Lawyerly

GR No. 193188

2011-08-10

VELASCO JR., J.

Pertinently, as early as July 9, 1998, this Court has held that when the circumstances surrounding the crime would justify the imposition of the penalty of death were it not for RA 9346, the award of civil indemnity for the crime of rape should be PhP 75,000,[79] racionating that "[t]his is not only a reaction to the apathetic societal perception of the penal law and the financial fluctuations over time, but also an expression of the displeasure of the Court over the incidence of heinous crimes against chastity."[80]

GR No. 186417

2011-07-27

PEOPLE v. FELIPE MIRANDILLA

PEREZ, J.

In the 1998 landmark case of People v. Victor, [84] the Court enunciated that if, in the crime of rape, the death penalty is imposed, the indemnity ex delicto for the victim shall be in the increased amount of NOT [85] less than P75,000.00. To reiterate the words of the Court: "this is not only a reaction to the apathetic societal perception of the penal law and the financial fluctuation over time, but also an expression of the displeasure of the Court over the incidence of heinous crimes..." [86] xxx (Emphasis supplied)

GR No. 189301

2010-12-15

PEOPLE v. JOSE PEPITO D. COMBATE

VELASCO JR., J.

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."

GR No. 189301

2010-12-15

PEOPLE v. JOSE PEPITO D. COMBATE

VELASCO JR., J.

When the circumstances surrounding the crime would justify the imposition of the penalty of death were it not for RA 9346, the Court has ruled, as early as July 9, 1998 in People v. Victor,[50] that the award of civil indemnity for the crime of rape when punishable by death should be PhP 75,000. We reasoned that "[t]his is not only a reaction to the apathetic societal perception of the penal law and the financial fluctuations over time, but also an expression of the displeasure of the Court over the incidence of heinous crimes against chastity."[51] Such reasoning also applies to all heinous crimes found in RA 7659.

GR No. 169641

2009-09-10

PEOPLE v. RICHARD O. SARCIA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Relative to civil indemnity, People v. Victor[36] ratiocinated as follows: The lower court, however, erred in categorizing the award of P50,000.00 to the offended party as being in the nature of moral damages. We have heretofore explained in People v. Gementiza that the indemnity authorized by our criminal law as civil liability ex delicto for the offended party, in the amount authorized by the prevailing judicial policy and aside from other proven actual damages, is itself equivalent to actual or compensatory damages in civil law. It is not to be considered as moral damages thereunder, the latter being based on different jural foundations and assessed by the court in the exercise of sound discretion.

GR No. 175605

2009-08-28

PEOPLE v. ARNOLD GARCHITORENA Y CAMBA A.KA. JUNIOR

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

While the new law prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, the penalty provided for by law for a heinous offense is still death and the offense is still heinous.[28] Consequently, the civil indemnity for the victim is still P75,000.00. In People v. Quiachon,[29] we explained that even if the penalty of death was not to be imposed on appellant because of the prohibition in Republic Act No. 9346, the civil indemnity of P75,000.00 was still proper. Following the ratiocination in People v. Victor,[30] the said award is not dependent on the actual imposition of the death penalty, but on the fact that qualifying circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty attended the commission of the crime.

GR No. 168166

2008-10-10

PEOPLE v. SALVADOR C. DACO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The trial court correctly awarded P75,000.00 for each count of rape as civil indemnity. This is in line with the ruling in People v. Victor,[31] in which we held that if the crime of rape is committed or effectively qualified by any of the circumstances under which the death penalty is authorized by the present amended law, the indemnity for the victim should be increased to an amount not less than P75,000.00. We likewise agree with the finding of the CA that in addition to the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 for each case, moral damages should be increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00, in accordance with the prevailing jurisprudence.[32]

GR NO. 170236

2006-08-31

PEOPLE v. ROBERTO QUIACHON Y BAYONA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Even if the penalty of death is not to be imposed on the appellant because of the prohibition in R.A. No. 9346, the civil indemnity of P75,000.00 is still proper because, following the ratiocination in People v. Victor,[30] the said award is not dependent on the actual imposition of the death penalty but on the fact that qualifying circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty attended the commission of the offense. The Court declared that the award of P75,000.00 shows "not only a reaction to the apathetic societal perception of the penal law and the financial fluctuations over time but also the expression of the displeasure of the court of the incidence of heinous crimes against chastity."

GR No. 132339

2002-02-04

PEOPLE v. JOSE CAMACHO TORREJA

PER CURIAM

Bare denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[22] Here appellant's bare-faced denial of the charge against him constitutes self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[23]

GR No. 126359

2001-10-25

PEOPLE v. CARLITO OLIVA Y SALAZAR

PER CURIAM

We find modification on the civil liability of appellant in order too. The civil indemnity is increased to P75,000.00 since the rape is qualified by the circumstance of age which makes the death penalty imposable.[41] The award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 is justified without need of any proof of Analyn Baldon's physical suffering. However, only the amount of P25,000.00 is in order as exemplary damages.

GR No. 131914

2001-04-30

PEOPLE v. JAIME ABLANEDA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

However, the trial court erred in failing to award civil indemnity to the victim. Whenever the crime of rape is committed, a civil indemnity is awarded to the victim without necessity of proof or pleading, and the same is automatically granted together with moral damages, generally in the amount of P50,000.00 each. In this connection, the prayer of the Solicitor General that the civil indemnity be increased to P75,000.00 cannot be granted, the same being contrary to jurisprudence. [11] In cases where the death penalty cannot be imposed, the civil indemnity is reduced from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00.[12]

GR No. 132330

2000-11-28

PEOPLE v. VS.SPO1 JOSE BANGCADO

BELLOSILLO, J.

Under present case law, the award of P50,000.00 for civil indemnity is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of murder. Moral damages, vis-a-vis compensatory damages or civil indemnity, are different from each other and should thus be awarded separately.[51] Thus, as explained in People v. Victor,[52] the indemnity authorized by our criminal law as civil liability ex delicto for the offended party, in the amount authorized by the prevailing judicial policy and aside from other established actual damages, is itself equivalent to actual or compensatory damages in civil law. It is not to be considered as moral damages thereunder, the latter being based on different jural foundations and assessed by the court in the exercise of sound discretion.[53]

GR No. 135516

2000-09-20

PEOPLE v. NEIL DUMAGUING

PER CURIAM

The judgment of conviction is hereby affirmed. The prayer made by the Solicitor-General that under the circumstances the civil indemnity of P75,000.00 should be awarded in addition to P50,000.00 as moral damages which is granted in rape cases without need of proof is well-taken.[16]

GR No. 133191-93

2000-07-11

PEOPLE v. WILFREDO ALARCON

PER CURIAM

In the Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee filed on 26 January 2000, the Office of the Solicitor General debunks the claims of TOMPONG and GUMAWA and urges us to affirm the challenged judgment, except as to the civil liabilities which, pursuant to our rulings in People vs. Victor,[14] People v. Robles,[15] and People v. Maglente,[16] should be modified: the civil indemnity in Criminal Case No. 5630 should be increased from P50,000 to P100,000, and in each of Criminal Case No. 5631 and Criminal Case No. 5632, civil indemnity of P75,000 and moral damages of P50,000 should be awarded but the exemplary damages should be vacated.

GR No. 128108

2000-07-06

PEOPLE v. FERNANDO DIASANTA Y VILLANUEVA

PER CURIAM

WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction under automatic review, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death, is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the indemnity or compensatory damages awarded to the victim, Andrea Diasanta, is INCREASED to Seventy Five Thousand (P75,000.00) Pesos, following the ruling in People of the Philippines vs. Esteban Victor y Penis, promulgated on July 9, 1998.[21]

GR No. 132295

2000-05-31

PEOPLE v. ANDRES LUBONG Y PAJE

GONZAGA-REYES, J.

Finally, the trial court failed to order appellant to indemnify complainant although it did award moral damages. Thus, and in line with the pronouncement in People vs. Victor[36] appellant should be made to pay P50,000.00 as indemnification. The award of P100,000.00 granted by the trial court as and for moral damages is reduced to P50,000.00 following and adhering to current jurisprudence.[37]

GR No. 130508

2000-04-05

PEOPLE v. ARMANDO REGALA Y ABRIOL

GONZAGA-REYES, J.

As regards the civil indemnity, we find well-taken the recommendation of the Solicitor General that compensatory damages should be awarded in the amount of P50,000.00. Nerissa Tagala is entitled to an award of civil indemnity ex delicto of P50,000.00, which is given in favor of the offended party in rape.[24] Also a conviction for rape carries with it the award of moral damages to the victim since it is recognized that the victim's injury is concomitant with and necessarily results from the ordinary crime of rape to warrant per se an award of P50,000.00 as moral damages.[25]

GR No. 133382

2000-03-09

PEOPLE v. EFREN MENDOZA Y SALVADOR

PANGANIBAN, J.

Citing People v. Victor,[36] the solicitor general argues that the civil indemnity should be raised from P50,000 to P75,000. This is erroneous. In the said case, the Court held that "starting with the case at bar, if the crime of rape is committed or effectively qualified by any of the circumstances under which the death penalty is authorized by the present amended law, the indemnity for the victim shall be in the increased amount of not less than P75,000.00." Obviously, that ruling, which involved rape and imposed the death penalty, cannot apply to the present case. Hence, consistent with current jurisprudence,[37] we affirm the award of P50,000 as indemnity ex delicto.

	GR No. 193188 2011-08-10	PEOPLE v. JUANITO APATTAD VELASCO JR., J.
Pertinently, as early as July 9, 1998, this Court has held that when the circumstances surrounding the crime would justify the imposition of the penalty of death were it not for RA 9346, the award of civil indemnity for the crime of rape should be PhP 75,000,[79] racionating that "[t]his is not only a reaction to the apathetic societal perception of the penal law and the financial fluctuations over time, but also an expression of the displeasure of the Court over the incidence of heinous crimes against chastity."[80]
	GR No. 186417 2011-07-27	PEOPLE v. FELIPE MIRANDILLA PEREZ, J.
In the 1998 landmark case of People v. Victor, [84] the Court enunciated that if, in the crime of rape, the death penalty is imposed, the indemnity ex delicto for the victim shall be in the increased amount of NOT [85] less than P75,000.00. To reiterate the words of the Court: "this is not only a reaction to the apathetic societal perception of the penal law and the financial fluctuation over time, but also an expression of the displeasure of the Court over the incidence of heinous crimes..." [86] xxx (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 189301 2010-12-15	PEOPLE v. JOSE PEPITO D. COMBATE VELASCO JR., J.
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."
	GR No. 189301 2010-12-15	PEOPLE v. JOSE PEPITO D. COMBATE VELASCO JR., J.
When the circumstances surrounding the crime would justify the imposition of the penalty of death were it not for RA 9346, the Court has ruled, as early as July 9, 1998 in People v. Victor,[50] that the award of civil indemnity for the crime of rape when punishable by death should be PhP 75,000. We reasoned that "[t]his is not only a reaction to the apathetic societal perception of the penal law and the financial fluctuations over time, but also an expression of the displeasure of the Court over the incidence of heinous crimes against chastity."[51] Such reasoning also applies to all heinous crimes found in RA 7659.
	GR No. 169641 2009-09-10	PEOPLE v. RICHARD O. SARCIA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Relative to civil indemnity, People v. Victor[36] ratiocinated as follows: The lower court, however, erred in categorizing the award of P50,000.00 to the offended party as being in the nature of moral damages. We have heretofore explained in People v. Gementiza that the indemnity authorized by our criminal law as civil liability ex delicto for the offended party, in the amount authorized by the prevailing judicial policy and aside from other proven actual damages, is itself equivalent to actual or compensatory damages in civil law. It is not to be considered as moral damages thereunder, the latter being based on different jural foundations and assessed by the court in the exercise of sound discretion.
	GR No. 175605 2009-08-28	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD GARCHITORENA Y CAMBA A.KA. JUNIOR LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
While the new law prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, the penalty provided for by law for a heinous offense is still death and the offense is still heinous.[28] Consequently, the civil indemnity for the victim is still P75,000.00. In People v. Quiachon,[29] we explained that even if the penalty of death was not to be imposed on appellant because of the prohibition in Republic Act No. 9346, the civil indemnity of P75,000.00 was still proper. Following the ratiocination in People v. Victor,[30] the said award is not dependent on the actual imposition of the death penalty, but on the fact that qualifying circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty attended the commission of the crime.
	GR No. 168166 2008-10-10	PEOPLE v. SALVADOR C. DACO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The trial court correctly awarded P75,000.00 for each count of rape as civil indemnity. This is in line with the ruling in People v. Victor,[31] in which we held that if the crime of rape is committed or effectively qualified by any of the circumstances under which the death penalty is authorized by the present amended law, the indemnity for the victim should be increased to an amount not less than P75,000.00. We likewise agree with the finding of the CA that in addition to the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 for each case, moral damages should be increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00, in accordance with the prevailing jurisprudence.[32]
	GR NO. 170236 2006-08-31	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO QUIACHON Y BAYONA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Even if the penalty of death is not to be imposed on the appellant because of the prohibition in R.A. No. 9346, the civil indemnity of P75,000.00 is still proper because, following the ratiocination in People v. Victor,[30] the said award is not dependent on the actual imposition of the death penalty but on the fact that qualifying circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty attended the commission of the offense. The Court declared that the award of P75,000.00 shows "not only a reaction to the apathetic societal perception of the penal law and the financial fluctuations over time but also the expression of the displeasure of the court of the incidence of heinous crimes against chastity."
	GR No. 132339 2002-02-04	PEOPLE v. JOSE CAMACHO TORREJA PER CURIAM
Bare denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility.[22] Here appellant's bare-faced denial of the charge against him constitutes self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[23]
	GR No. 126359 2001-10-25	PEOPLE v. CARLITO OLIVA Y SALAZAR PER CURIAM
We find modification on the civil liability of appellant in order too. The civil indemnity is increased to P75,000.00 since the rape is qualified by the circumstance of age which makes the death penalty imposable.[41] The award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 is justified without need of any proof of Analyn Baldon's physical suffering. However, only the amount of P25,000.00 is in order as exemplary damages.
	GR No. 131914 2001-04-30	PEOPLE v. JAIME ABLANEDA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
However, the trial court erred in failing to award civil indemnity to the victim. Whenever the crime of rape is committed, a civil indemnity is awarded to the victim without necessity of proof or pleading, and the same is automatically granted together with moral damages, generally in the amount of P50,000.00 each. In this connection, the prayer of the Solicitor General that the civil indemnity be increased to P75,000.00 cannot be granted, the same being contrary to jurisprudence. [11] In cases where the death penalty cannot be imposed, the civil indemnity is reduced from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00.[12]
	GR No. 132330 2000-11-28	PEOPLE v. VS.SPO1 JOSE BANGCADO BELLOSILLO, J.
Under present case law, the award of P50,000.00 for civil indemnity is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of murder. Moral damages, vis-a-vis compensatory damages or civil indemnity, are different from each other and should thus be awarded separately.[51] Thus, as explained in People v. Victor,[52] the indemnity authorized by our criminal law as civil liability ex delicto for the offended party, in the amount authorized by the prevailing judicial policy and aside from other established actual damages, is itself equivalent to actual or compensatory damages in civil law. It is not to be considered as moral damages thereunder, the latter being based on different jural foundations and assessed by the court in the exercise of sound discretion.[53]
	GR No. 135516 2000-09-20	PEOPLE v. NEIL DUMAGUING PER CURIAM
The judgment of conviction is hereby affirmed. The prayer made by the Solicitor-General that under the circumstances the civil indemnity of P75,000.00 should be awarded in addition to P50,000.00 as moral damages which is granted in rape cases without need of proof is well-taken.[16]
	GR No. 133191-93 2000-07-11	PEOPLE v. WILFREDO ALARCON PER CURIAM
In the Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee filed on 26 January 2000, the Office of the Solicitor General debunks the claims of TOMPONG and GUMAWA and urges us to affirm the challenged judgment, except as to the civil liabilities which, pursuant to our rulings in People vs. Victor,[14] People v. Robles,[15] and People v. Maglente,[16] should be modified: the civil indemnity in Criminal Case No. 5630 should be increased from P50,000 to P100,000, and in each of Criminal Case No. 5631 and Criminal Case No. 5632, civil indemnity of P75,000 and moral damages of P50,000 should be awarded but the exemplary damages should be vacated.
	GR No. 128108 2000-07-06	PEOPLE v. FERNANDO DIASANTA Y VILLANUEVA PER CURIAM
WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction under automatic review, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death, is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the indemnity or compensatory damages awarded to the victim, Andrea Diasanta, is INCREASED to Seventy Five Thousand (P75,000.00) Pesos, following the ruling in People of the Philippines vs. Esteban Victor y Penis, promulgated on July 9, 1998.[21]
	GR No. 132295 2000-05-31	PEOPLE v. ANDRES LUBONG Y PAJE GONZAGA-REYES, J.
Finally, the trial court failed to order appellant to indemnify complainant although it did award moral damages. Thus, and in line with the pronouncement in People vs. Victor[36] appellant should be made to pay P50,000.00 as indemnification. The award of P100,000.00 granted by the trial court as and for moral damages is reduced to P50,000.00 following and adhering to current jurisprudence.[37]
	GR No. 130508 2000-04-05	PEOPLE v. ARMANDO REGALA Y ABRIOL GONZAGA-REYES, J.
As regards the civil indemnity, we find well-taken the recommendation of the Solicitor General that compensatory damages should be awarded in the amount of P50,000.00. Nerissa Tagala is entitled to an award of civil indemnity ex delicto of P50,000.00, which is given in favor of the offended party in rape.[24] Also a conviction for rape carries with it the award of moral damages to the victim since it is recognized that the victim's injury is concomitant with and necessarily results from the ordinary crime of rape to warrant per se an award of P50,000.00 as moral damages.[25]
	GR No. 133382 2000-03-09	PEOPLE v. EFREN MENDOZA Y SALVADOR PANGANIBAN, J.
Citing People v. Victor,[36] the solicitor general argues that the civil indemnity should be raised from P50,000 to P75,000. This is erroneous. In the said case, the Court held that "starting with the case at bar, if the crime of rape is committed or effectively qualified by any of the circumstances under which the death penalty is authorized by the present amended law, the indemnity for the victim shall be in the increased amount of not less than P75,000.00." Obviously, that ruling, which involved rape and imposed the death penalty, cannot apply to the present case. Hence, consistent with current jurisprudence,[37] we affirm the award of P50,000 as indemnity ex delicto.

PEOPLE v. ESTEBAN VICTOR Y PENIS