That on or about July 29, 2003, in the municipality of Gattaran,

province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable

Court, the above-named accused armed with a gun, with intent to kill,
with evident premeditation and with treachery, conspiring together
and helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously assault, attack and shot (sic) one Edgardo Tamanu y
EN BANC Palattao, inflicting upon the latter a gunshot wound which caused his
death.
Criminal Case No. II-92602
G.R. No. 194605, June 14, 2016
That on or about July 29, 2003, in the municipality of Gattaran,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARIANO province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
OANDASAN, JR., Accused-Appellant. Court, the above-named accused armed with a gun, with intent to kill,
with evident premeditation and with treachery, conspiring together
DECISION and helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously assault, attack and shot (sic) one Danilo Montegrico,
inflicting upon the latter a gunshot wound which caused his death.
BERSAMIN, J.: Criminal, Case No. II-92613

This case involves a shooting incident that resulted in the deaths of That on or about July 29, 2003, in the municipality of Gattaran,
two victims and the frustrated killing of a third victim. Although the province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
trial court properly appreciated the attendance of treachery and Court, the above-named accused armed with a gun, with intent to kill,
pronounced the accused guilty of murder for the fatal shooting of the with evident premeditation and with treacher[y], conspiring together
first victim, it erroneously pronounced the accused guilty of homicide and helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
and frustrated homicide as to the second and third victims on the basis feloniously assault, attack and shot (sic) one Engr. Mario Paleg y
that treachery was not shown to be attendant. The Court of Appeals Ballad, inflicting upon the latter a gunshot wound.
(CA) concurred with the trial court's characterization of the felonies.
That the accused had performed all the acts of execution which would
We disagree with both lower courts because treachery was have produce (sic) the crime of Homicide as a consequence, but which,
competently shown to be attendant in the shooting of each of the nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of
three victims. Thus, we pronounce the accused guilty of two counts of his own will.
murder and one count of frustrated murder.
Antecedents The CA summarized the facts in its assailed judgment, to wit:
Ferdinand Cutaran, 37 years old, driver at Navarro Construction,
Three informations were filed against the accused, two of which were testified that on July 29, 2003 between 8:00 to 9:00 in the evening,
for murder involving the fatal shooting of Edgardo Tamanu and Danilo he and his companions Jose Ifurung, Arthur Cutaran and victim Danny
Montegrico, and the third was for frustrated homicide involving the Montegrico were having a drinking spree outside the bunkhouse of
near-fatal shooting of Mario Paleg. Navarro Construction at Barangay Pena Weste, Gattaran, Cagayan.
Suddenly, appellant who appeared from back of a dump truck, aimed
The informations, docketed as Criminal Case No. 11-9259, Criminal and fired his gun at Montegrico. Cutaran ran away after seeing the
Case No. 11-9260, and Criminal Case No. 11-9261 of the Regional appellant shoot Mentegrico. He did not witness the shooting of the
Trial Court in Tuguegarao City (RTC), averred as follows: other two victims Edgar Tamanu and Mario Paleg. When he returned to
Criminal Case No. II-92591 the crime scene, he saw the bodies of Montegrico, Tamanu and Paleg
lying on the ground. Cutaran and his companions rushed the victims to
Lyceum of Aparri Hospital. and three other men whom he did not know; that when he was about
to go home at around 8:00 p.m., a stranger appeared and fired his
As a result of the shooting incident, Danilo Montegrico, 34, and gun at Montegrieo; that the assailant whom he did not know fired his
Edgardo Tamanu, 33, died; while Mario Paleg survived. The Medical gun several times. He asserted that appellant was not the assailant
Certificate dated August 13, 2003 issued by Lyceum of Aparri Hospital since the latter was shorter in stature.4 ChanRoblesVi rtua lawlib rary

disclosed that Paleg was confined from July 29-30, 2003 for treatment
of a gun shot wound on his right anterior hind spine. Judgment of the RTC

Prudencio Bueno, 68 years old, a checker at Navarro Construction and On June 1, 2009, the RTC rendered its judgment,5 to wit:
a resident of Centro 14 Aparri, Cagayan, stated that after having WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Mariano Oandasan,
dinner with Cutaran and the others on the date and time in question, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal:
he went inside the bunkhouse to drink water. Suddenly, he heard
successive gun reports (sic). When he peeped through a window he a) in Criminal Case No. 11-9260, for Murder for killing Danilo
saw the accused approaching from the back of a dump truck holding Montegrieo and sentences accused with the penalty of reclusion
something, and going to the table where they were eating. He perpetua and to pay the heirs of Danilo Montegrieo the sum of One
confessed that he did not actually see the appellant fire his gun at the Flundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00);
victims.
b) in Criminal Case No. 11-9259, for Homicide for killing Edgardo
Dr. Nida Rosales, Municipal Health Officer of Gattaran, Cagayan Tamanu and sentences accused with the indeterminate penalty of six
testified that she conduced a post-mortem examination on the body of (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen
Montegrico; that Montegrico sustained a single gunshot wound below (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum and
the ribs; and that the injury caused his death. to pay the heirs of Edgardo Tamanu the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00); and
The accused-appellant raised the defense of denial and alibi. Accused-
appellant, 38 years old, a native of Bulala Sur, Aparri, Cagayan, c) in Criminal Case No. 11-9261, for Frustrated Homicide for wounding
testified that from July up to October 2003, he was staying at his Mario Paleg, and sentences the accused with the penalty of two (2)
sister's house in Imus, Cavite. He was hired by SERG Construction, years and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to eight (8)
Inc. as a mason to work on a subdivision project in Rosario, Cavite. On years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum.
that fateful day of July 29, 2003, he reported for work from 7:00 a.m.
up to 5:00 p.m. To bolster his claim, he presented an Employment SO ORDERED.6 ChanRoblesVi rtualaw lib rary

Certificate dated January 20, 2007 issued by Engr. Renato Bustamante

of SERG Construction and a time record sheet dated July 29, 2003. He Decision of the CA
went back to Aparri in October 2003 after the completion of his project
in Cavite. He further stated that he worked at Navarro Construction in On appeal, the CA affirmed the judgment of the RTC through its
February, 2003; that he had a previous misunderstanding with his decision promulgated on June 29, 2010,7 to wit:
former co-workers witnesses Cutaran and Bueno when he caught the WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The
two stealing sacks of cement from the company; that as a result, Judgment dated June 1, 2009 of the RTC, Branch 6 of Aparri, Cagayan
Cutaran and Bueno were transferred to another project and their is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that appellant is ORDERED to
employer assigned him as checker in replacement of Bueno; that the pay the heirs of Edgardo Tamanu the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil
two planned to kill him as he prevented them from doing their indemnity and P75,000.00 as moral damages, and Mario Paleg, the
fraudulent act; and that he resigned between the months of March and sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages.
May 2003 because the two kept on disturbing him.
SO ORDERED.8
Fred Escobar, 48 years old, a resident of Pallagao, Baggao, Cagayan, Hence, this ultimate appeal, with the accused still insisting on the
testified that on July 29, 2003, he was having a drink with Montegrieo reversal of his convictions.
 Ruling of the Court identification of the accused by the State's witnesses who are
categorical and consistent and bereft of ill motive towards the accused.
This appeal opens the entire record to determine whether or not the Denial, unless substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is
findings against the accused should be upheld or struck down in his undeserving of weight in law for being negative and self-serving.
favor. Nonetheless, he bears the burden to show that the trial and the Moreover, denial and alibi cannot be given greater evidentiary value
appellate courts had overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted than the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative
facts or circumstances that, if properly considered and appreciated, matters.11
would significantly shift the outcome of the case in his favor. His II
failure to discharge this burden notwithstanding, the Court still Treachery also attended the shooting
reviewed the record conformably with the tenet that every appeal in a of Tamanu and Paleg; hence, the accused
criminal case opens the record for review.9 Thus, after evaluating the is guilty of two counts of murder and
record, the Court affirms the finding of his being criminally responsible one count of frustrated murder
for the killing of Montegrico and Tamanu, and the frustrated killing of
Paleg, subject to the rectification of the characterization of the felonies
as to Tamanu and Paleg. The CA and the RTC appreciated the attendance of treachery only in
I the fatal shooting of Montegrico (Criminal Case No. 11-9260).
Denial and alibi do not overcome Although no witness positively identified the accused as the person
positive identification of the accused who had also shot Tamanu and Paleg, the record contained sufficient
circumstantial evidence to establish that the accused was also
There is no doubt that Prosecution witness Ferdinand Cutaran criminally responsible for the fatal shooting of Tamanu and the near-
positively identified the accused as the person who had shot fatal shooting of Paleg. Indeed, the CA declared the accused as "the
Montegrico. Considering that Cutaran's credibility as an eyewitness lone assailant" of the victims based on its following analytical
was unassailable in the absence of any showing or hint of ill motive on appreciation, to wit:
his part to falsely incriminate the accused, such identification of the The evidence in this case shows that the attack was unexpected and
accused as the assailant of Montegrico prevailed over the accused's swift. Montegrico and his friends were just drinking outside the
weak denial and alibi. As such, the CA properly rejected the denial and bunkhouse when the appellant suddenly appeared from the back of a
alibi of the accused as unworthy, and we adopt the following stated dump truck, walked towards their table and, without any warning,
reasons of the CA for the rejection, to wit: fired at Montegrico. This shot was followed by more shots directed at
As for the defense of alibi, for it to prosper, it must be established by Montegrico's friends, Tamanu and Paleg. Indisputably, Montegrico was
positive, clear and satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible caught off guard by the sudden and deliberate attack coming from the
for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of appellant, leaving him with no opportunity to raise any defense against
its commission, and not merely that the accused was somewhere else. the attack. Also, appellant deliberately and consciously adopted his
Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where mode of attack by using a gun and made sure that Montegrico, who
the accused was when the crime happened and the place where it was was unarmed, would have no chance to defend himself.
committed, as well as the facility of the access betwee the two places.
In the case at bar, appellant failed to prove the element of physical We hold that the circumstantial evidence available was enough to
impossibility for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time it took convict accused-appellant. Circumstantial evidence is competent to
place. His alibi that he was in Cavite and the employment certificate establish guilt as long as it is sufficient to establish beyond a
and time record sheet which he presented cannot prevail over the reasonable doubt that the accused, and not someone else, was
positive and categorical testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Alibi responsible for the killing. For circumstantial evidence to suffice to
is the weakest defense not only because it is inherently weak and convict an accused, the following requisites must concur: (1) there is
unreliable, but also because it is easy to fabricate. It is generally more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences
rejected when the accused is positively identified by a witness.10 are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
We reiterate that denial and alibi do not prevail over the positive doubt. In this case, these requisites for circumstantial evidence to
sustain a conviction are present. First, the witnesses unanimously said deadly design without risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest
that they saw appellant coming from the back of a dump truck and provocation on the part of the victims.
shoot Montegrico pointblank. Second, appellant fired his gun several
times. Third, immediately after the shooting incident, three victims What was decisive is that the execution of the attack made it
were found lying on the ground and rushed to the hospital. Fourth, impossible for the victims to defend themselves or to retaliate.
the Certificates of Death of Montegrico and Tamanu and the Medical Jurisprudence has been illustrative of this proposition. In People v.
Certificate of Paleg revealed that they all sustained gun shot wounds. Flora,14for instance, treachery was appreciated as an attendant
Thus, it can be said with certitude that appellant was the lone circumstance in the killing of two victims, and in the attempted killing
assailant. The foregoing circumstances are proven facts, and the Court of a third victim, warranting the conviction of the accused for two
finds no reason to discredit the testimonies of the prosecution's murders and attempted murder, notwithstanding that although the
witnesses. Well-entrenched is the rule that the trial court's assessment accused had first fired at his Intended victim, he had missed and had
of the credibility of witnesses is accorded great respect and will not be instead hit the two other victims, with the Court observing that the
disturbed on appeal, inasmuch as the court a quo was in a position to three victims were all nonetheless "helpless to defend themselves." In
observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying. The Court a nother illustrative ruling, People v. Pinto, Jr.,15 treachery was held to
does not find any arbitrariness or error on the part of the RTC as attend the three killings and the wounding of a fourth victim because
would warrant a deviation from this rule.12 the attack was sudden and the victims were defenseless; hence, the
killings were murders, and the wounding frustrated murder.
Although the CA and the RTC correctly concluded that the accused had
been directly responsible for the shooting of Tamanu and Paleg, we are Treachery as an aggravating or attendant circumstance must be
perplexed why both lower courts only characterized the killing of established beyond reasonable doubt. This quantum is hardly achieved
Tamanu and the near-killing of Paleg as homicide and frustrated if there is no testimony showing how the accused actually commenced
homicide while characterizing the killing of Montegrico as murder the assault against the victim. But to absolutely require such
because of the attendance of treachery. The distinctions were testimony in all cases would cause some murders committed without
unwarranted. The fact that the shooting of the three victims had eyewitnesses to go unpunished by the law. To avoid that most
occurred in quick succession fully called for a finding of the attendance undesirable situation, the Rules of Court permits a resort not only to
of treachery in the attacks against all the victims. Montegrico, Tamanu direct evidence but also to circumstantial evidence. Indeed, the proof
and Paleg were drinking together outside their bunkhouse prior to the competent to achieve the quantum is not confined to direct evidence
shooting when the accused suddenly appeared from the rear of the from an eyewitness, who may be unavailable. Circumstantial evidence
dump truck, walked towards their table and shot Montegrico without can just as efficiently and competently achieve the quantum.
any warning. That first shot was quickly followed by more shots. In The Rules of Court nowhere expresses a preference for direct evidence
that situation, none of the three victims was aware of the imminent of a fact to evidence of circumstances from which the existence of a
deadly assault by the accused, for they were just enjoying their drinks fact may be properly inferred. The Rules of Court has not also required
outside their bunkhouse. They were unarmed, and did not expect to be a greater degree of certainty when the evidence is circumstantial than
shot, when the accused came and shot them. when it is direct, for, in either case, the trier of fact must still be
convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.16 The
The attack was mounted with treachery because the two conditions in quantity of circumstances sufficient to convict an accused has not been
order for this circumstance to be appreciated concurred, namely: (a) fixed as to be reduced into some definite standard to be followed in
that the means, methods and forms of execution employed gave the every instance. As the Court has observed in People v. Modesto:17
person attacked no opportunity to defend themselves or to retaliate; The standard postulated by this Court in the appreciation of
and (b) that such means, methods and forms of execution were circumstantial evidence is well set out in the following passage
deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused without danger to from People vs. Ludday:18 "No general rule can be laid down as to the
his person.13 The essence of treachery lay in the attack that came quantity of circumstantial evidence which in any case will suffice. All
without warning, and was swift, deliberate and unexpected, affording the circumstances proved must be consistent with each other,
the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victims no chance to resist, or consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the
retaliate, or escape, thereby ensuring the accomplishment of the
same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and Code enumerates the damages that may be recovered from the
with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt." accused or defendant, to wit:
Article 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or
It is of no consequence, therefore, that Cutaran, who had meanwhile quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos, even though there
fled to safety upon hearing the shot that had felled Montegrico, did not may have been mitigating circumstances. In addition:
witness the actual shooting of Tamanu and Paleg; or that Paleg,
although surviving the assault against him and Tamanu, did not testify (l)The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of
during the trial. What is of consequence is that the records the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the
unquestionably and reliably showed that Tamanu and Paleg were latter; such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by
already prostrate on the ground when Cutaran returned to the scene; the court, unless the deceased on account of permanent physical
and that the gunshots had been fired in quick succession, thereby disability not caused by the defendant, had no earning capacity at the
proving with moral certainty that the accused was the same person time of his death;
who also shot Tamanu and Paleg.
(2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the
The averment in the second paragraph of the information filed Criminal provisions of article 291, the recipient who is not an heir called to the
Case No. 11-9261 (in relation to the shooting of Paleg) that homicide decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or intestate succession,
was the consequence of the acts of execution by the appellant19does may demand support from the person causing the death, for a period
not prevent finding the accused guilty of frustrated murder. The rule is not exceeding five years, the exact duration to be fixed by the court;
that the allegations of the information on the nature of the offense
charged, not the nomenclature given it by the Office of the Public (3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and
Prosecutor, are controlling in the determination of the offense charged. ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental
Accordingly, considering that the information stated in its first anguish by reason of the death of the deceased.
paragraph that the accused, "armed with a gun, with intent to kill, with
evident premeditation and with treacher[y], conspiring together and The first item of civil liability is the civil indemnity for death, or death
helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and indemnity.
feloniously assault, attack and shot (sic) one Engr. Mario Paleg y
Ballad, inflicting upon the latter a gunshot wound," the accused can be Civil indemnity comes under the general provisions of the Civil
properly found guilty of frustrated murder, a crime sufficiently averred Code on damages, and refers to the award given to the heirs of the
in the information. deceased as a form of monetary restitution or compensation for the
II death of the victim at the hands of the accused. Its grant is mandatory
Criminal Liabilities 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
As a consequence, the accused was criminally liable for two counts of the accused was responsible therefor. The mandatory character of civil
murder for the fatal shooting of Montegrico and Tamanu, and for indemnity in case of death from crime or quasi-delict derives from the
frustrated murder for the near-fatal shooting of Paleg. In the absence legal obligation of the accused or the defendant to fully compensate
of any modifying circumstances, reclusion perpetua is the penalty for the heirs of the deceased for his death as the natural consequence of
each count of murder, while reclusion temporal in its medium period is the criminal or quasi-delictual act or omission. This legal obligation is
the penalty for frustrated murder. The indeterminate sentence for the set in Article 2202 of the Civil Code, viz.:
frustrated murder is eight years of prision mayor, as the minimum, to Article 2202. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable
14 years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal, as the for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of
maximum. the act or omission complained of. It is not necessary that such
IV damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen
Civil Liability by the defendant.

For death caused by a crime or quasi-delict, Article 2206 of the Civil 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 purchasing power of the Philippine peso was one-third of its pre-war
mitigating circumstances." Yet, the granting of civil indemnity was not purchasing power. In 1950, when the New Civil Code took effect, the
introduced by the Civil Code, for the courts had granted death minimum amount of compensatory damages for death caused by a
indemnity to the heirs of the victims even long prior to August 30, crime or quasi-delict was fixed in Article 2206 of the Code at P3,000.
1950, the date of the effectivity of the Civil Code. The award of civil The article repealed by implication Commonwealth Act No. 284. Hence,
indemnity dated back to the early years of the Court.21 There was also from the time the New Civil Code took effect, the Courts could properly
legislation on the matter, starting with Commonwealth Act No. 284, have awarded P9,000 as compensatory damages for death caused by
approved on June 3, 1938, which provided in its Section 1 the a crime or quasi-delict. It is common knowledge that from 1948 to the
following: present (1968), due to economic circumstances beyond governmental
Section 1. The civil liability or the death of a person shall be fixed by control, the purchasing power of the Philippine peso has declined
the competent court at a reasonable sum, upon consideration of the further such that the rale of exchange now in the free market is U.S.
pecuniary situation of the party liable and other circumstances, but it $1.00 to almost 4.00 Philippine pesos. This means that the present
shall in no case be less than two thousand pesos. purchasing power of the Philippine peso is one-fourth of its pre-war
purchasing power. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that
In fixing the civil indemnity, the Legislature thereby set a minimum. the amount of award of compensatory damages for death caused by a
The Civil Code, in Article 2206, took the same approach by specifying crime or quasi-delict should now be P12,000.25 (Italics supplied)
the amount to be at least P3,000.00, which was directly manifesting
the legislative intent of enabling the courts to increase the Increases were made from time to time until the death indemnity
amount whenever the circumstances would warrant. reached the threshold of P50,000.00, where it remained for a long
time.26 In that time, however, the Court occasionally granted
Civil indemnity for death has been increased through the years from P75,000.00 as civil indemnity for death.27 The Court retained the death
the minimum of P2,000.00 to as high as P100,000.00. The increases indemnity at P75,000.00 in subsequent cases, as in People v. Dela
have been made to consider the economic conditions, primarily the Cruz (2007)28 and People v. Buban.29 In People v. Anod,30 decided on
purchasing power of the peso as the Philippine currency. In 1948, August 5, 2009, the Court clarified that the award of P75,000.00 was
in People v. Amansec,22 the Court awarded to the heirs of the victim of appropriate only if the imposable penalty was death but reduced
homicide the amount of P6,000.00 as death indemnity, raising the to reclusion perpetua by virtue of the enactment of Republic Act No.
P2,000.00 allowed by the trial court, the legal minimum at the-time, 9346 (An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty). Hence,
and justified the increase by adverting to the "difference between the where the proper imposable penalty was reclusion perpetua, death
value of the present currency and that at the time when the law fixing indemnity in murder remained at P50,000.00. Yet, the Court, in an
a minimum indemnity of P2,000.00 was enacted."23 Later on, in 1968, apparent self-contradiction less than a month after Anod,
the Court, in People v. Pantoja,24 saw a significant need to further promulgated People v. Arbalate,31 wherein it fixed P75,000.00 as
upgrade the civil indemnity for death to PI 2,000.00. To justify the death indemnity despite the imposable penalty being reclusion
upgrade, the Court included a review of the more recent history of civil perpetua, with the Court holding that death indemnity should be
indemnity for death in this jurisdiction, to wit: P75,000.00 regardless of aggravating or mitigating circumstances
In 1947, when the Project of Civil Code was drafted, the Code provided the penalty prescribed by law was death or reclusion
Commission fixed the sum of P3,000 as the minimum amount of perpetua,.
compensatory damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict.
The Project of Civil Code was approved by both Houses of the Death indemnity of P75,000.00 became the standard in murder where
Congress in 1949 as the New Civil Code of the Philippines, which took the penalty was reclusion perpetua. This standard has been borne out
effect in 1950. In 1948 in the case of People vs. Amansec, 80 Phil. by People v. Soriano,32People v. Jadap,33 and People v.
424, the Supreme Court awarded P6,000 as compensatory damages Sanchez (2010).34 But the consistency in applying the standard was
for death caused by a crime "considering the difference between the broken in 2010, when the Court, in People v. Gutierrez (2010),35 a
value of the present currency and that at the time when the law fixing murder case, reverted to P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. People v.
a minimum indemnity of P2,000 was enacted." The law referred to was Gutierrez (2010) was followed by People v. Apacible,36 also for murder,
Commonwealth Act No. 284 which took effect in 1938. In 1948, the with the Court, citing People v. Anod,37 reducing the civil indemnity
from P75,000.00, the amount originally awarded by the lower court, to of life, to be compensated in the form of damages. For this purpose,
P50,000.00. Oddly enough, on June 29, 2010, or two months before damages may be defined as the pecuniary compensation, recompense,
the promulgation of Apacible, the Court promulgated People v. or satisfaction for an injury sustained, or, as otherwise expressed, the
Orias38 and therein awarded P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and even pecuniary consequences that the law imposes for the breach of some
made a sweeping declaration that such amount was given duty or the violation of some right.60 As such, damages refer to the
automatically in cases of murder and homicide. It is notable, however, amount in money awarded by the court as a remedy for the
that People v. Ocampo39 and People v. Amodia,40 the two rulings cited injured.61 Although money has been accepted as the most frequently
as authority for the declaration, involved charges and convictions for used means of punishing, deterring, compensating and regulating
murder, not homicide. injury throughout the legal system,62 it has been explained that money
in the context of damages is not awarded as a replacement for other
The Court reverted to the flat amount of P50,000.00 as death money, but as substitute for that which is generally more important
indemnity in murder where the proper imposable penalty was reclusion than money; it is the best thing that a court can do.63 Regardless, the
perpetua in People v. Dela Cruz (2010),41Talampas v. civil indemnity for death, being compensatory in nature, must attune
People42 and People v. Gabrino.43 Subsequently, the Court went back to contemporaneous economic realities; otherwise, the desire to justly
to P75,000.00 in People v. Mediado44 and People v. Anti camara45 both indemnify would be thwarted or rendered meaningless. This has been
murder cases. In People v. Escleto46 the Court, prescribing reclusion the legislative justification for pegging the minimum, but not the
perpetua upon not finding any aggravating circumstance to be maximum, of the indemnity.
attendant, imposed P75,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of the
victim. The Court did the same thing in People v. Camat47 and People The reasoning in Pantoja,64supra, has been premised on the
v. Laurio48 where the Court, prescribing only reclusion perpetua due to pronouncement in People v. Amansec65 to the effect that the increase
lack of any aggravating circumstance, awarded P75,000.00 as civil to P6,000.00 in "compensatory damages for death caused by a crime"
indemnity for death. In People v. Buyagan49 the Court, in awarding from the legally imposed minimum indemnity of P2,000.00 under
P75,000.00 as civil indemnity for the deaths of each of the victims, Commonwealth Act No. 284 (which took effect in 1938) was in
said that the civil indemnity should be increased from P50,000.00 to consideration of "the difference between the value of the present
P75,000.00 inasmuch as the imposable penalty against the appellant currency and that at the time when the law fixing a minimum
would have been death had it not been for the enactment of Republic indemnity of P2,000 was enacted." The Pantoja Court thus raised the
Act No. 9346. amount of death indemnity to P12,000.00 by taking judicial cognizance
of the fact "that from 1948 to the present (1968), due to economic
In 2013, the Court once again changed its mind and awarded only circumstances beyond governmental control, the purchasing power of
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity in murder. Thus, in People v. the Philippine peso has declined further such that the rate of exchange
Pondivida50 and People v. Alawig,51 the Court sentenced the accused to now in the free market is U.S. $1.00 to almost 4.00 Philippine pesos.
reclusion perpetua and awarded only P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. This means that the present purchasing power of the Philippine peso is
one-fourth of its pre-war purchasing power." Subsequent increases
Incidentally, the civil indemnity for homicide remained pegged at have been similarly justified.
P50,000.00 for almost two decades [e.g., Lozano v. Court of
Appeals52People v. Gutierrez (2002),53People v. Dagani,54Seguritan v. On April 5, 2016, the Court promulgated its decision in People v.
People55People v. Valdez,56People v. Lagman57 and Sombol v. Jugueta (G.R. No. 202124), whereby it adopted certain guidelines on
People.]58 In attempted robbery with homicide (People v. Barra, the fixing the civil liabilities in crimes resulting in the death of the victims
civil indemnity was P50,000.00.59 taking into proper consideration the stages of execution and gravity of
the offenses, as well as the number of victims in composite crimes.
It is again timely to raise the civil indemnity for death arising from Other factors were weighed by the Court. In the case of murder where
crime or quasi-delict. We start by reminding that human life, which is the appropriate penalty is reclusion perpetna, the Court has thereby
not a commodity, is priceless. The value of human life is incalculable, fixed P75,000.00 for moral damages, P75,000.00 for exemplary
for no loss of life from crime or quasi-delict can ever be justly damages, and P75,000.00 for civil indemnity as the essential civil
measured. Yet, the law absolutely requires every injury, especially loss liabilities,- in addition to others as the records of each case will
substantiate. Hence, we impose herein the same amounts for such aggravating circumstance is a distinction that should only be ol
items of damages in each count of murder. consequence to the criminal, rather than to the civil, liability of the
offender. In fine, relative to the civil aspect of the case, an
It appears that the accused and the heirs of Montegrico stipulated that aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, should
the civil indemnity of the accused in case of conviction should not entitle the offended party to an award of exemplary damages within
exceed P150,000.00.66 The stipulation cannot stand because the civil the unbridled meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil Code.69
indemnity arising from each murder should only be P75,000.00. In
crimes in which death of the victim results, civil indemnity is granted On his part, Paleg, being the victim of frustrated murder, is entitled to
even in the absence of allegation and proof. Similarly, moral damages P50,000.00 as moral damages, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and
are allowed even without allegation and proof, it being a certainty that P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, P25,000.00 as temperate
the victims' heirs were entitled thereto as a matter of law. damages (for his hospitalization and related expenses). This
quantification accords with the pronouncement in People v. Jugueta,
Also in accordance with People v. Jugueta, supra, temperate damages supra.
of P50,000.00 should further be granted to the heirs of Montegrico and
Tamanu considering that they were presumed to have spent for the In line with pertinent jurisprudence,70 interest of 6% per annum shall
interment of each of the deceased. It would be unjust to deny them be charged on all the items of civil liability imposed herein, computed
recovery in the form of temperate damages just because they did not from the date of the finality of this decision until fully paid.
chanro bleslaw

establish with certainty the actual expenditure for the interment of

their late-lamented family members.67 WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and DECLARES accused MARIANO
OANDASAN, JR. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of TWO COUNTS
In this respect, we mention that Article 2230 of the Civil OF MURDER in Criminal Case No. 11-9259 and Criminal Case No. 11-
Code authorizes the grant of exemplary damages if at least one 9260 for the killing of Edgardo Tamanu and Danilo Montegrico,
aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the crime. For respectively; and of FRUSTRATED MURDER in Criminal Case No. II-
this purpose, exemplary damages of P75,000.00 are granted to the 9261 for the frustrated killing of Mario Paleg,
heirs of Montegrico and Tamanu, respectively, based on the attendant and, ACCORDINGLY, SENTENCES him to suffer RECLUSION
circumstance of treachery. Whether treachery was a qualifying or PERPETUA in Criminal Case No. 11-9259 and in Criminal Case No. 11-
attendant circumstance did not matter, for, as clarified in People v. 9260, and the INDETERMINATE SENTENCE OF EIGHT YEARS
Catubig:68 OF PRISION MAYOR, AS THE MINIMUM, TO 14 YEARS, EIGHT
The term "aggravating circumstances'" used by the Civil Code, the law MONTHS AND ONE DAY OF RECLUSION TEMPORAL, AS THE
not having specified otherwise, is to be understood in its broad or MAXIMUM, in Criminal Case No. 11-9261; and to pay the following by
generic sense. The commission of an offense has a two-pronged effect, way of civil liability, to wit:
one on the public as it breaches the social order and the other upon 1) To the heirs of Danilo Montegrico, civil indemnity of P75,000.00;
the private victim as it causes personal sufferings, each of which is moral damages of P75,000.00; exemplary damages of P75,000.00;
addressed by, respectively, the prescription of heavier punishment for and temperate damages of P50,000.00;
the accused and by an award of additional damages to the victim, (lie
increase of the penalty or a shift to a graver felony underscores the 2) To the heirs of Edgardo Tamanu, civil indemnity of P75,000.00;
exacerbation of the offense by the attendance of aggravating moral damages of P75,000.00; exemplary damages of P75,000.00;
circumstances, whether ordinary or qualifying, in its commission. and temperate damages of P50,000.00; and

Unlike the criminal liability which is basically a State concern, the 3) To Mario Paleg, civil indemnity of P50,000.00; moral damages of
award of damages, however, is likewise, if not primarily, intended for P50,000.00; exemplary damages of P50,000.00; and temperate
the offended party who suffers thereby. It would make little sense for damages of P25,000.00.
an award of exemplary damages to be due the private offended party
when the aggravating circumstance is ordinary but to be withheld All monetary awards for damages shall earn interest at the legal rate
when it is qualifying. Withal, the ordinary or qualifying nature of an of 6% per annum from the finality of this decision until fully paid.
The accused shall pay the costs of suit. 15
G.R. No. L-39519, November 21, 1991. 204 SCRA 9, 35.

SO ORDERED. cralawlawlibra ry
16
People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 104497, January 18, 1995, 240 SCRA
191, 199, citing Robinson v. State, 18 Md. App. 678, 308 A2d 734
Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Perez, (1973).
Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Brion, Peralta, and Jardeleza, JJ., on official leave. 17
G.R. No. L-25484, September 21, 1968, 25 SCRA 36, 41.
Del Castillo, J., on wellness leave. chanrob lesvi rtua llawlib ra ry

18
61 Phil. 216, 221-222(1935).
Endnotes: 19
The second paragraph of the information reads:
1
Rollo, pp. 3-4.
That the accused had performed all the acts of execution which
2
Id. at 4. would have produce (sic) the crime of Homicide as a
consequence, but which, nevertheless, did not produce it by
3
Id. reason of causes independent of his own will. (Rollo, p. 3)

4
Id. at 5-7 People v. Molina, G.R. No. 184173, March 13,2009, 581 SCRA 519,
20

542.
5
CA rollo, pp. 13-20; penned by Presiding Judge Roland R. Velasco. 21
In 1905, civil indemnity in the amount of P500.00 was allowed for
6
Id. at 20. death in United States v. Bastas, 5 Phil. 251 (1905), a murder case. In
1908, the amount of P1,000.00 was awarded to the heirs of the
7
Rollo, pp. 2-13; penned by Associate Justice Portia Alino- deceased in United States v. Indon, 11 Phil. 64 (1908).
Hormachuelos (retired), with the concurrence of Associate Justice
Japar B. Dimaampao and Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion.
22
80 Phil. 424(1948).

8
Id. at 12. 23
Id. at 435.
9
People v. Bongalon, G.R. No. 169533, March 20, 2013, 694 SCRA 12,
21.
24
G.R. No. L-18793, October 11, 1968, 25 SCRA 468. cralawred

10
Rollo, pp. 10-11.
25
Id. at 473.

People v. Agcanas. G.R. No. 174476., October 11, 2011, 658 SCRA
11
26
E.g., People v. Dagani, G.R. No. 153875, August 16, 2006, 499
842, 847. SCRA 64, 84-85; Baxinela v. People, G.R. No. 149652, March 24,
2006, 485 SCRA 331, 339, 345; People v. Quirol, G.R. No. 149259,
12
Rollo, pp. 9-10. October 20, 2005, 509 SCRA 473, 519; People v. Hernandez, G.R. No.
139697, June 15, 2004, 432 SCRA 104, 125; People v. Opuran, G.R.
13
Luces v. People, G.R. No. 149492, January 20, 2003, 395 SCRA Nos. 147674-75; March 17, 2004, 425 SCRA 654, 673; People v.
524, 532-533. Munez, G.R. No. 150030, May 9, 2003,403 SCRA 208, 215; People v.
Callet, G.R. No. 135701, May 9, 2002, 382 SCRA 43, 55; People v.
14
G.R No, 125909, June 23, 2000, 334 SCRA 262, 275-276. Diaz, G.R. No. 130210, December 8, 1999, 320 SCRA 168,
177; People v. Sanchez , G.R No. 131116, August 27, 1999, 313 SCRA
258,271; People v. Espanola. G.R No 119308 April 18, 199'', 271
SCRA 689, 718 (for homicide). cralaw red
44
G.R. No. 169871, February 2, 2011,641 SCRA 366, 371.

27
E.g., People v. Abulencia, G.R. No. 138403, August 22, 2001, 363 45
G.R. No. 178771, June 8, 2011,651 SCRA 489, 522..
SCRA 496, 509 (for rape with homicide); People v. Tubongbanua, G.R.
No. 171271, August 31, 2006, 500 SCRA 727, 742; People v. 46
G.R. No. 183706, April 25, 2012, 671 SCRA 149, 160.
Quiachon, G.R. No. 170236, August 31, 2006, 500 SCRA 704, 719
(where the Court held that even if the penalty of death was not to be 47
G.R. No. 188612, July 30, 2012, 677 SCRA 640, 672.
imposed because of the prohibition in Republic Act No. 9346, the civil
indemnity of P75.000.00 was proper because it was not dependent on 48
G.R. No. 182523, September 13, 2012, 680 SCRA 560, 573.
the actual imposition of the death penalty but on the fact that the
qualifying circumstances warranted the imposition of the death penalty 49
G.R. No. 187733, February 8, 2012, 665 SCRA 571, 580.
that attended the commission of the offense).
50
G.R. No. 188969, February 27, 2013, 692 SCRA 217, 226.
28
G.R. No. 171272, June 7, 2007, 523 SCRA 433, 455.
51
G.R. No. 187731, September 18, 2013, 706 SCRA 88, 114-115.
29
G.R. No. 170471, May 11, 2007, 523 SCRA 118, 134.
52
G.R. No. 90870, February 5, 1991, 193 SCRA 525, 530-531.
30
G.R. No. 186420, August 5, 2009, 597 SCRA 205, 212-213,
53
G.R. Nos. 144907-09, September 17, 2002, 389 SCRA 268, 276.
31
G.R. No. 183457, September 17, 2009, 600 SCRA 239, 255.
54
G.R. No. 153875, August 16, 2006, 499 SCRA 64, 84.
32
G.R. No. 182922, December 14, 2009.
55
G.R. No. 172896, April 19, 2010, 618 SCRA 406, 420.
33
G.R. No. 177983, March 30, 2010, 617 SCRA 179, 198.
56
G.R. No. 175602, January 18, 2012, 663 SCRA 272, 290.
34
G.R. No. 188610, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 548, 569.
57
G.R. No. 197807, April 16, 2012, 669 SCRA 512, 529.
35
G.R. No. 188602, February 4, 2010, 611 SCRA 633, 647-648.
58
G.R. No. 194564, April 10, 2013, 695 SCRA 630, 633, 638.
36
G.R. No. 189091, August 25, 2010, 629 SCRA 523, 529.
59
G.R. No. 198020, July 10, 2013, 701 SCRA 99, 105, 108.
37
G.R. No. 186420, August 25, 2009, 597 SCRA 205, 212.
People v. Ballesteros, G.R. No, 120921 January 29, 1998,285 SCRA
60
38
G.R. No. 186539, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 417, 437. 438, 448.

39
G.R. No. 177753, September 25, 2009, 601 SCRA 58, 73. cralawred
61
Casis, Rommel J., Analysis of Philippine Law and Jurisprudence on
Damages, University of the Philippines College of Law, 2012, p.2
40
G.R. No. 173791, April 7, 2009, 584 SCRA 518, 545.
62
Id., citing Pat O' Malley, The Currency Of Justice: Fines And
41
G.R. No. 188353, February 16, 2010, 612 SCRA 738, 751-752 Damages In Consumer Societies, 1 (2009).

42
G.R. No. 180219, November 23, 2011,661 SCRA 197. 63
Id. at 2-3, citing H. McGregor on Damages, 9 (1997).

43
G.R. No. 189981, March 9, 2011, 645 SCRA 187, 205. 64
Supra note 23.
65
Supra note 22.

66
CA Rollo, p. 19.

67
See People v. Isla, G.R. No. 199875, November 21, 2012, 686 SCRA
267, 283.

68
G.R. No. 137842, August 23, 2001, 363 SCRA 621.

69
Id. at 635.

People v. Combate, G.R. No. 189301, December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA
70

797, 824; Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, August 13,
2013, 703 SCRA 439.