Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Art. 2222. The court may award nominal damages in every obligation
arising from any source enumerated in article 1157, or in every case where
any property right has been invaded.
Under the foregoing provisions nominal damages are not intended for
indemnification of loss suffered but for the vindication or recognition of a
right violated or invaded. They are recoverable where some injury has been
done the amount of which the evidence fails to show, the assessment of
damages being left to the discretion of the court according to the
circumstances of the case.
2.
3.
2.
3.
RULING:
1.
For very obvious reasons, said clause does not convey any
penalty, for even without it, pursuant to Article 2209 of the Civil
Code, the vendee would be entitled to recover the amount paid
by her with legal rate of interest which is even more than the 4%
provided for in the clause.
Also, the facts show that the right of the vendee to acquire title to the lot
bought by her was violated by petitioner and this entitles her at the very
least to nominal damages.
The pertinent provisions of our Civil Code follow:
Art. 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the
plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be
vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the
plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.
Here, respondent Millan did not submit below any evidence to prove
that she suffered actual or compensatory damages.
The RTC found Gonzales solidarily liable with the spouses Panlilio on the
three promissory notes relative to the outstanding REM loan. The trial court
found no fault in the termination by PCIB of the COHLA with Gonzales and
in freezing the latters accounts to answer for the past due PhP 1,800,000
loan. The trial court ruled that the dishonor of the check issued by Gonzales
in favor of Unson was proper considering that the credit line under the
COHLA had already been terminated or revoked before the presentment of
the check.
The CA dismissed Gonzales appeal and affirmed in toto the RTC Decision.
Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the CA committed error in not awarding damages against
respondents despite presentation of clear proof to support action for
damages. -YES
The petition is partly granted. The CA decision is reversed and set aside.
The Philippine Commercial and International Bank (now Banco De Oro) is
ORDERED to pay Eusebio Gonzales PhP 50,000 as nominal damages,
PhP 50,000 as moral damages, PhP 10,000 as exemplary damages, and
PhP 50,000 as attorneys fees.
Held:
In the instant case, Gonzales suffered from the negligence and bad faith of
PCIB. From the testimonies of Gonzales witnesses, the embarrassment
and humiliation Gonzales has to endure not only before his former close
friend Unson but more from the members and families of his friends and
associates in the PCA, which he continues to experience considering the
confrontation he had with Unson and the consequent loss of standing and
credibility among them from the fact of the apparent bouncing check he
issued. Credit is very important to businessmen and its loss or impairment
needs to be recognized and compensated.
The termination of the COHLA by PCIB without prior notice and the
subsequent dishonor of the check issued by Gonzales constitute acts of
contra bonus mores. Art. 21 of the Civil Code refers to such acts when it
says, "Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner
that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate
the latter for damage."
The Supreme Court finds that such acts warrant the payment of indemnity
in the form of nominal damages. Nominal damages "are recoverable where
a legal right is technically violated and must be vindicated against an
invasion that has produced no actual present loss of any kind x x x." The
Supreme Court further explained the nature of nominal damages in Almeda
v. Cario:
x x x Its award is thus not for the purpose of indemnification for a loss but
for the recognition and vindication of a right. Indeed, nominal damages are
damages in name only and not in fact. When granted by the courts, they
are not treated as an equivalent of a wrong inflicted but simply a
recognition of the existence of a technical injury. A violation of the plaintiffs
right, even if only technical, is sufficient to support an award of nominal
damages. Conversely, so long as there is a showing of a violation of the
right of the plaintiff, an award of nominal damages is proper.
In the present case, Gonzales had the right to be informed of the accrued
interest and most especially, for the suspension of his COHLA. For failure
to do so, the bank is liable to pay nominal damages. The amount of such
damages is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, taking into
account the relevant circumstances. In this case, the Court finds that the
grant of PhP 50,000 as nominal damages is proper.
Moreover, as held in MERALCO v. CA, failure to give prior notice when
required, such as in the instant case, constitutes a breach of contract and is
a clear violation of Art. 21 of the Code. In cases such as this, Art. 2219 of
the Code provides that moral damages may be recovered in acts referred
to in its Art. 21. Further, Art. 2220 of the Code provides that "[w]illful injury
to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court
should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due.
The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted
fraudulently or in bad faith." Similarly, "every person who, contrary to law,
willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter
for the same." Evidently, Gonzales is entitled to recover moral damages.
Even in the absence of malice or bad faith, a depositor still has the right to
recover reasonable moral damages, if the depositor suffered mental
anguish, serious anxiety, embarrassment, and humiliation. Although
incapable of pecuniary estimation, moral damages are certainly
recoverable if they are the proximate result of the defendants wrongful act
or omission. The factual antecedents bolstered by undisputed testimonies
likewise show the mental anguish and anxiety Gonzales had to endure with
the threat of Unson to file a suit. Gonzales had to pay Unson PhP 250,000,
while his FCD account in PCIB was frozen, prompting Gonzales to demand
from PCIB and to file the instant suit.
The award of moral damages is aimed at a restoration within the limits of
the possible, of the spiritual status quo anteit must always reasonably
approximate the extent of injury and be proportional to the wrong
committed. Thus, an award of PhP 50,000 is reasonable moral damages
for the unjust dishonor of the PhP 250,000 which was the proximate cause
of the consequent humiliation, embarrassment, anxiety, and mental anguish
suffered by Gonzales from his loss of credibility among his friends,
colleagues and peers.
Nevertheless, the facts show that when confronted with their failure
to deliver on the wedding day the wedding cake ordered and paid for,
petitioners gave the lame excuse that delivery was probably delayed
because of the traffic, when in truth, no cake could be delivered because
the order slip got lost.
ISSUE:
RULING:
The Court finds that since petitioners complaint arose from a contract, the
doctrine of proximate cause finds no application to it:
NO.
The doctrine of proximate cause is applicable only in actions for quasidelicts, not in actions involving breach of contract. x x x The doctrine is a
device for imputing liability to a person where there is no relation between
him and another party. In such a case, the obligation is created by law
itself. But, where there is a pre-existing contractual relation between the
parties, it is the parties themselves who create the obligation, and the
function of the law is merely to regulate the relation thus created.
What applies in the present case is Article 1170 of the Civil Code which
reads: Art. 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are
guilty of fraud, negligence or delay, and those who in any manner
contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.
The pertinent provisions of the Banquet and Meeting Services Contract
between the parties read:
4.5. The ENGAGER must inform the HOTEL at least forty eight (48) hours
before the scheduled date and time of the Function of any change in the
minimum guaranteed covers. In the absence of such notice, paragraph 4.3
shall apply in the event of under attendance. In case the actual number of
attendees exceed the minimum guaranteed number by ten percent (10%),
the HOTEL shall not in any way be held liable for any damage or
inconveniencewhich may be caused thereby. The ENGAGER shall also
undertake to advise the guests of the situation and take positive steps to
remedy the same.
Breach of contract is defined as the failure without legal reason to comply
with the terms of a contract. It is also defined as the [f]ailure, without legal
excuse, to perform any promise which forms the whole or part of the
contract.
The appellate court, and even the trial court, observed that petitioners were
remiss in their obligation to inform respondent of the change in the
expected number of guests. The observation is reflected in the records of
the case. Petitioners failure to discharge such obligation thus excused, as
the above-quoted paragraph 4.5 of the parties contract provide,
respondent from liability for "any damage or inconvenience" occasioned
thereby.
As for petitioners claim that respondent departed from its verbal agreement
with petitioners, the same fails, given that the written contract which the
parties entered into the day before the event, being the law between them.
In the present petition, under considerations of equity, the Court deems it
just to award the amount of P50,000.00 by way of nominal damages to
petitioners, for the discomfiture that they were subjected to during to the
event. The Court recognizes that every person is entitled to respect of his
dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind.16 Respondents lack of
prudence is an affront to this right.
NOTES:
because it found that the petitioners had abandoned their work and were
not entitled to backwages and separation pay. The Court of Appeals in turn
ruled that the dismissal of the petitioners was not illegal because they had
abandoned their employment.
SC held that dismissal was valid.
can accomplish little, either for their makers or for society, unless they are
made the basis for action.
GR No. 181440
Marquez was charged with Kidnapping under Article 270 of the RPC.
That on or about the 6th day of September, 1998, in the City of Makati, the
above-named accused, being entrusted with the custody of a minor,
JUSTINE BERNADETTE C. MERANO, a three (3) month old baby girl, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously deliberately fail to restore
the latter to her parent, CAROLINA CUNANAN y MERANO (sic).
According to the complainant, she met Marquez at the beauty parlor where
she was working as a beautician. Merano confessed to easily trusting
Marquez because aside from her observation that Marquez was close to
her employers, Marquez was also nice to her and her co-employees, and
was always giving them food and tip.
After a trip to a beach in Laguna, Marquez allegedly borrowed Meranos
then three-month old daughter Justine to buy her some clothes, milk and
food. Marquez failed to return Justine in the afternoon as promised.
RTC: Guilty beyond reasonable doubt. For the Civil aspect, accused is
ordered to pay private complainant PHP50,000.00 for moral damage and
PHP20,000.00 for exemplary damage.
CA: MODIFICATIONS that nominal damages of P20,000.00 is awarded in
addition to the P50,000.00 moral damages, while the award for exemplary
damages is accordingly deleted for lack of basis.
HELD:
The award of nominal damages is allowed under Article 2221 of the NCC
which states that:
Article 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the
plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be
vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the
plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.
Justine was only three months old when this whole debacle began. She
was already nine months old when Merano saw her again. She spent her
first birthday at the Reception and Study Center for Children of the
DSWD. Evidently, Meranos right as a parent which was violated and
invaded must be vindicated and recognized, thereby justifying the award of
nominal damages.
Procedurally, (1) if the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article 282,
the employer must give the employee two written notices and a hearing or
opportunity to be heard if requested by the employee before terminating the
employment: a notice specifying the grounds for which dismissal is sought
a hearing or an opportunity to be heard and after hearing or opportunity to
be heard, a notice of the decision to dismiss; and (2) if the dismissal is
based on authorized causes under Articles 283 and 284, the employer
must give the employee and the Department of Labor and Employment
written notices 30 days prior to the effectivity of his separation.
From the foregoing rules four possible situations may be derived: (1) the
dismissal is for a just cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code, for an
authorized cause under Article 283, or for health reasons under Article 284,
and due process was observed; (2) the dismissal is without just or
authorized cause but due process was observed; (3) the dismissal is
without just or authorized cause and there was no due process; and (4) the
dismissal is for just or authorized cause but due process was not observed.
In the first situation, the dismissal is undoubtedly valid and the employer will
not suffer any liability.
In the second and third situations where the dismissals are illegal, Article
279 mandates that the employee is entitled to reinstatement without loss of
seniority rights and other privileges and full backwages, inclusive of
allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from
the time the compensation was not paid up to the time of actual
reinstatement.
In the fourth situation, the dismissal should be upheld. While the procedural
infirmity cannot be cured, it should not invalidate the dismissal. However,
the employer should be held liable for non-compliance with the procedural
requirements of due process.
The present case squarely falls under the fourth situation. The dismissal
should be upheld because it was established that the petitioners
abandoned their jobs to work for another company. Private respondent,
however, did not follow the notice requirements and instead argued that
sending notices to the last known addresses would have been useless
because they did not reside there anymore. Unfortunately for the private
respondent, this is not a valid excuse because the law mandates the twin
notice requirements to the employee's last known address. Thus, it should
be held liable for non-compliance with the procedural requirements of due
process.
Where the dismissal is for a just cause, as in the instant case, the lack of
statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal, or render it illegal, or
ineffectual. However, the employer should indemnify the employee for the
violation of his statutory rights, as ruled in Reta v. National Labor Relations
Commission. The indemnity to be imposed should be stiffer to discourage
the abhorrent practice of "dismiss now, pay later," which we sought to deter
in the Serrano ruling. The sanction should be in the nature of
indemnification or penalty and should depend on the facts of each case,
taking into special consideration the gravity of the due process violation of
the employer.
Under the Civil Code, nominal damages is adjudicated in order that a right
of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may
be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the
plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.
Facts:
Private respondent Riviera Home Improvements, Inc. is engaged in the
business of selling and installing ornamental and construction materials. It
employed petitioner Virgilio Agabon and Jenny Agabon as gypsum board
and cornice installers on January 2, 1992 until February 23, 1999 when
they were dismissed for abandonment of work. Petitioners then filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision
declaring the dismissal illegal. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the decision
The violation of the petitioners' right to statutory due process by the private
respondent warrants the payment of indemnity in the form of nominal
damages. The amount of such damages is addressed to the sound
discretion of the court, taking into account the relevant circumstances.
Considering the prevailing circumstances in the case at bar, we deem it
proper to fix it at P30,000.00. We believe this form of damages would serve
to deter employers from future violations of the statutory due process rights
of employees. At the very least, it provides a vindication or recognition of
this fundamental right granted to the latter under the Labor Code and its
Implementing Rules.
subsidiary or secondary, but direct and immediate (Articles 1755, 1756, and
1759, New Civil Code).
(3) It is patent upon the record that the award of P10,000 by way of nominal
damages is untenable as a matter of law, since nominal damages cannot
co-exist with compensatory damages. The purpose of nominal damages is
to vindicate or recognize a right that has been violated, in order to preclude
further contest thereon and not for the purpose of indemnifying the Plaintiff
for any loss suffered by him (Articles 2221, 2223, new Civil Code.)
Since the court below has already awarded compensatory and exemplary
damages that are in themselves a judicial recognition that Plaintiffs right
was violated, the award of nominal damages is unnecessary and improper.
Anyway, ten thousand pesos cannot, in common sense, be deemed
nominal. With the modification that the award of P10,000 nominal
damages be eliminated, the decision appealed from is affirmed.
REPUBLIC
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
vs. JUAN C. TUVERA, VICTOR P. TUVERA and TWIN PEAKS
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondents.
FACTS: Twin Peaks was incorporated with Victor Tuvera as on
incorporator, who owned 48% of the shares. Victor was the son of
respondent Juan Tuvera, who was then Presidential Executive Assistant of
President Marcos. President Marcos granted the award of a Timber
License Agreement (TLA), in favor of Twin Peaks to operate on 26,000
hectares of forest land and to export 10,000 cubic meters of mahogany of
the narra species, without public bidding and despite statutory prohibition.
As a result, Twin Peaks was able to engage in logging operations.
In 1988, the PCGG issued a Writ of Sequestration on all assets, properties,
records, documents, and shares of stock of Twin Peaks on the ground that
all the assets of the corporation are ill-gotten wealth for having been
acquired directly or indirectly through fraudulent and illegal means. 4 This
was followed two days later by Mission Order. In 2001, the Sandiganbayan
sustained the demurrer to evidence filed by respondent.
ISSUE: WON the respondents are liable for damages?
Ruling: Yes, temperate and exemplary only.
Actual damages must be proven, not presumed.81 The Republic failed to
prove damages. It is not enough for the Republic to have established, as it
did, the legal travesty that led to the wrongful obtention by Twin Peaks of
the TLA. It should have established the degree of injury sustained by the
State by reason of such wrongful act.
However, there is sufficient basis for an award of temperate damages, also
sought by the Republic notwithstanding the fact that a claim for both actual
and temperate damages is internally inconsistent. Temperate or moderate
damages avail when "the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been
suffered but its amount can not from the nature of the case, be proved with
certainty."84 The textual language might betray an intent that temperate
damages do not avail when the case, by its nature, is susceptible to proof
of pecuniary loss; and certainly the Republic could have proved pecuniary
loss herein.85 Still, jurisprudence applying Article 2224 is clear that
temperate damages may be awarded even in instances where pecuniary
loss could theoretically have been proved with certainty.1awphi1.net
The allowance of temperate damages also paves the way for the award of
exemplary damages. Under Article 2234 of the Civil Code, a showing that
the plaintiff is entitled to temperate damages allows for the award of
exemplary damages. Even as exemplary damages cannot be recovered as
a matter of right, the courts are empowered to decide whether or not they
should be adjudicated. Ill-gotten wealth cases are hornbook
demonstrations where damages by way of example or correction for the
public good should be awarded. Fewer causes of action deserve the stigma
left by exemplary damages, which "serve as a deterrent against or as a
negative incentive to curb socially deleterious actions." 92 The obtention of
the timber license agreement by Twin Peaks through fraudulent and illegal
means was highlighted by Juan Tuveras abuse of his position as
Presidential Executive Assistant. The consequent exploitation of 26
hectares of forest land benefiting all respondents is a grave case of unjust
enrichment at the expense of the Filipino people and of the environment
which should never be countenanced. Considering the expanse of forest
land exploited by respondents, the volume of timber that was necessarily
cut by virtue of their abuse and the estimated wealth acquired by
respondents through grave abuse of trust and public office, it is only
reasonable that petitioner be granted the amount of P1,000,000.00 as
exemplary damages.
court on the ground that the amount of P200,000.00 is rather "too high"
especially considering the fact that the driver De Luna is a mere driver and
defendant-appellant Corporation is only subsidiarily liable thereof. The
award was reduced to P100,000.00)
Ruling:
1.
2.
2.
3.
4.
5.
RULING:
1.
of
recoverable
(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the
deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter; such
indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the court,
unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not
caused by the defendant, had no earning capacity at the time of his death[.]
4.
measure
According to the petitioners, prior to his death, Celedonio was a selfemployed tailor who earned approximatelyP156,000.00 a year,
or P13,000.00 a month. At the time of his death in 1995, the prevailing daily
minimum wage was P145.00,29 or P3,770.00 per month, provided the wage
earner had only one rest day per week. Even if we take judicial notice of
the fact that a small tailoring shop normally does not issue receipts to its
customers, and would probably not have any documentary evidence of the
income it earns, Celedonios alleged monthly income ofP13,000.00 greatly
exceeded the prevailing monthly minimum wage; thus, the exception set
forth above does not apply.
the
determining
The petitioners do not deny that they did not submit any receipt to support
their claim for actual damages to prove the monetary value of the damage
caused to the house and tailoring shop when the truck rammed into them.
Thus, no actual damages for the destruction to petitioner Leticia Tans
house and tailoring shop can be awarded.
2.
in
Shipping Lines,
Inc.
v. Court of
I. When an obligation, regardless of its source, i.e., law, contracts, quasicontracts, delicts or quasi-delicts is breached, the contravenor can be held
liable for damages. The provisions under Title XVIII on "Damages" of the
paragraph 1 of the New Civil Code, the victim is entitled to moral damages
in a criminal offense resulting in physical injuries.
Petition is denied. The CAs Decision finding petitioner Giovani Serrano y
Cervantes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Attempted Homicide, is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The petitioner is ORDERED to PAY the
victim, Anthony Galang, P25,000.00 as temperate damages; and
P10,000.00 as moral damages.
11, 2003]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ALVIN
VILLANUEVA,appellant.
Accused, with intent to kill, evident premeditation and treachery and being
then armed with a knife, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and stab with said knife one OTO-LEO BINAYAN BRABANTE from behind, inflicting three (3) stab wounds upon the
latter, one of which penetrated his heart, which directly resulted to (sic) his
death, to the damage and prejudice of his heirs.
While the prosecution was adducing its evidence, appellant escaped from
detention on October 9, 1997. The lower court thus proceeded with the trial
of the case in absentia in accordance with Section 14(2), Article III of the
1987 Constitution.
Binay-an, mother of the victim, merely declared that her son was a second
lieutenant in the Philippine Marines but gave no statement of her sons
monthly salary. Thus, the trial court simply presumed the amount of Otoleos
earnings. Since the prosecution did not present any evidence of the current
income of the victim, the indemnity for lost earnings was speculative and
must be rejected.
Moral damages cannot also be awarded because no evidence,
testimonial or otherwise, was presented by the prosecution to support it. As
to exemplary damages, the law is clear that they can be recovered in
criminal cases only when the crime is committed with one or more
aggravating circumstances,[36] none of which was present in this case.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the court a quo is hereby AFFIRMED
withMODIFICATION. Appellant Alvin Villanueva is found guilty of murder
and is accordingly sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He is also ordered to
pay the heirs of the victim the amounts of P50,000 as civil indemnity and
P25,000 as temperate damages. The award for the loss of earning capacity
of the deceased is deleted.
ISSUE: w/n the trial court did not err in awarding the aforesaid awards?
An autopsy was performed on Felicidad, and it was disclosed that she died
from "cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to third degree burns involving
90% of body surface to include underlying tissues and organs."14
HELD:
The award of P50,000 as civil indemnity should be upheld without
need of proof, the same being in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence
and the policy of the Court.
Appellant was the lone witness for the defense. Appellant denied setting
the house on fire.16
RTC: appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of arson and frustrated
homicide, thus:
said case, the Court held that when actual damages proven by receipts
during the trial amount to less thanP25,000.00, the award of temperate
damages for P25,000.00 is justified in lieu of actual damages of a lesser
amount.34
Anent the actual damages awarded to Eulogio amounting to P250,000.00,
as indemnification for the burned house, We note that said amount
representing the value of the burned house was merely given by Eulogio as
an estimate. It was not substantiated by any document or receipt. 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.35
Instead, We award temperate damages in accordance with Art. 2224 of the
Civil Code, providing that temperate damages may be recovered when the
court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount
cannot, from the nature of the case, be proven with certainty. 36 It is thus
reasonable to expect that the value of the house burned down amounted to
at least P200,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision finding appellant JESSIE VILLEGAS
MURCIA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of arson and
sentencing him to reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS:
1. Appellant is ordered to indemnify the heirs of Felicidad Quilates the
amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages; P50,000.00 as death indemnity;
and P25,000.00 as temperate damages.
2. The award of P10,000.00 as actual damages in favor of the heirs of
Felicidad Quilates is deleted.
HELD:
Juan Tuvera "persuaded, induced or influenced" the Director of Forestry to
accommodate a timber license agreement in favor of Twin Peaks, despite
the failure to undergo public bidding, or to comply with the requisites for the
grant of such agreement by negotiation, and in favor of a corporation that
did not appear legally capacitated to be granted such agreement. The fact
that the principal stockholder of Twin Peaks was his own son establishes
his indirect pecuniary interest in the transaction he appears to have
intervened in.
The imposition of exemplary damages is a means by which the State,
through its judicial arm, can send the clear and unequivocal signal best
expressed in the pithy but immutable phrase, "never again." It is severely
unfortunate that the Republic did not exert its best efforts in the full
recovery of the actual damages caused by the illegal grant of the Twin
Peaks TLA. To the best of our ability, through the appropriate vehicle of
exemplary damages, the Court will try to fill in that deficiency. For if there is
a lesson that should be learned from the national trauma of the rule of
Marcos, it is that kleptocracy cannot pay. As those dark years fade into the
backburner of the collective memory, and a new generation emerges
without proximate knowledge of how bad it was then, it is useful that the
Court serves a reminder here and now.
P1 million as EXEMPLARY damages.
GR No. 148246
Held. 1. Yes, Dalisay was properly convicted of simple rape. While it has
been proven that appellant was the common-law spouse of the parent of
the victim and the child was a minor at the time of the incident, the Court
cannot convict appellant of qualified rape because the special qualifying
circumstances of minority and relationship were not sufficiently alleged in
the information. To recall, the information here erroneously alleged that
appellant was the stepfather of the victim. Proven during the trial, however,
was that appellant was not married to the victims mother, but was only the
common-law spouse of the latter. Following settled jurisprudence, appellant
is liable only of simple rape punishable by reclusion perpetua.
2. Yes.
Nevertheless, by focusing only on Article 2230 as the legal basis for the
grant of exemplary damagestaking into account simply the attendance of
an aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime, courts have lost
sight of the very reason why exemplary damages are awarded. Catubig is
enlightening on this point, thus
Also known as "punitive" or "vindictive" damages, exemplary or corrective
damages are intended to serve as a deterrent to serious wrong doings, and
as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an
injured or a punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct.
Being corrective in nature, exemplary damages, therefore, can be awarded,
not only in the presence of an aggravating circumstance, but also where
the circumstances of the case show the highly reprehensible or outrageous
conduct of the offender (NO NEED TO ALLEGE). In much the same way as
Article 2230 prescribes an instance when exemplary damages may be
awarded, Article 2229, the main provision, lays down the very basis of the
award.
In this case, finding that appellant, the father figure of the victim, has shown
such an outrageous conduct in sexually abusing his ward, a minor at that,
the Court sustains the award of exemplary damages to discourage and
deter such aberrant behavior. However, the same is increased
to P30,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence
Appellee,
FACTS:
On March 31, 2000 at about 10 oclock in the morning, appellant raped AAA
inside a guard post of a Subdivision in Quezon City. Two witnesses,
Aganon and Pastor, reported the incident to the subdivision guards and
homeowners. They brought appellant to the Barangay Hall and thereafter
turned him over to the x x x Police Station where he was detained pending
the filing of formal charges against him.
After the rape incident, BBB asked her daughter about the surrounding
circumstances leading thereto. She found out that this was not the first time
that appellant had raped her daughter and that appellant had previously
threatened AAA not to reveal to anyone what he had done to her,
otherwise, he would harm her.
Dr. Ma. Cristina Morelos, a psychiatrist, and Nimia C. De Guzman, a
psychologist, both from the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH),
testified on the mental capacity of AAA. Psychological tests showed that
AAAs current mental capacity was at a severe level of mental retardation
with the mental age of a four-year old although at the time of the
commission of the rape, AAA was already 21 years old. She had a very
limited attention span and concentration. She was also easily cajoled and
pleased, and responded with unthinking eagerness to do anything
requested of her as long as her needs were satisfied.
During her testimony, De Guzman also noted that when she interviewed
AAA, the latter answered spontaneously and narrated vividly how she was
raped by appellant. She pointed out that a person with the mental age of a
four-year old could not fabricate a story; and relates events as he or she
experiences them. Neither could such a person be coached on the witness
stand because of his or her limited attention span.
Appellant denied the charges against him. The trial court, however,
rendered its Decision convicting appellant of qualified rape. It ruled that
aside from the use of force, threat or intimidation and the fact that the victim
was a mental retardate, the rape was attended with the special qualifying
circumstance under Article 266-B(10) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as
amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353, because appellant knew of
AAAs mental disability at the time of the commission of the crime as shown
by the fact that appellant called AAA "makulit" and "abnormal." Thus, it
imposed the supreme penalty of death and ordered him to pay damages.
Appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape
committed against AAA and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death.
RULING:
The trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, convicted appellant for
qualified rape and sentenced him to death under Article 266-B(10) of the
RPC, as amended by R.A. 8353. It reasoned that appellant knew of AAAs
mental retardation at the time of the commission of the rape since, during
his testimony, appellant referred to AAA as the "makulit" and "abnormal"
person who kept on annoying him while he rested in the guard outpost.
Under Article 266-B(10), knowledge by the offender of the mental disability
of the offended party at the time of the commission of the rape is a special
qualifying circumstance that sanctions the imposition of the death penalty.
However, the long settled rule is that qualifying circumstances must be
sufficiently alleged in the indictment and proved during trial to be properly
appreciated by the trial court. Otherwise, it would be a denial of the right of
the accused to be informed of the charges against him, and, thus, a denial
of due process, if he is charged with simple rape but is convicted of its
qualified form even if the attendant qualifying circumstance is not set forth
in the information.
In the instant case, the information merely states that AAA is a retardate
without specifically stating that appellant knew of her mental disability at the
time of the commission of the rape. Thus, appellant can only be convicted
of simple rape under Article 266-A, par. 1 in relation to 266-B of the RPC, as
amended by R.A. 8353, and his sentence should be accordingly reduced to
reclusion perpetua.
Anent the award of damages, the Court of Appeals awarded to the victim
P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. With our
finding that appellant should be convicted of simple rape only and not of
qualified rape, the civil indemnity must be reduced to P50,000.00
conformably with prevailing jurisprudence. Nonetheless, AAA is entitled to
P25,000.00 as exemplary damages pursuant to its ruling in People v.
Catubig, wherein the Supreme Court held that the presence of an
aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, entitles the
offended party to an award of exemplary damages.
The Court noted that the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which took
effect on December 1, 2000, now requires that aggravating circumstances
must be alleged in the information in order to be validly appreciated by the
court. However, the retroactive application of these procedural rules cannot
adversely affect the rights of a private offended party that have become
vested where the offense was committed prior to the effectivity of said rules
as is the case here.
Consequently, aggravating circumstances which were not alleged in the
information but proved during the trial may be appreciated for the limited
purpose of determining appellants liability for exemplary damages. In the
instant case, the presence of the qualifying circumstance of knowledge by
the offender of the offended partys mental disability, although not alleged in
the information, was proved during trial, which justifies the award of
exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 in consonance with
current rulings.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals was AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. Appellant was found GUILTY of simple rape and
sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He was likewise ordered to indemnify the
victim in the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral
damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages; and to pay the costs.