219.

PP vs RICHARD SARCIA (2009)

TOPIC: ACTUAL OR COMPENSATORY
DOCTRINE: even with the presence of this mitigating circumstance, which warrants the lowering of
the penalty by one degree, there is no justifiable ground to depart from the jurisprudential trend in
the award of damages in the case of qualified rape, considering the compensatory nature of the
award of civil indemnity and moral damages.The principal consideration for the award of damages is
the penalty provided by law or imposable for the offense because of its heinousness, not the public
penalty actually imposed on the offender.

FACTS:
This case involves a crime of rape committed in 1996 against a 5-year-old girl. After almost 4 yrs
(2000), the victim’s father filed a complaint for acts of lasciviousness against accused Richard Sarcia.
The trial court (in its 2003 decision) found Sarcia guilty of the crime of rape and imposed the penalty
of Reclusion Perpetua and ordered him to pay the amount of 50,000 as civil indemnity, 50,000 for
moral damages and the cost of the suit. The CA (in 2005), however, modified the penalties by
imposing death penalty and increasing the award of civil indemnity to 75,000 and awarding 25,000 as
exemplary damages, aside from the 50,000 for moral damages.

(Since the case was only filed almost 4 yrs from the time the crime was committed, which was in
1996, accused was only 18 yrs old while the victim was 5 yrs old; Accused, during the trial in 2002,
admitted that he was 24 yrs old)

Issue:

Whether the award of damages should be reduced in view of the presence of the privileged
circumstance of minority of the accused at the time of the commission of the offense

Held:
No. According to law and jurisprudence, civil indemnity is in the nature of actual and compensatory
damages for the injury caused to the offended party and that suffered by her family, and moral
damages are likewise compensatory in nature. The fact of minority of the offender at the time of the
commission of the offense has no bearing on the gravity and extent of injury caused to the victim and
her family, particularly considering the circumstances attending the case. Here, Sarcia could have
been 18 at the time of the commission of the rape. He was accorded the benefit of the privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority because of a lack of proof regarding his actual age and the date of
the rape rather than a moral or evidentiary certainty of his minority (As found by the trial court, the
rape incident could have taken place “in any month and date in the year 1996, and since the
prosecution was not able to prove the exact date and time when the rape was committed, it is not
certain that the crime of rape was committed on or after he reached 18 yrs of age in 1996).

However, even with the presence of this mitigating circumstance, which warrants the lowering of the
penalty by one degree, there is no justifiable ground to depart from the jurisprudential trend in the
award of damages in the case of qualified rape, considering the compensatory nature of the award of
civil indemnity and moral damages.The principal consideration for the award of damages is the
penalty provided by law or imposable for the offense because of its heinousness, not the public
penalty actually imposed on the offender.

The litmis test therefore, in the determination of the civil indemnity is the heinous character of the
crime committed, which would have warranted the imposition of the death penalty, regardless of
whether the penalty actually imposed is reduced to reclusion perpetua.

Thus, the award of exemplary damages is increased to 30,000; and the award of moral damages is
increased to 75,000; while the award of 75,000 as civil indemnity is maintained.
220. REYNALDA GATCHALIAN VS ARSENIO LIM AND CA (1991)
TOPIC: Earning capacity, business standing - loss or impairment of earning capacity
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
At noon time on July 11, 1973, Reynalda Gatchalian boarded Arsenio Lim’s “Thames” mini-bus bound
for Bauang, La Union. While the bus was running along the highway, a “snapping sound” was
suddenly heard at one part of the bus and, shortly thereafter, the vehicle bumped a cement flower
pot on the side of the road, went off the road, turned turtle and fell into a ditch. Several passengers,
including Gatchalian, were injured. Upon examination, Gatchalian was found to have sustained
physical injuries on the leg, arm and forehead. While the injured passengers were confined in the
hospital, the wife of Arsenio visited them and paid for their hospital and medical expenses. However,
before she left, she had the injured passengers sign an already prepared Joint Affidavit, which they
claimed as Waiver of rights to institute an action. The Joint Affidavit, however, stated that the injured
passengers are no longer interested to file a criminal or civil case against the driver or the owner of
the bus since it was an accident and that the driver and owner have gone to the extend of helping
them be treated upon their injuries.

Gatchalian filed an action extra contractu to recover compensatory and moral damages. She alleged
that her injuries left her with a conspicuous white scar on her forehead (1x1/2 in) ,generating mental
suffering and an inferiority complex on her part; and as a result, she had to retire in seclusion and stay
away from her friends. She also alleged that it diminished her facial beauty and deprived her of
opportunities for employment. She prayed for an award of 10,000 for loss of employment and other
opportunities.

Arsenio averred that the incident was due to force majeure and that they had already paid the injured
passengers, and that the injured passengers had already waived any right to institute any action
against them. Trial court dismissed the complaint, CA affirmed the dismissal and denied Gatchalian’s
claim for damages

ISSUE: Whether Gatchalian is entitled for an award of damages for loss of employment and other
opportunities

RULING:
The CA found that at the time of the accident, she was no longer employed in a public school, since,
being a casual employee and not a Civil Service eligible, she had been laid off her employment as a
substitute teacher was occasional and episodic, contingent upon the availability of vacancies for
substitute teachers. In view of this, the CA held that she could not be said to have in fact lost any
employment after and by reason of the accident. Gatchalian has not submitted any basis for
overturning this fact, and she may not be awarded damages on the basis of speculation or conjecture.

(Gatchalian is entitled only to 15,000 as actual or compensatory damages to cover the cost of the
plastic surgery for the removal of the scar on her forehead; 30,000 as moral damages; and 1,000 as
attorneys fees)