BANC Palattao, inflicting upon the latter a gunshot wound which caused his
death.
Criminal Case No. II-92602
G.R. No. 194605, June 14, 2016
That on or about July 29, 2003, in the municipality of Gattaran,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARIANO province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
OANDASAN, JR., Accused-Appellant. Court, the above-named accused armed with a gun, with intent to kill,
with evident premeditation and with treachery, conspiring together
DECISION and helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously assault, attack and shot (sic) one Danilo Montegrico,
inflicting upon the latter a gunshot wound which caused his death.
BERSAMIN, J.: Criminal, Case No. II-92613

This case involves a shooting incident that resulted in the deaths of That on or about July 29, 2003, in the municipality of Gattaran,
two victims and the frustrated killing of a third victim. Although the province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
trial court properly appreciated the attendance of treachery and Court, the above-named accused armed with a gun, with intent to kill,
pronounced the accused guilty of murder for the fatal shooting of the with evident premeditation and with treacher[y], conspiring together
first victim, it erroneously pronounced the accused guilty of homicide and helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
and frustrated homicide as to the second and third victims on the basis feloniously assault, attack and shot (sic) one Engr. Mario Paleg y
that treachery was not shown to be attendant. The Court of Appeals Ballad, inflicting upon the latter a gunshot wound.
(CA) concurred with the trial court's characterization of the felonies.
That the accused had performed all the acts of execution which would
We disagree with both lower courts because treachery was have produce (sic) the crime of Homicide as a consequence, but which,
competently shown to be attendant in the shooting of each of the nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of
three victims. Thus, we pronounce the accused guilty of two counts of his own will.
murder and one count of frustrated murder.
Antecedents The CA summarized the facts in its assailed judgment, to wit:
Ferdinand Cutaran, 37 years old, driver at Navarro Construction,
Three informations were filed against the accused, two of which were testified that on July 29, 2003 between 8:00 to 9:00 in the evening,
for murder involving the fatal shooting of Edgardo Tamanu and Danilo he and his companions Jose Ifurung, Arthur Cutaran and victim Danny
Montegrico, and the third was for frustrated homicide involving the Montegrico were having a drinking spree outside the bunkhouse of
near-fatal shooting of Mario Paleg. Navarro Construction at Barangay Pena Weste, Gattaran, Cagayan.
Suddenly, appellant who appeared from back of a dump truck, aimed
The informations, docketed as Criminal Case No. 11-9259, Criminal and fired his gun at Montegrico. Cutaran ran away after seeing the
Case No. 11-9260, and Criminal Case No. 11-9261 of the Regional appellant shoot Mentegrico. He did not witness the shooting of the
Trial Court in Tuguegarao City (RTC), averred as follows: other two victims Edgar Tamanu and Mario Paleg. When he returned to
Criminal Case No. II-92591 the crime scene, he saw the bodies of Montegrico, Tamanu and Paleg
lying on the ground. Cutaran and his companions rushed the victims to

the CA affirmed the judgment of the RTC through its February. 48 years old. c) in Criminal Case No. Branch 6 of Aparri. the appeal is DENIED. and three other men whom he did not know. Cagayan. the RTC rendered its judgment.6 ChanRoblesVi rtualaw lib rary Certificate dated January 20. 34. for Frustrated Homicide for wounding testified that from July up to October 2003. 68 years old. to pay the heirs of Edgardo Tamanu the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50. 2003 issued by Lyceum of Aparri Hospital since the latter was shorter in stature.Lyceum of Aparri Hospital.00). 2003. When he peeped through a window he a) in Criminal Case No. 38 years old. that the pay the heirs of Edgardo Tamanu the amounts of P75. 2003. Baggao. Cagayan Cutaran and Bueno were transferred to another project and their is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that appellant is ORDERED to employer assigned him as checker in replacement of Bueno. Accused- appellant. Danilo Montegrico. Jr.00). that fateful day of July 29.8 Fred Escobar. He asserted that appellant was not the assailant Certificate dated August 13. 2009. 11-9261. as a mason to work on a subdivision project in Rosario. for Murder for killing Danilo saw the accused approaching from the back of a dump truck holding Montegrieo and sentences accused with the penalty of reclusion something. guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal: he went inside the bunkhouse to drink water. 33. 2003 for treatment of a gun shot wound on his right anterior hind spine.4 ChanRoblesVi rtua lawlib rary disclosed that Paleg was confined from July 29-30. 11-9260. The two stealing sacks of cement from the company.m.7 to wit: former co-workers witnesses Cutaran and Bueno when he caught the WHEREFORE.. that he had a previous misunderstanding with his decision promulgated on June 29. Cagayan. the Court finds the accused Mariano Oandasan. stated that after having WHEREFORE. Nida Rosales. 2003. and sentences the accused with the penalty of two (2) sister's house in Imus. Cavite. He further stated that he worked at Navarro Construction in On appeal.000. 2009 of the RTC. To bolster his claim. Renato Bustamante of SERG Construction and a time record sheet dated July 29. Cagayan. Suddenly. that Montegrico sustained a single gunshot wound below (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum and the ribs. He Decision of the CA went back to Aparri in October 2003 after the completion of his project in Cavite. 11-9259. and Mario Paleg. 2003. Hence. He was hired by SERG Construction. while Mario Paleg survived. with the accused still insisting on the testified that on July 29. that when he was about to go home at around 8:00 p. that as a result. years and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to eight (8) Inc. he reported for work from 7:00 a. 2010. He perpetua and to pay the heirs of Danilo Montegrieo the sum of One confessed that he did not actually see the appellant fire his gun at the Flundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150. he presented an Employment SO ORDERED. a resident of Pallagao. Judgment dated June 1. that the assailant whom he did not know fired his Edgardo Tamanu.00 as moral damages.m. a stranger appeared and fired his As a result of the shooting incident. and that the injury caused his death. Aparri.000. The Medical gun several times. he heard successive gun reports (sic). he was staying at his Mario Paleg.000. May 2003 because the two kept on disturbing him. . 2007 issued by Engr. and gun at Montegrieo. for Homicide for killing Edgardo Dr.00 as civil two planned to kill him as he prevented them from doing their indemnity and P75. the fraudulent act.00 as moral damages. a native of Bulala Sur.000. a checker at Navarro Construction and On June 1. Cagayan Tamanu and sentences accused with the indeterminate penalty of six testified that she conduced a post-mortem examination on the body of (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen Montegrico. dinner with Cutaran and the others on the date and time in question. Judgment of the RTC Prudencio Bueno. and going to the table where they were eating. SO ORDERED. and The accused-appellant raised the defense of denial and alibi. victims. this ultimate appeal.5 to wit: a resident of Centro 14 Aparri.000. b) in Criminal Case No. died. Cavite. premises considered. and that he resigned between the months of March and sum of P50. up to 5:00 p. he was having a drink with Montegrieo reversal of his convictions. On years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum. Municipal Health Officer of Gattaran.m.

walked towards their table and. Montegrico was positive. clear and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible caught off guard by the sudden and deliberate attack coming from the for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of appellant. appellant deliberately and consciously adopted his Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where mode of attack by using a gun and made sure that Montegrico. The CA and the RTC appreciated the attendance of treachery only in I the fatal shooting of Montegrico (Criminal Case No. In the case at bar. the Court affirms the finding of his being criminally responsible one count of frustrated murder for the killing of Montegrico and Tamanu. hence. denial and alibi cannot be given greater evidentiary value appellate courts had overlooked. the following requisites must concur: (1) there is unreliable. His alibi that he was in Cavite and the employment certificate establish guilt as long as it is sufficient to establish beyond a and time record sheet which he presented cannot prevail over the reasonable doubt that the accused.9 Thus. but also because it is easy to fabricate. (2) the facts from which the inferences rejected when the accused is positively identified by a witness. committed. Tamanu and Paleg. matters. the accused criminal case opens the record for review. is findings against the accused should be upheld or struck down in his undeserving of weight in law for being negative and self-serving. Montegrico and his friends were just drinking outside the weak denial and alibi. the record contained sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish that the accused was also There is no doubt that Prosecution witness Ferdinand Cutaran criminally responsible for the fatal shooting of Tamanu and the near- positively identified the accused as the person who had shot fatal shooting of Paleg. the Court still Treachery also attended the shooting reviewed the record conformably with the tenet that every appeal in a of Tamanu and Paleg. His II failure to discharge this burden notwithstanding. Denial and alibi do not overcome Although no witness positively identified the accused as the person positive identification of the accused who had also shot Tamanu and Paleg. and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable We reiterate that denial and alibi do not prevail over the positive doubt. Also. for it to prosper. was positive and categorical testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Circumstantial evidence is competent to place. and the frustrated killing of Paleg. As such. This appeal opens the entire record to determine whether or not the Denial. It is generally more than one circumstance. In this case. who the accused was when the crime happened and the place where it was was unarmed.10 are derived are proven. appellant failed to prove the element of physical We hold that the circumstantial evidence available was enough to impossibility for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time it took convict accused-appellant. and we adopt the following stated dump truck. and not someone else. leaving him with no opportunity to raise any defense against its commission.11 would significantly shift the outcome of the case in his favor. the CA declared the accused as "the Montegrico. subject to the rectification of the characterization of the felonies as to Tamanu and Paleg. Considering that Cutaran's credibility as an eyewitness lone assailant" of the victims based on its following analytical was unassailable in the absence of any showing or hint of ill motive on appreciation. these requisites for circumstantial evidence to . would have no chance to defend himself. to wit: his part to falsely incriminate the accused. For circumstantial evidence to suffice to is the weakest defense not only because it is inherently weak and convict an accused. such identification of the The evidence in this case shows that the attack was unexpected and accused as the assailant of Montegrico prevailed over the accused's swift. Nonetheless. This shot was followed by more shots directed at As for the defense of alibi. 11-9260). Alibi responsible for the killing. after evaluating the is guilty of two counts of murder and record. Ruling of the Court identification of the accused by the State's witnesses who are categorical and consistent and bereft of ill motive towards the accused. he bears the burden to show that the trial and the Moreover. and not merely that the accused was somewhere else. the attack. as well as the facility of the access betwee the two places. the CA properly rejected the denial and bunkhouse when the appellant suddenly appeared from the back of a alibi of the accused as unworthy. if properly considered and appreciated. to wit: fired at Montegrico. Indeed. favor. reasons of the CA for the rejection. misapprehended or misinterpreted than the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative facts or circumstances that. it must be established by Montegrico's friends. Indisputably. without any warning. unless substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.

for they were just enjoying their drinks fact may be properly inferred. Circumstantial evidence dump truck. That first shot was quickly followed by more shots. and without the slightest that they saw appellant coming from the back of a dump truck and provocation on the part of the victims. when the accused came and shot them. appellant fired his gun several times.sustain a conviction are present. Third. Flora. inasmuch as the court a quo was in a position to three victims were all nonetheless "helpless to defend themselves. Pinto. the proof and Paleg were drinking together outside their bunkhouse prior to the competent to achieve the quantum is not confined to direct evidence shooting when the accused suddenly appeared from the rear of the from an eyewitness. for. Jr. and in the attempted killing assailant. The foregoing circumstances are proven facts.. The standard postulated by this Court in the appreciation of and (b) that such means. warranting the conviction of the accused for two finds no reason to discredit the testimonies of the prosecution's murders and attempted murder. The fact that the shooting of the three victims had eyewitnesses to go unpunished by the law. impossible for the victims to defend themselves or to retaliate. we are Treachery as an aggravating or attendant circumstance must be perplexed why both lower courts only characterized the killing of established beyond reasonable doubt. three victims What was decisive is that the execution of the attack made it were found lying on the ground and rushed to the hospital. To avoid that most occurred in quick succession fully called for a finding of the attendance undesirable situation. and the Court of a third victim. when it is direct. Tamanu direct evidence but also to circumstantial evidence.15 treachery was held to does not find any arbitrariness or error on the part of the RTC as attend the three killings and the wounding of a fourth victim because would warrant a deviation from this rule. methods and forms of execution employed gave the every instance. affording the circumstances proved must be consistent with each other. in either case. But to absolutely require such because of the attendance of treachery. methods and forms of execution were circumstantial evidence is well set out in the following passage deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused without danger to from People vs. They were unarmed. The Rules of Court has not also required outside their bunkhouse. and the wounding frustrated murder. deliberate and unexpected. with the Court observing that the disturbed on appeal. any warning.14for instance. and did not expect to be a greater degree of certainty when the evidence is circumstantial than shot. who may be unavailable. the witnesses unanimously said deadly design without risk to the aggressor. Second. the killings were murders.12 the attack was sudden and the victims were defenseless. the Rules of Court permits a resort not only to of treachery in the attacks against all the victims. In The Rules of Court nowhere expresses a preference for direct evidence that situation. notwithstanding that although the witnesses.13 The essence of treachery lay in the attack that came quantity of circumstantial evidence which in any case will suffice. This quantum is hardly achieved Tamanu and the near-killing of Paleg as homicide and frustrated if there is no testimony showing how the accused actually commenced homicide while characterizing the killing of Montegrico as murder the assault against the victim. treachery was appreciated as an attendant Thus. he had missed and had of the credibility of witnesses is accorded great respect and will not be instead hit the two other victims. the Certificates of Death of Montegrico and Tamanu and the Medical Jurisprudence has been illustrative of this proposition. Modesto:17 person attacked no opportunity to defend themselves or to retaliate. immediately after the shooting incident. shoot Montegrico pointblank." In observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying. thereby ensuring the accomplishment of the . Certificate of Paleg revealed that they all sustained gun shot wounds. Fourth. People v. and was swift. As the Court has observed in People v. All without warning. The Court a nother illustrative ruling. or consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty. Ludday:18 "No general rule can be laid down as to the his person. walked towards their table and shot Montegrico without can just as efficiently and competently achieve the quantum. Well-entrenched is the rule that the trial court's assessment accused had first fired at his Intended victim. the trier of fact must still be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. Although the CA and the RTC correctly concluded that the accused had been directly responsible for the shooting of Tamanu and Paleg. hence. the hapless. or escape. unarmed and unsuspecting victims no chance to resist. First. In People v. none of the three victims was aware of the imminent of a fact to evidence of circumstances from which the existence of a deadly assault by the accused. Montegrico. namely: (a) fixed as to be reduced into some definite standard to be followed in that the means. it can be said with certitude that appellant was the lone circumstance in the killing of two victims. and at the retaliate. Indeed.16 The The attack was mounted with treachery because the two conditions in quantity of circumstances sufficient to convict an accused has not been order for this circumstance to be appreciated concurred. The distinctions were testimony in all cases would cause some murders committed without unwarranted.

unlawfully and indemnity. The indeterminate sentence for the set in Article 2202 of the Civil Code." accused or defendant. inflicting upon the latter a gunshot wound. Its grant is mandatory Criminal Liabilities and a matter of course. therefore. or that Paleg. that the allegations of the information on the nature of the offense charged. viz. conspiring together and The first item of civil liability is the civil indemnity for death. that Cutaran. did not may have been mitigating circumstances. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or It is of no consequence. (2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the The averment in the second paragraph of the information filed Criminal provisions of article 291. did then and there willfully. and Code enumerates the damages that may be recovered from the with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt. supra. reclusion perpetua is the penalty for the heirs of the deceased for his death as the natural consequence of each count of murder. the court. The mandatory character of civil murder for the fatal shooting of Montegrico and Tamanu. In addition: witness the actual shooting of Tamanu and Paleg. Mario Paleg y Ballad. the accused was criminally liable for two counts of the accused was responsible therefor.same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent. Article 2206 of the Civil Article 2206 of the Civil Code. the exact duration to be fixed by the court. and refers to the award given to the heirs of the in the information. and for indemnity in case of death from crime or quasi-delict derives from the frustrated murder for the near-fatal shooting of Paleg. the recipient who is not an heir called to the Case No. This legal obligation is the penalty for frustrated murder. as the for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of maximum. was the consequence of the acts of execution by the appellant19does may demand support from the person causing the death. who had meanwhile quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos. are controlling in the determination of the offense charged. with evident premeditation and with treacher[y]. has fixed the death indemnity to . In the absence legal obligation of the accused or the defendant to fully compensate of any modifying circumstances. In crimes and quasi-delicts. "armed with a gun.20 and the fact that As a consequence. with intent to kill. a crime sufficiently averred Code on damages. It is not necessary that such IV damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen Civil Liability by the defendant. had no earning capacity at the proving with moral certainty that the accused was the same person time of his death. to wit: Article 2206. ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental Accordingly. 11-9261 (in relation to the shooting of Paleg) that homicide decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or intestate succession. to Article 2202. and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the unquestionably and reliably showed that Tamanu and Paleg were latter. What is of consequence is that the records the deceased. thereby disability not caused by the defendant. paragraph that the accused. considering that the information stated in its first anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. even though there fled to safety upon hearing the shot that had felled Montegrico. legitimate and illegitimate descendants and Prosecutor. the act or omission complained of. The rule is not exceeding five years. not the nomenclature given it by the Office of the Public (3) The spouse. For death caused by a crime or quasi-delict. although surviving the assault against him and Tamanu." the accused can be Civil indemnity comes under the general provisions of the Civil properly found guilty of frustrated murder. unless the deceased on account of permanent physical and that the gunshots had been fired in quick succession. deceased as a form of monetary restitution or compensation for the II death of the victim at the hands of the accused. while reclusion temporal in its medium period is the criminal or quasi-delictual act or omission. for a period not prevent finding the accused guilty of frustrated murder. as the minimum. such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by already prostrate on the ground when Cutaran returned to the scene. and without need of proof other than the fact of death as the result of the crime or quasi-delict. attack and shot (sic) one Engr.: frustrated murder is eight years of prision mayor. did not testify (l)The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of during the trial. feloniously assault. who also shot Tamanu and Paleg. eight months and one day of reclusion temporal. or death helping one another. the defendant shall be liable 14 years.

the purchasing power of the Philippine peso has declined the competent court at a reasonable sum. in an a minimum indemnity of P2." The law referred to was Gutierrez (2010) was followed by People v. the granting of civil indemnity was not purchasing power.00.000 as the minimum amount of perpetua.000. 284.35 a value of the present currency and that at the time when the law fixing murder case. when the Project of Civil Code was drafted. In 1950. for the courts had granted death minimum amount of compensatory damages for death caused by a indemnity to the heirs of the victims even long prior to August 30. This standard has been borne out effect in 1950.29 In People v.000. upon consideration of the further such that the rale of exchange now in the free market is U.000. This means that the present shall in no case be less than two thousand pesos. the Court occasionally granted Civil indemnity for death has been increased through the years from P75. which took the penalty was reclusion perpetua. the with the Court.00 Philippine pesos. the amount of award of compensatory damages for death caused by a The Civil Code.00 as civil indemnity. 284 which took effect in 1938. crime or quasi-delict was fixed in Article 2206 of the Code at P3. In 1948.000.26 In that time. in People v.21 There was also from the time the New Civil Code took effect.00 to as high as P100.000.000." Yet.000. 9346 (An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty).00 regardless of aggravating or mitigating circumstances In 1947. reached the threshold of P50. due to economic circumstances beyond governmental Section 1.00 was in People v.24 saw a significant need to further promulgated People v. Hence. compensatory damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict. when the New Civil Code took effect.000. the Court. the date of the effectivity of the Civil Code. which provided in its Section 1 the a crime or quasi-delict. took the same approach by specifying crime or quasi-delict should now be P12. It is common knowledge that from 1948 to the following: present (1968). death value of the present currency and that at the time when the law fixing indemnity in murder remained at P50. the Code provided the penalty prescribed by law was death or reclusion Commission fixed the sum of P3. Soriano. In 1948.000 as compensatory damages Sanchez (2010).33 and People v.30 decided on purchasing power of the peso as the Philippine currency.00 was enacted.00 allowed by the trial court.00 as death indemnity.000. however. pecuniary situation of the party liable and other circumstances. 80 Phil."23 Later on. Apacible. indemnity dated back to the early years of the Court. P2.000. Commonwealth Act No. August 5.000. Hence.00 in subsequent cases. where it remained for a long time. The Project of Civil Code was approved by both Houses of the Death indemnity of P75.000. and justified the increase by adverting to the "difference between the where the proper imposable penalty was reclusion perpetua.be "at least three thousand pesos. raising the to reclusion perpetua by virtue of the enactment of Republic Act No. the legal minimum at the-time.000. the Court clarified that the award of P75. Pantoja. have awarded P9. the Supreme Court awarded P6.000 as compensatory damages for death caused by approved on June 3.000.00.00 became the standard in murder where Congress in 1949 as the New Civil Code of the Philippines. Yet. therefore.S.34 But the consistency in applying the standard was for death caused by a crime "considering the difference between the broken in 2010. but it $1. the Court. To justify the death indemnity despite the imposable penalty being reclusion upgrade.00. 1938. as in People v. Arbalate. to wit: P75. Dela have been made to consider the economic conditions. by People v. 1950.36 also for murder.000. starting with Commonwealth Act No. a minimum indemnity of P2. primarily the Cruz (2007)28 and People v.000. which was directly manifesting the legislative intent of enabling the courts to increase the Increases were made from time to time until the death indemnity amount whenever the circumstances would warrant. The increases indemnity at P75. the Courts could properly legislation on the matter. Anod. The award of civil The article repealed by implication Commonwealth Act No.27 The Court retained the death the minimum of P2. Buban. purchasing power of the Philippine peso is one-fourth of its pre-war purchasing power.31 wherein it fixed P75. in 1968. of the considered opinion that In fixing the civil indemnity.37 reducing the civil indemnity . We are. when the Court. Gutierrez (2010).00. even though there may have been purchasing power of the Philippine peso was one-third of its pre-war mitigating circumstances. reverted to P50. Amansec.000.000 was enacted. In 1948 in the case of People vs. 424. the Court included a review of the more recent history of civil perpetua.00 as upgrade the civil indemnity for death to PI 2. 284.. People v.00 as civil indemnity for death.22 the Court awarded to the heirs of the victim of appropriate only if the imposable penalty was death but reduced homicide the amount of P6. with the Court holding that death indemnity should be indemnity for death in this jurisdiction. Jadap. the Legislature thereby set a minimum. citing People v. — The civil liability or the death of a person shall be fixed by control. apparent self-contradiction less than a month after Anod.000. the introduced by the Civil Code. in Article 2206. Amansec.00 to almost £4.00. Anod.25 (Italics supplied) the amount to be at least P3. in People v.32People v. 2009.

which is the appropriate penalty is reclusion perpetna. Alawig. the purchasing power of P50.S. as otherwise expressed.00 for exemplary for no loss of life from crime or quasi-delict can ever be justly damages. prescribing only reclusion perpetua due to pronouncement in People v. being compensatory in nature.00 for almost two decades [e. the civil indemnity for homicide remained pegged at have been similarly justified.62 it has been explained that money in the context of damages is not awarded as a replacement for other The Court reverted to the flat amount of P50. attendant. It is notable. the Court once again changed its mind and awarded only circumstances beyond governmental control. of the indemnity.56People v. In People v. in People v. or satisfaction for an injury sustained. the Court promulgated People v.000.000. in awarding from the legally imposed minimum indemnity of P2. Thus.59 taking into proper consideration the stages of execution and gravity of the offenses. Court of Appeals52People v.41Talampas v.000.000. For this purpose.61 Although money has been accepted as the most frequently as authority for the declaration. the desire to justly to P75. No.000. P50. the fixing the civil liabilities in crimes resulting in the death of the victims civil indemnity was P50. but not the perpetua upon not finding any aggravating circumstance to be maximum. especially loss liabilities.000.000.000. or. 202124). the law absolutely requires every injury. P50.00 by taking judicial cognizance of the fact "that from 1948 to the present (1968). This has been murder cases. P75.00 as civil indemnity and even pecuniary consequences that the law imposes for the breach of some made a sweeping declaration that such amount was given duty or the violation of some right. and P75. reclusion perpetua and awarded only P50.000 was enacted.000.00 Philippine pesos.000.000.. but as substitute for that which is generally more important indemnity in murder where the proper imposable penalty was reclusion than money.00 as civil indemnity in murder. 2016. Commonwealth Act No.000. Lozano v. to be compensated in the form of damages. amount of death indemnity to P12.000. deterring. Camat47 and People The reasoning in Pantoja.60 As such. otherwise.000.in addition to others as the records of each case will . prescribing reclusion the legislative justification for pegging the minimum. We start by reminding that human life. Oddly enough. It is again timely to raise the civil indemnity for death arising from Other factors were weighed by the Court. the Court promulgated its decision in People v.000.00 as civil indemnity for the deaths of each of the victims.00 as civil indemnity for the death of the victim. to of life. involved charges and convictions for used means of punishing.53People v. 284 (which took effect in 1938) was in said that the civil indemnity should be increased from P50.000. the Philippine peso has declined further such that the rate of exchange Pondivida50 and People v.54Seguritan v. Valdez.00 under P75. Escleto46 the Court.00 for civil indemnity as the essential civil measured. has been premised on the v. must attune People42 and People v. recompense. Yet.from P75. This means that the present purchasing power of the Philippine peso is one-fourth of its pre-war purchasing power. amount in money awarded by the court as a remedy for the that People v.63 Regardless.000. is priceless.40 the two rulings cited injured. imposed P75." The Pantoja Court thus raised the Act No. it is the best thing that a court can do.00 as death money. as well as the number of victims in composite crimes. Gutierrez (2002).00 inasmuch as the imposable penalty against the appellant currency and that at the time when the law fixing a minimum would have been death had it not been for the enactment of Republic indemnity of P2.00. the Court has thereby not a commodity. In People v. whereby it adopted certain guidelines on People. Dagani. however. Laurio48 where the Court.51 the Court sentenced the accused to now in the free market is U. $1. In the case of murder where crime or quasi-delict." Subsequent increases Incidentally. Barra. Dela Cruz (2010). the perpetua in People v. 2010. or two months before damages may be defined as the pecuniary compensation. People55People v. on June 29.00 to consideration of "the difference between the value of the present P75.00. Buyagan49 the Court.00 as civil indemnity.g. The value of human life is incalculable.00 in People v. due to economic In 2013.]58 In attempted robbery with homicide (People v. injury throughout the legal system. Amansec65 to the effect that the increase lack of any aggravating circumstance.000. the Orias38 and therein awarded P75. civil indemnity for death. On April 5. Mediado44 and People v. Jugueta (G. The Court did the same thing in People v. the Court went back to contemporaneous economic realities. awarded P75. the amount originally awarded by the lower court.00 for moral damages. Amodia. damages refer to the automatically in cases of murder and homicide.R.000. compensating and regulating murder. Lagman57 and Sombol v. fixed P75. the promulgation of Apacible.64supra. 9346. Ocampo39 and People v..00 in "compensatory damages for death caused by a crime" indemnity for death.00.00 to almost £4. Gabrino.000. not homicide.00 as civil to P6. Anti camara45 both indemnify would be thwarted or rendered meaningless.43 Subsequently.

Jugueta.00.substantiate. in Criminal Case No.000. (lie increase of the penalty or a shift to a graver felony underscores the 2) To the heirs of Edgardo Tamanu. aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the crime. damages (for his hospitalization and related expenses).000. being the victim of frustrated murder. the prescription of heavier punishment for and temperate damages of P50.00. is entitled to even in the absence of allegation and proof. 11-9261. exemplary damages of P75. and temperate the offended party who suffers thereby. civil indemnity of P75.00.67 WHEREFORE. 9260.000. civil indemnity of P50.00 as civil indemnity.000. II- this purpose. an It appears that the accused and the heirs of Montegrico stipulated that aggravating circumstance. Paleg.000. Jugueta. consequence to the criminal. way of civil liability. the private victim as it causes personal sufferings. P50. civil indemnity of P75. liability of the offender.00. to wit: one on the public as it breaches the social order and the other upon 1) To the heirs of Danilo Montegrico. and are allowed even without allegation and proof. Also in accordance with People v. heirs of Montegrico and Tamanu.00 as temperate the victims' heirs were entitled thereto as a matter of law. AS THE MINIMUM. Hence. 11- attendant circumstance did not matter. intended for P50. temperate damages supra. It would be unjust to deny them be charged on all the items of civil liability imposed herein.000.66 The stipulation cannot stand because the civil the unbridled meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil Code. whether ordinary or qualifying.00. In crimes in which death of the victim results. and temperate damages of P50. respectively. JR. AS THE not having specified otherwise. and of FRUSTRATED MURDER in Criminal Case No.00 should further be granted to the heirs of Montegrico and Tamanu considering that they were presumed to have spent for the In line with pertinent jurisprudence.000.000. addressed by.00.70 interest of 6% per annum shall interment of each of the deceased. respectively. exacerbation of the offense by the attendance of aggravating moral damages of P75.000.00. .69 indemnity arising from each murder should only be P75. SENTENCES him to suffer RECLUSION circumstance of treachery. circumstances.000. This quantification accords with the pronouncement in People v. P25. relative to the civil aspect of the case. is to be understood in its broad or MAXIMUM. the law MONTHS AND ONE DAY OF RECLUSION TEMPORAL. exemplary damages of P75. TO 14 YEARS. the accused and by an award of additional damages to the victim. 11- Code authorizes the grant of exemplary damages if at least one 9260 for the killing of Edgardo Tamanu and Danilo Montegrico. the Court FINDS and DECLARES accused MARIANO OANDASAN. rather than to the civil.000.00 are granted to the 9261 for the frustrated killing of Mario Paleg. and Unlike the criminal liability which is basically a State concern. chanro bleslaw establish with certainty the actual expenditure for the interment of their late-lamented family members. and the INDETERMINATE SENTENCE OF EIGHT YEARS Catubig:68 OF PRISION MAYOR. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of TWO COUNTS In this respect.00 as exemplary damages. exemplary damages of P75. moral damages of award of damages. For respectively. exemplary damages of P50. In fine. Withal. the ordinary or qualifying nature of an of 6% per annum from the finality of this decision until fully paid. each of which is moral damages of P75. as clarified in People v. Similarly.00. we mention that Article 2230 of the Civil OF MURDER in Criminal Case No. and to pay the following by generic sense.000. should the civil indemnity of the accused in case of conviction should not entitle the offended party to an award of exemplary damages within exceed P150. if not primarily. of P50. supra.000. moral damages P50. we impose herein the same amounts for such aggravating circumstance is a distinction that should only be ol items of damages in each count of murder.00 as moral damages. is likewise.00. in its commission. for. an award of exemplary damages to be due the private offended party when the aggravating circumstance is ordinary but to be withheld All monetary awards for damages shall earn interest at the legal rate when it is qualifying. EIGHT The term "aggravating circumstances'" used by the Civil Code. Whether treachery was a qualifying or PERPETUA in Criminal Case No.00.000.000. 11-9259 and Criminal Case No. the 3) To Mario Paleg.000.00.000. 11-9259 and in Criminal Case No.000.000. It would make little sense for damages of P25.00. it being a certainty that P50. computed recovery in the form of temperate damages just because they did not from the date of the finality of this decision until fully paid. ACCORDINGLY. The commission of an offense has a two-pronged effect.00. based on the attendant and.00. however. whether ordinary or qualifying.000. civil indemnity is granted On his part.

21 In 1905. No. with the concurrence of Associate Justice Japar B. 2006. pp. August 16. Carpio.R.R. SCRA 64. Molina. 313 SCRA . January 18. a murder case. 658 SCRA 11 26 E. at 12. No. People v. G.. 1991. 14 G. 125. No. People v. Mendoza. Hormachuelos (retired). 17 G. 2005. 5 Phil. No. No. 149259. Reyes. November 21. 2006. No.R. citing Robinson v. 2004. 64 (1908).000. 251 (1905). March 13. No. G. 204 SCRA 9. cralawlawlibra ry 16 People v. 1968. In 1908.R. and Caguioa. pp. 23 Id. SO ORDERED. (Rollo. 177. 25 SCRA 468. 149652. Leonen. No. C. 24 G.g. JJ. People v. 15 G. G. 221-222(1935). 13 Luces v. nevertheless.R No.00 was awarded to the heirs of the 7 Rollo. 320 SCRA 168.. 2013. cralawred 10 Rollo. 169533. 424(1948). People. 147674-75. No. 13-20. 694 SCRA 12. and Jardeleza. State. June 23. 2003. 84-85. 216. reason of causes independent of his own will. 524. Hernandez. penned by Presiding Judge Roland R. Brion. May 9. January 20. Leonardo-De Castro. Jr. 3) 4 Id. G. Bastas. 153875. 308 A2d 734 Sereno. 25 SCRA 36.. No. 1968. Callet. 345. L-39519.. People v. 519. 2004. 20 542. 275-276.R. 2003. Diaz. 55. 2002. G. 1999. No..00 was allowed for 6 Id. Indon. 2-13. People v. 3-4. 35. but which. August 27. 135701. G. 581 SCRA 519. Dagani. Peralta.R. 22 80 Phil. June 15. No. 240 SCRA 191. 1999. civil indemnity in the amount of P500. 2011. October 20. G. 18 Md. May 9. March 24. L-25484. L-18793. 150030. G. G. the amount of P1.R. Lantion.R. 5 CA rollo.R. 131116.R. 425 SCRA 654. G. 130210. deceased in United States v. at 435. Quirol. 485 SCRA 331. 9-10. 334 SCRA 262. 673.The accused shall pay the costs of suit. 174476. J. 25 Id. 432 SCRA 104. death in United States v. People v. Opuran. 139697. G. 184173. People. pp.R. 215. 41. 12 Rollo. 532-533. 149492. Sanchez . (1973). Perlas-Bernabe.R. at 20. Dimaampao and Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. at 473. 11 Phil. 10-11. December 8.R No. Ramos. Del Castillo. did not produce it by 3 Id. March 17. 847. No. No. pp. 9 People v. 395 SCRA Nos.R.403 SCRA 208. September 21. October 11. People v. G. People v. 8 Id.R. at 4. chanrob lesvi rtua llawlib ra ry 18 61 Phil. October 11. 339. 199. 2000. at 5-7 People v. No. pp. concur. That the accused had performed all the acts of execution which 2 Id. on official leave.. G. Agcanas. penned by Associate Justice Portia Alino. Perez. Baxinela v. G. Velasco. Bongalon.2009. Endnotes: 19 The second paragraph of the information reads: 1 Rollo. People v. p. 678.R. March 20. 104497. would have produce (sic) the crime of Homicide as a consequence. 509 SCRA 473. 125909. 499 842. JJ. App.R. 1995. Velasco.. 21. on wellness leave. 382 SCRA 43. Munez.J.

G. No.R. 180219. 194564. 35 G. April 25.R. No. 52 G. 622 SCRA 417. 2011. 529.R. April 16. 198. No. Tubongbanua. 183706. 2013. 2009.661 SCRA 197. 2010. April 19. February 16. No. p. 205.. September 18. Abulencia. 187733.R. SCRA 496.R. September 25. 529. No. 622 SCRA 548. 120921 January 29. 73. No. G. August 5.R. 601 SCRA 58. No. 173791. No.R. 2009. 2012.2 40 G. 114-115. August 25. 182523. No. August 31. 600 SCRA 239. People v. July 10. 290. No. No. 212. 389 SCRA 268. 50 G. No. 187731. 186420. 226. January 18. 420.R. No. No. University of the Philippines College of Law. 2002. 90870. People v. 371. Ballesteros. 448. 2012. 2009. the actual imposition of the death penalty but on the fact that the qualifying circumstances warranted the imposition of the death penalty 49 G. No. 1998. 701 SCRA 99. 186539. 2010. May 11.R. June 7. People v. G. No.R. 2007. 2011.R. December 14.R. cralaw red 44 G. No. September 17. 27 E. No. 584 SCRA 518. 189091. 2011.R. 611 SCRA 633. June 8. 29 G.R. 34 G. 183457. G.R. 455. 59 G.R. 144907-09.R. 669 SCRA 512. citing Pat O' Malley. 672. No. 522. 255. No. 53 G. 638.R. 695 SCRA 630. 2006. 597 SCRA 205.R.. June 29. 64 Supra note 23. 633.R.R. Rommel J. No. 108. August 31. 197807. the civil indemnity of P75. 182922. Nos.R. 153875.258. No. 58 G. August 25.R. 2012. 9 (1997). 692 SCRA 217. 28 G. 680 SCRA 560. 57 G. No. 438. 2013. 437. 647-648. 31 G. March 30.R. cralawred 61 Casis. 2011.R. 51 G. February 5. 677 SCRA 640. Analysis of Philippine Law and Jurisprudence on Damages. 39 G.R. 545. 2001. 32 G.651 SCRA 489. 56 G. 188612. 199''. No. Quiachon.R. 1 (2009). 719 (where the Court held that even if the penalty of death was not to be 47 G. March 9. 2007. 617 SCRA 179. 2010. 663 SCRA 272. February 27. 2010. No. People v. 499 SCRA 64. 178771. 177983. imposed because of the prohibition in Republic Act No. 363 45 G. 170236.R. No. 63 Id. 742.271. 2010.R. 530-531. 2012. 271 SCRA 689. 706 SCRA 88. April 7. 212-213. 645 SCRA 187. 188602. June 29. 9346. July 30. 30 G.R.R. 46 G. 597 SCRA 205. 2010. 573. No. 134. 2013. 612 SCRA 738. 84. 629 SCRA 523. September 13. 2009. 2006. at 2-3. 171271. 188353. No. 509 (for rape with homicide). The Currency Of Justice: Fines And 41 G. 2009. No. 2012. August 22. McGregor on Damages. 276. 54 G. February 8. 171272. 2012.R.. 523 SCRA 118. September 17. 2013. 671 SCRA 149. 170471. 36 G. People v.R. 618 SCRA 406. 172896. April 10.g. 2006. 569. 665 SCRA 571. No. 193 SCRA 525. 62 Id. No. 33 G.641 SCRA 366. 1991. February 4. 177753. 37 G. 169871. 580.00 was proper because it was not dependent on 48 G. 186420. 189981.000. 2012. 718 (for homicide). Espanola. 2010..R. 55 G. February 2. November 23.R No 119308 April 18. No. 751-752 Damages In Consumer Societies. 198020. No. 500 SCRA 727. No. 138403. 43 G. 2009.285 SCRA 60 38 G. 160. that attended the commission of the offense). citing H. No. 105. 500 SCRA 704. August 16. 523 SCRA 433. 175602.R. 42 G. 188610. G. 188969. .R.

363 SCRA 621. 189871. G. 2001.R. No. Nacar v.R. . 824.65 Supra note 22. at 635. 283. 66 CA Rollo. Gallery Frames. No. No. 137842. 2012. Combate. November 21. December 15. 2013. G. 67 See People v. G. 19. 703 SCRA 439. August 13.R. 68 G. p. August 23. 2010. 189301.R. 686 SCRA 267. 638 SCRA 70 797. 199875. No. Isla. People v. 69 Id.