JURISPRUDENCE ON DAMAGES

1.)

PEOPLE vs JOSE PEPITO D. G.R. No. 189301

COMBATE a.k.a. PEPING,
Promulgated:
December 15, 2010

Award of damages

This Court will now endeavor to end, once and for all, the confusion as to
the proper award of damages in criminal cases where the imposable penalty for
the crime is reclusion perpetua or death. As a rule, the Court awards three kinds
of damages in these types of criminal cases: civil indemnity and moral and
exemplary damages. We shall discuss all three.

First, civil indemnity ex delicto is the indemnity authorized in our criminal

law for the offended party, in the amount authorized by the prevailing judicial
policy and apart from other proven actual damages, which itself is equivalent to
actual or compensatory damages in civil law.[21] This award stems from Art. 100
of the RPC which states, Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly
liable.

Civil liability ex delicto may come in the form of restitution, reparation, and
indemnification.[22] Restitution is defined as the compensation for loss; it is full
or partial compensation paid by a criminal to a victim ordered as part of a
criminal sentence or as a condition for probation.[23] Likewise, reparation and
indemnification are similarly defined as the compensation for an injury, wrong,
loss, or damage sustained.[24] Clearly, all of these correspond to actual or
compensatory damages defined under the Civil Code.[25]

The other kinds of damages, i.e., moral and exemplary or corrective

damages,[26] have altogether different jural foundations.
The second type of damages the Court awards are moral damages, which are
also compensatory in nature. Del Mundo v. Court of Appeals explained the nature
and purpose of moral damages, viz:

Moral damages, upon the other hand, may be awarded to

compensate one for manifold injuries such as physical suffering,
mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded
feelings and social humiliation. These damages must be
understood to be in the concept of grants, not punitive or
corrective in nature, calculated to compensate the claimant for
the injury suffered. Although incapable of exactness and no proof
of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral damages may be
awarded, the amount of indemnity being left to the discretion of the
court, it is imperative, nevertheless, that (1) injury must have been
suffered by the claimant, and (2) such injury must have sprung from
any of the cases expressed in Article 2219[27] and Article 2220[28] of
the Civil Code. (Emphasis supplied.)

Similarly, in American jurisprudence, moral damages are treated as

compensatory damages awarded for mental pain and suffering or mental
anguish resulting from a wrong.[29] They may also be considered and allowed for
resulting pain and suffering, and for humiliation, indignity, and vexation
suffered by the plaintiff as result of his or her assailants conduct, as well as the
factors of provocation, the reasonableness of the force used, the attendant
humiliating circumstances, the sex of the victim, [and] mental distress.[30]

The rationale for awarding moral damages has been explained in Lambert v.
Heirs of Rey Castillon: [T]he award of moral damages is aimed at a restoration,
within the limits possible, of the spiritual status quo ante; and therefore, it must
be proportionate to the suffering inflicted.[31]

And lastly, the Court awards exemplary damages as provided for in Arts.
2229 and 2230 of the Civil Code, viz:

Art. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by

way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the
moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.
 Art. 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part
of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed
with one or more aggravating circumstances. Such damages are
separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended
party.

Clearly, as a general rule, exemplary damages are only imposed in criminal

offenses when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating
circumstances, be they generic or qualifying. However, there have been instances
wherein exemplary damages were awarded despite the lack of an aggravating
circumstance. This led the Court to clarify this confusion in People v. Dalisay,
where it categorically stated that exemplary damages may 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, to wit:

Prior to the effectivity of the Revised Rules of Criminal

Procedure, courts generally awarded exemplary damages in criminal
cases when an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or
qualifying, had been proven to have attended the commission of the
crime, even if the same was not alleged in the information. This is in
accordance with the aforesaid Article 2230. However, with the
promulgation of the Revised Rules, courts no longer consider the
aggravating circumstances not alleged and proven in the
determination of the penalty and in the award of damages. Thus,
even if an aggravating circumstance has been proven, but was not
alleged, courts will not award exemplary damages. x x x
xxxx
Nevertheless, People v. Catubig laid down the principle that
courts may still award exemplary damages based on the
aforementioned Article 2230, even if the aggravating circumstance
has not been alleged, so long as it has been proven, in criminal cases
instituted before the effectivity of the Revised Rules which remained
pending thereafter. Catubig reasoned that the retroactive
application of the Revised Rules should not adversely affect the
vested rights of the private offended party.
Thus, we find, in our body of jurisprudence, criminal cases,
especially those involving rape, dichotomized: one awarding
exemplary damages, even if an aggravating circumstance attending
the commission of the crime had not been sufficiently alleged but
was consequently proven in the light of Catubig; and another
awarding exemplary damages only if an aggravating circumstance
has both been alleged and proven following the Revised Rules.
Among those in the first set are People v. Laciste, People v. Victor,
People v. Orilla, People v. Calongui, People v. Magbanua, People of the
Philippines v. Heracleo Abello y Fortada, People of the Philippines v.
Jaime Cadag Jimenez, and People of the Philippines v. Julio Manalili.
And in the second set are People v. Llave, People of the Philippines v.
Dante Gragasin y Par, and People of the Philippines v. Edwin Mejia.
Again, the difference between the two sets rests on when the
criminal case was instituted, either before or after the effectivity of
the Revised Rules.
xxxx
Nevertheless, by focusing only on Article 2230 as the legal
basis for the grant of exemplary damages taking 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.
These terms are generally, but not always, used
interchangeably. In common law, there is preference in
the use of exemplary damages when the award is to
account for injury to feelings and for the sense of
indignity and humiliation suffered by a person as a result
of an injury that has been maliciously and wantonly
inflicted, the theory being that there should be
compensation for the hurt caused by the highly
reprehensible conduct of the defendant associated with
such circumstances as willfulness, wantonness, malice,
gross negligence or recklessness, oppression, insult or
fraud or gross fraud that intensifies the injury. The terms
punitive or vindictive damages are often used to refer to
those species of damages that may be awarded against a
person to punish him for his outrageous conduct. In either
case, these damages are intended in good measure to
deter the wrongdoer and others like him from similar
conduct in the future.
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. 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. Thus, in People v.
Matrimonio, the Court imposed exemplary damages to deter other
fathers with perverse tendencies or aberrant sexual behavior from
sexually abusing their own daughters. Also, in People v. Cristobal,
the Court awarded exemplary damages on account of the moral
corruption, perversity and wickedness of the accused in sexually
assaulting a pregnant married woman. Recently, in People of the
Philippines v. Cristino Caada, People of the Philippines v. Pepito
Neverio and The People of the Philippines v. Lorenzo Layco, Sr., the
Court awarded exemplary damages to set a public example, to serve
as deterrent to elders who abuse and corrupt the youth, and to
protect the latter from sexual abuse.
It must be noted that, in the said cases, the Court used as
basis Article 2229, rather than Article 2230, to justify the award of
exemplary damages. Indeed, to borrow Justice Carpio Morales
words in her separate opinion in People of the Philippines v. Dante
Gragasin y Par, [t]he application of Article 2230 of the Civil Code
strictissimi juris in such cases, as in the present one, defeats the
underlying public policy behind the award of exemplary damages to
set a public example or correction for the public good.[32]

XXX

In addition to this, the Court likewise awards moral damages. In People v.

Arizapa,[52] PhP 50,000 was awarded as moral damages without need of pleading
or proving them, for in rape cases, it is recognized that the victims injury is
concomitant with and necessarily results from the odious crime of rape to
warrant per se the award of moral damages.[53] Subsequently, the amount was
increased to PhP 75,000 in People v. Soriano.[54]

As to exemplary damages, existing jurisprudence has pegged its award at

PhP 30,000,[55] despite the lack of any aggravating circumstance. The reason,
as previously discussed, is to deter similar conduct and to serve as an example
for public good.
 Essentially, despite the fact that the death penalty cannot be imposed
because of RA 9346, the imposable penalty as provided by the law for the crime,
such as those found in RA 7569, must be used as the basis for awarding
damages and not the actual penalty imposed.

On the other hand, when the circumstances surrounding the crime call
for the imposition of reclusion perpetua only, the Court has ruled that the proper
amounts should be PhP 50,000 as civil indemnity, PhP 50,000 as moral
damages, and PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages.[56]

Accordingly, in Criminal Case Nos. 95-17070 and 95-17071, the

exemplary damages awarded by the CA in the amount of PhP 25,000 should be
increased to PhP 30,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.

Moreover, the deletion of the award of compensatory damages for

unearned income by the CA in Criminal Case No. 95-17071 is proper. This
Court pronounced in People v. Mallari:[57]

The rule is that documentary evidence should be

presented to substantiate a claim for damages for
loss of earning capacity. By way of exception,
damages therefore may be awarded despite the
absence of documentary evidence provided that there
is testimony that the victim was either (1) self-
employed earning less than the minimum wage under
current labor laws, and judicial notice may be taken
of the fact that in the victims line of work no
documentary evidence is available; or (2) employed as
a daily-wage worker earning less than the minimum
wage under current labor laws.

In this case, neither of the exemption applies. The earnings of Leopoldo at

the time of his death were above minimum wage set by labor laws in his
respective place at the time of his death.[58] As testified to by his wife, Shenette
Guiro, Leopoldo was earning between PhP 200 to PhP 300 per day. This is more
than minimum wage. Hence, absent any documentary evidence, the award of
compensatory damages must be deleted.

Likewise, the deletion of the award of compensatory damages by the CA in

Criminal Case No. 95-17070 is proper for lack of any basis. The trial court did
not discuss why it awarded compensatory damages to the heirs of Edmund.

Interest on 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.[59] In People v.
Tubongbanua,[60] interest at the rate of six percent (6%) was ordered to be applied
on the award of damages. This rule would be subsequently applied by the Court
in several cases such as Mendoza v. People,[61]People v. Buban,[62] People v.
Guevarra,[63] and People v. Regalario.[64] Thus, we likewise adopt this rule in the
instant case. Interest of six percent (6%) per annum should be imposed on the
award of civil indemnity and all damages, i.e., actual or compensatory damages,
moral damages and exemplary damages, from the date of finality of judgment
until fully paid.

2.)

MARIANO C. MENDOZA AND G.R. No. 160110

ELVIRA LIM
vs Promulgated:
SPS. LEONORA J. GOMEZ AND June 18, 2014
GABRIEL V. GOMEZ,

Actual or Compensatory Damages. Actual or compensatory damages are

those awarded in satisfaction of, or in recompense for, loss or injury sustained.
They simply make good or replace the loss caused by the wrong.34cralawred
Article 2202 of the Civil Code provides that in crimes and quasi- delicts, the
defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and probable
consequences of the act or omission complained of. It is not necessary that
such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by
the defendant. Article 2199 of the same Code, however, sets the limitation that,
except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate
compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly
proved. As such, to warrant an award of actual or compensatory damages, the
claimant must prove that the damage sustained is the natural and probable
consequences of the negligent act and, moreover, the claimant must adequately
prove the amount of such damage.

In the case at bar, the RTC, basing on the receipts submitted by respondents
and which receipts petitioners had the opportunity to examine, found that the
total repairs on the Isuzu truck amounted to P142,757.40, and that the full
hospitalization and medical expenses of Perez, Anla, Banca, and Repisada
amounted to P11,267.35. As such, these are the amounts that respondents are
entitled to as actual and compensatory damages.

Although respondents alleged in their complaint that the damage to their Isuzu
truck caused them the loss of a daily income of P1,000.00, such claim was not
duly substantiated by any evidence on record, and thus cannot be awarded in
their favor.

Moral Damages. Moral damages are awarded to enable the injured party to
obtain means, diversions or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral
suffering he has undergone, by reason of the defendant's culpable
action.35cralawred

In prayers for moral damages, however, recovery is more an exception rather

than the rule. Moral damages are not meant to be punitive but are designed to
compensate and alleviate the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious
anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social
humiliation, and similar harm unjustly caused to a person. To be entitled to
such an award, the claimant must satisfactorily prove that he has suffered
damages and that the injury causing it has sprung from any of the cases listed
in Articles 2219 and 2220 of the Civil Code. Moreover, the damages must be
shown to be the proximate result of a wrongful act or omission. The claimant
must thus establish the factual basis of the damages and its causal tie with the
acts of the defendant.36cralawred

In fine, an award of moral damages calls for the presentation of 1) evidence of

besmirched reputation or physical, mental or psychological suffering sustained
by the claimant; 2) a culpable act or omission factually established; 3) proof
that the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of
the damages sustained by the claimant; and 4) the proof that the act is
predicated on any of the instances expressed or envisioned by Article 2219 and
Article 2220 of the Civil Code.37cralawred

A review of the complaint and the transcript of stenographic notes yields the
pronouncement that respondents neither alleged nor offered any evidence of
besmirched reputation or physical, mental or psychological suffering incurred
by them. All that Leonora and her counsel had to say on the matter of damages
other than actual or compensatory damages is this:38cralawred

Q: Did you ever spend covering attorney’s fees?

A: Yes, sir. P50,000.00.
Q: Aside from the actual damage that you have mentioned x x x, how much
more would you like this Court to award you by way of moral damages?
A: P100,000.00, sir.
Q: How about exemplary damages?
A: P50,000.00, sir.
Q: What happened to you, what did you feel when the defendants failed to
immediately repair your vehicle that was damaged Madam Witness?
A: I have incurred expenses and I was forced to apply for a loan, sir.

In Kierulf v. CA,39 we observed that this Court cannot remind the bench and
the bar often enough that in order that moral damages may be awarded, there
must be pleading and proof of moral suffering, mental anguish, fright and the
like. Citing Francisco v. GSIS,40 the Court held that there must be clear
testimony on the anguish and other forms of mental suffering. Thus, if the
plaintiff fails to take the witness stand and testify as to his social humiliation,
wounded feelings and anxiety, moral damages cannot be awarded.

Moreover, respondents were not able to show that their claim properly falls
under Articles 2219 and 2220 of the Civil Code. Respondents cannot rely on
Article 2219 (2) of the Civil Code which allows moral damages in quasi-
delicts causing physical injuries because in physical injuries, moral damages
are recoverable only by the injured party,41 and in the case at bar, herein
respondents were not the ones who were actually injured.

In B.F. Metal (Corp.) v. Sps. Lomotan, et al.,42 the Court, in a claim for damages
based on quasi-delictcausing physical injuries, similarly disallowed an award of
moral damages to the owners of the damaged vehicle, when neither of them
figured in the accident and sustained injuries.

Neither can respondents rely on Article 21 of the Civil Code as the RTC
erroneously did. Article 21 deals with acts contra bonus mores, and has the
following elements: (1) There is an act which is legal; (2) but which is contrary
to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy; (3) and it is done with
intent to injure.43 In the present case, it can hardly be said that Mendoza’s
negligent driving and violation of traffic laws are legal acts. Moreover, it was not
proven that Mendoza intended to injure Perez, et al. Thus, Article 21 finds no
application to the case at bar.

All in all, we find that the RTC and the CA erred in granting moral damages to
respondents.

Exemplary Damages. Article 2229 of the Civil Code provides that exemplary or
corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public
good, in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.
Article 2231 of the same Code further states that in quasi-delicts, exemplary
damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence.

Our jurisprudence sets certain conditions when exemplary damages may be

awarded: First, they may be imposed by way of example or correction only in
addition, among others, to compensatory damages, and cannot be recovered as
a matter of right, their determination depending upon the amount of
compensatory damages that may be awarded to the claimant. Second, the
claimant must first establish his right to moral, temperate, liquidated or
compensatory damages. Third, the wrongful act must be accompanied by bad
faith, and the award would be allowed only if the guilty party acted in a
wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner.44cralawred

In motor vehicle accident cases, exemplary damages may be awarded where the
defendant’s misconduct is so flagrant as to transcend simple negligence and be
tantamount to positive or affirmative misconduct rather than passive or
negative misconduct. In characterizing the requisite positive misconduct which
will support a claim for punitive damages, the courts have used such
descriptive terms as willful, wanton, grossly negligent, reckless, or malicious,
either alone or in combination.45cralawred

Gross negligence is the absence of care or diligence as to amount to a reckless

disregard of the safety of persons or property. It evinces a thoughtless
disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid
them.46cralawred

In the case at bar, having established respondents’ right to compensatory

damages, exemplary damages are also in order, given the fact that Mendoza
was grossly negligent in driving the Mayamy bus. His act of intruding or
encroaching on the lane rightfully occupied by the Isuzu truck shows his
reckless disregard for safety.

In Baño v. Bachelor Express, Inc., et al.,47 where an erring bus, in the process of
overtaking a jeepney, also encroached on the opposite lane, and consequently
collided with a dump truck, the Court held the driver of the bus grossly
negligent and affirmed the award of exemplary damages.

Attorney’s Fees. Article 2208 of the Civil Code enumerates the instances when
attorney’s fees may be recovered:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney’s fees and expenses of
litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:

(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;

(2) When the defendant’s act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate
with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest;
(3) In criminal cases of malicious prosecution against the plaintiff;
(4) In case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the
plaintiff;
(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to
satisfy the plaintiff’s valid and demandable claim;
(6) In actions for legal support;
(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and
skilled workers;
(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen’s compensation and employer’s
liability laws;
(9) In a separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from a crime;
(10) When at least double judicial costs are awarded;
(11) In any other case where the court deems it just and equitable that
attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered;

In all cases, the attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation must be reasonable.

From the very opening sentence of Article 2208 of the Civil Code, it is clearly
intended to retain the award of attorney’s fees as the exception in our law, as
the general rule remains that attorney’s fees are not recoverable in the absence
of a stipulation thereto, the reason being that it is not sound policy to set a
premium on the right to litigate.48cralawred

As such, in Spouses Agustin v. CA,49 we held that, the award of attorney’s fees
being an exception rather than the general rule, it is necessary for the court to
make findings of facts and law that would bring the case within the exception
and justify the grant of such award. Thus, the reason for the award of
attorney’s fees must be stated in the text of the court’s decision; otherwise, if it
is stated only in the dispositive portion of the decision, the same must be
disallowed on appeal.

In the case at bar, the RTC Decision had nil discussion on the propriety of
attorney’s fees, and it merely awarded such in the dispositive. The CA Decision,
on the other hand, merely stated that the award of attorney’s fees is merited as
such is allowed when exemplary damages are awarded.50 Following established
jurisprudence,51 however, the CA should have disallowed on appeal said award
of attorney’s fees as the RTC failed to substantiate said award.

Costs of suit. The Rules of Court provide that, generally, costs shall be allowed
to the prevailing party as a matter of course, thus:52cralawred

Section 1. Costs ordinarily follow results of suit.- Unless otherwise provided in

these rules, costs shall be allowed to the prevailing party as a matter of course,
but the court shall have power, for special reasons, to adjudge that either party
shall pay the costs of an action, or that the same be divided, as may be
equitable. No costs shall be allowed against the Republic of the Philippines,
unless otherwise provided by law.

In the present case, the award of costs of suit to respondents, as the prevailing
party, is in order.

Interests. Interest by way of damages has been defined as interest allowed in

actions for breach of contract or tort for the unlawful detention of money
already due. This type of interest is frequently called “moratory interest.”
Interest as a part of damage, is allowed, not by application of arbitrary rules,
but as a result of the justice of the individual case and as compensation to the
injured party.53cralawred

The legal provision on interests in quasi-delicts is Article 2211 of the Civil Code
which provides that in crimes and quasi-delicts, interest as part of the damage,
may, in a proper case, be adjudicated in the discretion of the court.

Generally, interest is allowed as a matter of right for failure to pay liquidated

claims when due.54 For unliquidated claims, however, Article 2213 of the Civil
Code provides that interest cannot be recovered upon unliquidated claims or
damages, except when the demand can be established with reasonable
certainty.

In the case at bar, although the award of exemplary damages is unliquidated in

the sense that petitioners cannot know for sure, before judgment, the exact
amount that they are required to pay to respondents, the award of actual or
compensatory damages, however, such as the truck repairs and medical
expenses, is arguably liquidated in that they can be measured against a
reasonably certain standard.55 Moreover, justice would seem to require that the
delay in paying for past losses which can be made reasonably certain should be
compensated through an award of interest.56 cralaw red
3.)

SONNY ROMERO Y DOMINGUEZ G.R. No. 167546

vs
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES ET Promulgated:
AL, July 17, 2009

Left with no other recourse, petitioner now argues[15] that his acquittal should
have freed him from payment of civil liability. He also claims that he should be
totally exonerated from any liability because it was Gerardo Breis, Sr., not the
regular driver, Jimmy Padua, who was actually driving the taxi at the time of the
accident, which was clearly in violation of insurance and transportation laws.

We disagree.

The rule is that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. [16] Criminal
liability will give rise to civil liability only if the felonious act or omission results in
damage or injury to another and is the direct and proximate cause thereof. [17] Every
crime gives rise to (1) a criminal action for the punishment of the guilty party and
(2) a civil action for the restitution of the thing, repair of the damage, and
indemnification for the losses.[18]

However, the reverse is not always true. In this connection, the relevant
portions of Section 2, Rule 111 and Section 2, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court
provide:

Sec. 2. When separate civil action is suspended.xxx

 The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it
extinction of the civil action. However, the civil action based on delict
shall be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment
in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil
liability may arise did not exist. (emphasis supplied)

Sec. 2. Contents of the judgment.xxx

In case the judgment is of acquittal, it shall state whether the

evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the
accused or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In
either case, the judgment shall determine if the act or omission from
which the civil liability might arise did not exist. (emphasis supplied)

Thus, the rule is that the acquittal of an accused of the crime charged will not
necessarily extinguish his civil liability, unless the court declares in a final judgment
that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist.[19] Courts can
acquit an accused on reasonable doubt but still order payment of civil damages in
the same case.[20] It is not even necessary that a separate civil action be instituted.[21]

In this case, the MTC held that it could not ascertain with moral certainty the
wanton and reckless manner by which petitioner drove the bus in view of the
condition of the highway where the accident occurred and the short distance between
the bus and the taxi before the collision. However, it categorically stated that while
petitioner may be acquitted based on reasonable doubt, he may nonetheless be held
civilly liable. [22]
The RTC added that there was no finding by the MTC that the act from which
petitioners civil liability may arise did not exist. Therefore, the MTC was correct in
holding petitioner civilly liable to the heirs of the victims of the collision for the
tragedy, mental anguish and trauma they suffered plus expenses they incurred during
the wake and interment.[23]
 In view of the pronouncements of the MTC and the RTC, we agree with the
conclusion of the CA that petitioner was acquitted not because he did not commit
the crime charged but because the RTC and the MTC could not ascertain with moral
conviction the wanton and reckless manner by which petitioner drove the bus at the
time of the accident. Put differently, petitioner was acquitted because the prosecution
failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, his civil liability for the
death, injuries and damages arising from the collision is another matter.

While petitioner was absolved from criminal liability because his negligence
was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, he can still be held civilly liable if his
negligence was established by preponderance of evidence.[24] In other words,
the failure of the evidence to prove negligence with moral certainty does not
negate (and is in fact compatible with) a ruling that there was preponderant
evidence of such negligence. And that is sufficient to hold him civilly liable.

Thus, the MTC (as affirmed by the RTC and the CA) correctly imposed civil
liability on petitioner despite his acquittal. Simple logic also dictates that petitioner
would not have been held civilly liable if his act from which the civil liability had
arisen did not in fact exist.

Anent the second issue, it would be well to remind petitioner of the time-
honored doctrine that this Court is not a trier of facts.[25] The rule finds greater
relevance in this case because the MTC,[26] the RTC[27] and the CA[28] uniformly held
that it was Jimmy Padua, and not Gerardo Breis, Sr., who was driving the taxi at the
time of the accident.
 There are of course instances[29] when this Court can embark on a re-
examination of the evidence adduced by the parties during trial. Sad to say, none of
those instances is present here.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

4.)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 194605

vs
MARIANO OANDASAM JR. Promulgated:
June 14, 2016

Civil Liability

For death caused by a crime or quasi-delict, Article 2206 of the Civil

Code enumerates the damages that may be recovered from the accused or
defendant, to wit:

Article 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-
delict shall be at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have been
mitigating circumstances. In addition:

(l)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;

(2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the provisions of
article 291, the recipient who is not an heir called to the decedent's inheritance
by the law of testate or intestate succession, may demand support from the
person causing the death, for a period not exceeding five years, the exact
duration to be fixed by the court;
(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the
deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the
death of the deceased.

The first item of civil liability is the civil indemnity for death, or death
indemnity.

Civil indemnity comes under the general provisions of the Civil Code on
damages, and refers to the award given to the heirs of the deceased as a form
of monetary restitution or compensation for the death of the victim at the
hands of the accused. Its grant is mandatory and a matter of course, and
without need of proof other than the fact of death as the result of the crime or
quasi-delict,20 and the fact that the accused was responsible therefor. The
mandatory character of civil indemnity in case of death from crime or quasi-delict
derives from the legal obligation of the accused or the defendant to fully
compensate the heirs of the deceased for his death as the natural consequence of
the criminal or quasi-delictual act or omission. This legal obligation is set in
Article 2202 of the Civil Code, viz.:

Article 2202. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all
damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or
omission complained of. It is not necessary that such damages have been
foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant.

Article 2206 of the Civil Code, supra, has fixed the death indemnity to be "at
least three thousand pesos, even though there may have been mitigating
circumstances." Yet, the granting of civil indemnity was not introduced by
the Civil Code, for the courts had granted death indemnity to the heirs of the
victims even long prior to August 30, 1950, the date of the effectivity of the Civil
Code. The award of civil indemnity dated back to the early years of the
Court.21 There was also legislation on the matter, starting with Commonwealth
Act No. 284, approved on June 3, 1938, which provided in its Section 1 the
following:

Section 1. — The civil liability or the death of a person shall be fixed by the
competent court at a reasonable sum, upon consideration of the pecuniary
situation of the party liable and other circumstances, but it shall in no case be
less than two thousand pesos.

In fixing the civil indemnity, the Legislature thereby set a minimum. The Civil
Code, in Article 2206, took the same approach by specifying the amount to
be at least P3,000.00, which was directly manifesting the legislative intent of
enabling the courts to increase the amount whenever the circumstances would
warrant.
xxxxx

It is again timely to raise the civil indemnity for death arising from crime or
quasi-delict. We start by reminding that human life, which is not a commodity,
is priceless. The value of human life is incalculable, for no loss of life from
crime or quasi-delict can ever be justly measured. Yet, the law absolutely
requires every injury, especially loss of life, to be compensated in the form of
damages. For this purpose, damages may be defined as the pecuniary
compensation, recompense, or satisfaction for an injury sustained, or, as
otherwise expressed, the pecuniary consequences that the law imposes for the
breach of some duty or the violation of some right.60 As such, damages refer to
the amount in money awarded by the court as a remedy for the
injured.61 Although money has been accepted as the most frequently used
means of punishing, deterring, compensating and regulating injury throughout
the legal system,62it has been explained that money in the context of damages
is not awarded as a replacement for other money, but as substitute for that
which is generally more important than money; it is the best thing that a court
can do.63 Regardless, the civil indemnity for death, being compensatory in
nature, must attune to contemporaneous economic realities; otherwise, the
desire to justly indemnify would be thwarted or rendered meaningless. This has
been the legislative justification for pegging the minimum, but not the
maximum, of the indemnity.

Unlike the criminal liability which is basically a State concern, the award of
damages, however, is likewise, if not primarily, intended for the offended party
who suffers thereby. It would make little sense for an award of exemplary
damages to be due the private offended party when the aggravating
circumstance is ordinary but to be withheld when it is qualifying. Withal, the
ordinary or qualifying nature of an aggravating circumstance is a distinction
that should only be ol consequence to the criminal, rather than to the civil,
liability of the offender. In fine, relative to the civil aspect of the case, an
aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, should entitle the
offended party to an award of exemplary damages within the unbridled
meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil Code.69