People v Francisco alias Esco Buban, GR No.

170471, 523 SCRA 118, May 11, 2007 FACTS: This is an automatic review of the Decision of the CA finding Francisco Buban guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder qualified by treachery, with the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and dwelling, without any mitigating circumstance, and sentencing him to suffer the supreme penalty of death. On August 13, 1995 at around 10:00pm at Barangay Paleg, Municipality of Dinalungan, Province of Aurora, Buban with intent to kill and by means of treachery and evident premeditation, attack, assault and use personal violence upon Arsenio Imperial by shooting him inside the latters house with an unlicensed carbine rifle hitting him on the posterior hairline area or nape and the slug exited through his left cheek which caused his instantaneous death. Buban contends that his guilt had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. He avers that the testimonies of Perla wife of Arsenio and Ruel, victims son are incredible and contrary to human experience. He adds that it is unbelievable for Ruel, a young barrio lad, to have the courage to peep outside upon seeing the muzzle of a rifle aimed at his family. He further argues that it is unbelievable that Ruel had seen him during that time because the place was lighted by only two kerosene lamps and Perla could not have recognized the persons inside the vehicle 15 meters away from her with little lighting. Additionally, Buban avers that there was no evident premeditation shown because there has been no direct evidence of the planning and preparation to kill the victim, and the execution of the criminal act was not preceded by cool thought and reflection before the alleged criminal act. After trial, RTC rendered a decision finding the accused guilty of murder qualified by treachery, with the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and dwelling, without any mitigating circumstance, and sentenced him to death. On appeal, CA affirmed RTCs decision. Issue: Were the damages awarded to heirs of Arsenio correct? Ruling: The qualifying circumstance of treachery being present, the crime committed by the appellant is murder in accordance with Article 248. With the aggravating circumstance of dwelling and no mitigating circumstance, the penalty imposed should be in its maximum, which is death. However, in view of Republic Act No. 9346, entitled An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines, signed into law on June 24, 2006, the penalty imposed must be reduced from death to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. As to damages, when death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorneys fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases. Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime. Based on current jurisprudence, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto of P75,000 in favor of the heirs of Arsenio Imperial is in order. The RTC also correctly awarded moral damages in the amount of P50,000 in view of the violent death of the victim and the resultant grief to his family. Article 2230 of the Civil Code states that exemplary damages may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances, as in this case. To deter future similar transgressions, the Court finds that an award of P25,000 for exemplary damages is proper.

People v Renato alias Atong Orpilla, GR No. 118073, 374 SCRA 567, January 25, 2002 FACTS: This is an appeal from the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, convicting Orpilla of the crime of Murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the deceased the sum of P50,000.00 as death indemnity, P30,000.00 as moral damages and another P30,000.00 as medical and funeral expenses, and the costs of suit. At around 7:00 to 8:00 am of December 6, 1992, Orpilla and the victim, Vicente Verceles, a tricycle driver, were at the parking lot of tricycles. Orpilla asked the victim to deliver to his house, 5 gantas of rice, beans and 1 pig leg. After paying

the victim P5.00 and a stick of cigarette, Orpilla returned to his place of work as a dispatcher of vehicles going to Dagupan City. The victim, however, failed to deliver the goods to the house of Orpilla. At about 6:00 pm of the same day, the victim arrived home and alighted from his tricycle in front of their house. Later on, Orpilla got off a jeep and faced the victim and his wife, Carmen Verceles, who were both standing beside their tricycle. Carmen noticed that Orpilla was holding a twelve-inch knife in his right hand, with its tip pointing upward and resting between the arm and the right side of Orpillas body. Orpilla inquired from the victim about the goods he asked to be delivered to his house. The victim apologetically answered that the goods were still in his tricycle and that he failed to deliver them because his tricycle developed engine trouble. The victim turned and stooped to get the items from the sidecar of his tricycle. As he was about to hand the goods to Orpilla, the latter suddenly stabbed him on the lower abdomen and immediately ran away. Carmen lost no time in bringing her husband to the hospital, where he was treated but died due to loss of blood. The victim sustained a fatal wound with a diameter of 3 centimeters and a depth of 8 inches, penetrating the abdominal cavity; lacerating the ascending colon; penetrating the retroperitoneum; and transecting the right kidney. Issue: Was the decision of the trial court on damages correct? Ruling: Yes with modification. The penalty for murder at the time of its commission in 1992 was reclusion temporal maximum to death. There being three distinct penalties, each one shall form a period. Since no aggravating or mitigating circumstance was proved in this case, the penalty shall be imposed in its medium period. Thus, the trial court was correct in sentencing accused-appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. As to Orpilla's civil liability, the award of P30,000.00 as moral damages should be increased to P50,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence. The award of P30,000.00 for medical and funeral expenses cannot, however, be allowed as the prosecution failed to present receipts. Nevertheless, the heirs of the victim are entitled to P10,000.00 by way of temperate damages, since they were able to prove pecuniary loss, only that there was no competent proof as to the amount. Finally, Orpilla should be ordered to pay damages for the victims loss of earning capacity. According to the wife of the victim, the latter, who died at the age of 57, was earning P35,000.00 a year from his tobacco business and an average of P4,500.00 a month as a tricycle driver. The gross annual income therefore of the victim was P89,000.00. Using the American Expectancy Table of Mortality, the loss of his earning capacity should be computed as follows: Net Earning Capacity (X) = Life Expectancy x Gross Annual Income - Living Expenses (50% of Gross Annual Income) where life expectancy = 2/3 x (80 - [age of deceased]); and Gross Annual Income = Monthly Earnings x number of months (12) Therefore, X = 2/3 (80-57) x (P89,000.00 - 44,500.00) X = 2/3 (23) x P44,500.00 X = 15.3 x P44,500.00 X = P680,850.00 Hence, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, in convicting Orpilla of the crime of Murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that in addition to the amount of P50,000.00 as death indemnity, and the costs, accused-appellant is further ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased the following: P50,000.00 as moral damages; P10,000.00 as temperate damages; and P680,850.00 for loss of earning capacity of the victim.