D. People V Juguilon

9/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 788

G.R. No. 202124. April 5, 2016.*

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
IRENEO JUGUETA, accused-appellant.
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Appeals; Factual

findings of the trial court, its assessment of the credibility of
witnesses and the probative weight of their testimonies, and the
conclusions based on these factual findings are to be given the
highest respect.—At the outset, it must be stressed that factual
findings of the trial court, its assessment of the credibility of
witnesses and the probative weight of their testimonies, and the
conclusions based on these factual findings are to be given the
highest respect. Thus, generally, the Court will not recalibrate
and reexamine evidence that had been analyzed and ruled upon
by the trial court and affirmed by the CA.
Criminal Law; Conspiracy; Conspiracy exists when two (2) or
more persons come to an agreement regarding the commission of a
crime and decide to commit it.—Appellant and the two other
malefactors are equally responsible for the death of Norberto’s
daughters because, as ruled by the trial court, they clearly
conspired to kill Norberto’s family. Conspiracy exists when two or
more persons come to an agreement regarding the commission of
a crime and decide to commit it. Proof of a prior meeting between
the perpetrators to discuss the commission of the crime is not
necessary as long as their concerted acts reveal a common design
and unity of purpose. In such case, the act of one is the act of all.
Here, the three men undoubtedly acted in concert as they went to
the house of Norberto together, each with his own firearm. It is,
therefore, no longer necessary to identify and prove that it is the
bullet particularly fired from appellant’s firearm that killed the
children.
Same; Murder; The presence of any of the circumstances
enumerated in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) is
sufficient to qualify a killing as murder.—Murder is defined under
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001747338e7a13054fc37003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/63
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as the unlawful killing of a

person, which is not parricide or infanticide, attended by
circumstances such as
_______________
* EN BANC.

332
332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Jugueta
treachery or evident premeditation. The presence of any of

the circumstances enumerated in Article 248 of the Code is
sufficient to qualify a killing as murder.
Same; Same; Qualifying Circumstances; Treachery; The
presence of treachery qualified the killing of the hapless children to
murder; When an adult person illegally attacks a child, treachery
exists.—Verily, the presence of treachery qualified the killing of
the hapless children to murder. As held in People v. Fallorina, 424
SCRA 655 (2004), the essence of treachery is the sudden and
unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim without the
slightest provocation on his part. Minor children, who by reason of
their tender years, cannot be expected to put up a defense. When
an adult person illegally attacks a child, treachery exists.
Same; Attempted Felonies; The last paragraph of Article 6 of
the Revised Penal Code (RPC) states that a felony is attempted
when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly
by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which
should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident
other than his own spontaneous desistance.—As to the charge of
multiple attempted murder, the last paragraph of Article 6 of the
Revised Penal Code states that a felony is attempted when the
offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt
acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should
produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than
his own spontaneous desistance. In Esqueda v. People, 589 SCRA
489 (2009), the Court held: If one inflicts physical injuries on
another but the latter survives, the crime committed is either
consummated physical injuries, if the offender had no intention to
kill the victim, or frustrated or attempted homicide or frustrated
murder or attempted murder if the offender intends to kill the
victim. Intent to kill may be proved by evidence of: (a) motive; (b)
the nature or number of weapons used in the commission of the

crime; (c) the nature and number of wounds inflicted on the
victim; (d) the manner the crime was committed; and (e) the
words uttered by the offender at the time the injuries are inflicted
by him on the victim.
Same; Murder; Intent to Kill; The prosecution has clearly
established the intent to kill on the part of appellant as shown by
the use of firearms, the words uttered during, as well as the
manner of, the commission of the crime.—In this case, the
prosecution has clearly

333
VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 333

People vs. Jugueta
established the intent to kill on the part of appellant as

shown by the use of firearms, the words uttered during, as well as
the manner of, the commission of the crime. The Court thus
quotes with approval the trial court’s finding that appellant is
liable for attempted murder, viz.: In the case at bar, the
perpetrators who acted in concert commenced the felony of
murder first by suddenly stripping off the wall of their house,
followed by successive firing at the intended victims when
Norberto Divina refused to go out of the house as ordered by
them. If only there were good in aiming their target, not only
Mary Grace and Claudine had been killed but surely all the rest
of the family would surely have died. Hence, perpetrators were
liable for Murder of Mary Grace Divina and Claudine Divina but
for Multiple Attempted Murder for Norberto Divina, Maricel
Divina, Elizabeth Divina and Judy Ann Divina. But as [appellant]
Ireneo Jugueta was the only one charged in this case, he alone is
liable for the crime committed.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Testimonial Evidence; Minor
Inconsistencies; As ruled in People v. Cabtalan, 666 SCRA 174
(2012), “[m]inor inconsistencies and discrepancies pertaining to
trivial matters do not affect the credibility of witnesses, as well as
their positive identification of the accused as the perpetrators of the
crime.”—The supposed inconsistencies in Norberto’s testimony,
i.e., that he failed to state from the very beginning that all three
assailants were carrying firearms, and that it was the shots from
appellant’s firearm that killed the children, are too trivial and
inconsequential to put a dent on said witness’s credibility. An
examination of Norberto’s testimony would show that there are no
real inconsistencies to speak of. As ruled in People v. Cabtalan,

666 SCRA 174 (2012), “[m]inor inconsistencies and discrepancies
pertaining to trivial matters do not affect the credibility of
witnesses, as well as their positive identification of the accused as
the perpetrators of the crime.” Both the trial court and the CA
found Norberto’s candid and straightforward testimony to be
worthy of belief and this Court sees no reason why it should not
conform to the principle reiterated in Medina, Jr. v. People, 713
SCRA 311 (2014).
Same; Criminal Procedure; Information; As a general rule, a
complaint or information must charge only one (1) offense,
otherwise, the same is defective.—As a general rule, a complaint or
information must charge only one offense, otherwise, the same is
defective. The

334

People vs. Jugueta
reason for the rule is stated in People of the Philippines and

AAA v. Court of Appeals, 21st Division, Mindanao Station, et al.,
751 SCRA 675 (2015), thus: The rationale behind this rule
prohibiting duplicitous complaints or informations is to give the
accused the necessary knowledge of the charge against him and
enable him to sufficiently prepare for his defense. The State
should not heap upon the accused two or more charges which
might confuse him in his defense. Noncompliance with this rule is
a ground for quashing the duplicitous complaint or information
under Rule 117 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure and the
accused may raise the same in a motion to quash before he enters
his plea, otherwise, the defect is deemed waived.
Same; Same; Motion to Quash; Section 9 of Rule 117 provides
that “[t]he failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion
to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information, either
because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the
same in said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any objections
except those based on the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a),
(b), (g), and (i) of Section 3 of this Rule.”—Since appellant entered
a plea of not guilty during arraignment and failed to move for the
quashal of the Informations, he is deemed to have waived his
right to question the same. Section 9 of Rule 117 provides that
“[t]he failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to
quash before he pleads to the complaint or information, either
because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the

same in said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any objections
except those based on the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a),
(b), (g), and (i) of Section 3 of this Rule.”
Same; Same; Information; When two (2) or more offenses are
charged in a single complaint or information but the accused fails
to object to it before trial, the court may convict him of as many
offenses as are charged and proved, and impose upon him the
proper penalty for each offense.—It is also well-settled that when
two or more offenses are charged in a single complaint or
information but the accused fails to object to it before trial, the
court may convict him of as many offenses as are charged and
proved, and impose upon him the proper penalty for each offense.
Appellant can therefore be held liable for all the crimes alleged in
the Informations in Criminal Case Nos. 7698-G and 7702-G, i.e., 2
counts of murder and 4 counts of attempted murder, respectively,
and proven during trial.

335
VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 335

People vs. Jugueta
Criminal Law; Complex Crimes; What appellant and his

cohorts committed cannot be classified as a complex crime because
as held in People v. Nelmida, 680 SCRA 386 (2012), “each act by
each gunman pulling the trigger of their respective firearms,
aiming each particular moment at different persons constitute
distinct and individual acts which cannot give rise to a complex
crime.”—Here, the facts surrounding the shooting incident clearly
show that appellant and the two others, in firing successive and
indiscriminate shots at the family of Norberto from their
respective firearms, intended to kill not only Norberto, but his
entire family. When several gunmen, as in this case,
indiscriminately fire a series of shots at a group of people, it
shows their intention to kill several individuals. Hence, they are
committing not only one crime. What appellant and his cohorts
committed cannot be classified as a complex crime because as held
in People v. Nelmida, 680 SCRA 386 (2012), “each act by each
gunman pulling the trigger of their respective firearms, aiming
each particular moment at different persons constitute distinct
and individual acts which cannot give rise to a complex crime.”
Same; Aggravating Circumstances; Dwelling; Dwelling
aggravates a felony where the crime is committed in the dwelling
of the offended party provided that the latter has not given
provocation therefor.—In People v. Agcanas, 658 SCRA 842 (2011),
the Court stressed that “[i]t has been held in a long line of cases
that dwelling is aggravating because of the sanctity of privacy
which the law accords to human abode. He who goes to another’s
house to hurt him or do him wrong is more guilty than he who
offends him elsewhere.” Dwelling aggravates a felony where the
crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party provided
that the latter has not given provocation therefor. The testimony
of Norberto established the fact that the group of appellant
violated the victims’ home by destroying the same and attacking
his entire family therein, without provocation on the part of the
latter. Hence, the trial court should have appreciated dwelling as
an ordinary aggravating circumstance.
Same; Murder; Penalties; For crimes where the imposable
penalty is death in view of the attendance of an ordinary
aggravating circumstance but due to the prohibition to impose the
death penalty, the actual penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua,
the latest jurisprudence pegs the amount of P100,000.00 as civil
indemnity and P100,000.00 as moral damages. For the qualifying
aggravating circumstance and/or the ordinary aggravating
circumstances present, the amount of P100,000.00 is awarded as
exemplary damages aside from civil indemnity and moral
damages.—For crimes where the imposable penalty is death in
view of the attendance of an ordinary aggravating circumstance
but due to the prohibition to impose the death penalty, the actual
penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, the latest jurisprudence
pegs the amount of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity and
P100,000.00 as moral damages. For the qualifying aggravating

336

People vs. Jugueta
circumstance and/or the ordinary aggravating circumstances

present, the amount of P100,000.00 is awarded as exemplary
damages aside from civil indemnity and moral damages.
Regardless of the attendance of qualifying aggravating
circumstance, the exemplary damages shall be fixed at
P100,000.00. “[T]his 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 x x x.”
Same; Same; When the circumstances surrounding the crime

call for the imposition of reclusion perpetua only, there being no
ordinary aggravating circumstance, the Court rules that the
proper amounts should be P75,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P75,000.00 as moral damages and P75,000.00 exemplary
damages, regardless of the number of qualifying aggravating
circumstances present.—When the circumstances surrounding the
crime call for the imposition of reclusion perpetua only, there
being no ordinary aggravating circumstance, the Court rules that
the proper amounts should be P75,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P75,000.00 as moral damages and P75,000.00 exemplary
damages, regardless of the number of qualifying aggravating
circumstances present.
Same; Same; If it is multiple murder without any ordinary
aggravating circumstance but merely a qualifying aggravating
circumstance, but the penalty imposed is death because of Art. 48
of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) wherein the maximum penalty
shall be imposed, then, for every victim who dies, the heirs shall be
indemnified with P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as
moral damages and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.—When
it comes to compound and complex crimes, although the single act
done by the offender caused several crimes, the fact that those
were the result of a single design, the amount of civil indemnity
and moral damages will depend on the penalty and the number of
victims. For each of

337
VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 337

People vs. Jugueta
the victims, the heirs should be properly compensated. If it is

multiple murder without any ordinary aggravating circumstance
but merely a qualifying aggravating circumstance, but the
penalty imposed is death because of Art. 48 of the RPC wherein
the maximum penalty shall be imposed, then, for every victim
who dies, the heirs shall be indemnified with P100,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00 as
exemplary damages.
Same; Special Complex Crimes; If there is another composite
crime included in a special complex crime and the penalty imposed
is death, an additional P100,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P100,000.00 moral damages and P100,000.00 exemplary damages
shall be awarded for each composite crime committed.—If the
penalty is death but it cannot be imposed due to RA No. 9346 and

what is actually imposed is the penalty of reclusion perpetua, the
civil indemnity and moral damages will be P100,000.00 each, and
another P100,000.00 as exemplary damages in view of the
heinousness of the crime and to set an example. If there is
another composite crime included in a special complex crime and
the penalty imposed is death, an additional P100,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P100,000.00 moral damages and P100,000.00
exemplary damages shall be awarded for each composite crime
committed.
Same; Civil Indemnity; In awarding civil indemnity and
moral damages, it is also important to determine the stage in
which the crime was committed and proven during the trial.—In
awarding civil indemnity and moral damages, it is also important
to determine the stage in which the crime was committed and
proven during the trial. x x x As discussed earlier, when the crime
proven is consummated and the penalty imposed is death but
reduced to reclusion perpetua because of RA No. 9346, the civil
indemnity and moral damages that should be awarded will each
be P100,000.00 and another P100,000.00 for exemplary damages
or when the circumstances of the crime call for the imposition of
reclusion perpetua only, the civil indemnity and moral damages
should be P75,000.00 each, as well as exemplary damages in the
amount of P75,000.00. If, however, the crime proven is in its
frustrated stage, the civil indemnity and moral damages that
should be awarded will each be P50,000.00, and an award of
P25,000.00 civil indemnity and P25,000.00 moral damages when
the crime proven is in its attempted stage. The difference in the
amounts awarded for the stages is mainly due to the disparity in
the outcome

338

People vs. Jugueta
of the crime committed, in the same way that the imposable

penalty varies for each stage of the crime. The said amounts of
civil indemnity and moral damages awarded in cases of felonies in
their frustrated or attempted stages shall be the bases when the
crimes committed constitute complex crime under Article 48 of
the RPC. For example, in a crime of murder with attempted
murder, the amount of civil indemnity, moral damages and
exemplary damages is P100,000.00 each, while in the attempted
murder, the civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary

damages is P25,000.00 each.
Same; Special Complex Crimes; Damages; Civil Indemnity;
Moral Damages; Exemplary Damages; The nature and severity of
the injuries sustained by the victims must still be determined for
the purpose of awarding civil indemnity and damages. If a victim
suffered mortal wounds and could have died if not for a timely
medical intervention, the victim should be awarded civil
indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages equivalent to
the damages awarded in a frustrated stage, and if a victim
suffered injuries that are not fatal, an award of civil indemnity,
moral damages and exemplary damages should likewise be
awarded equivalent to the damages awarded in an attempted
stage.—In a special complex crime, like robbery with homicide, if,
aside from homicide, several victims (except the robbers)
sustained injuries, they shall likewise be indemnified. It must be
remembered that in a special complex crime, unlike in a complex
crime, the component crimes have no attempted or frustrated
stages because the intention of the offender/s is to commit the
principal crime which is to rob but in the process of committing
the said crime, another crime is committed. For example, if on the
occasion of a robbery with homicide, other victims sustained
injuries, regardless of the severity, the crime committed is still
robbery with homicide as the injuries become part of the crime,
“Homicide,” in the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide, is understood in its generic sense and now forms part of
the essential element of robbery, which is the use of violence or
the use of force upon anything. Hence, the nature and severity of
the injuries sustained by the victims must still be determined for
the purpose of awarding civil indemnity and damages. If a victim
suffered mortal wounds and could have died if not for a timely
medical intervention, the victim should be awarded civil
indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages equivalent to
the damages awarded in a frustrated stage, and if a victim
suffered injuries that are not fatal, an award of civil indemnity,
moral

339
VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 339

People vs. Jugueta
damages and exemplary damages should likewise be awarded

equivalent to the damages awarded in an attempted stage.
Same; Damages; In other crimes that resulted in the death of

a victim and the penalty consists of divisible penalties, like
homicide, death under tumultuous affray, reckless imprudence
resulting to homicide, the civil indemnity awarded to the heirs of
the victim shall be P50,000.00 and P50,000.00 moral damages
without exemplary damages being awarded.—In other crimes that
resulted in the death of a victim and the penalty consists of
divisible penalties, like homicide, death under tumultuous affray,
reckless imprudence resulting to homicide, the civil indemnity
awarded to the heirs of the victim shall be P50,000.00 and
P50,000.00 moral damages without exemplary damages being
awarded. However, an award of P50,000.00 exemplary damages
in a crime of homicide shall be added if there is an aggravating
circumstance present that has been proven but not alleged in the
information.
Same; Same; Temperate Damages; The award of P25,000.00
as temperate damages in homicide or murder cases is proper when
no evidence of burial and funeral expenses is presented in the trial
court.—Aside from those discussed earlier, the Court also awards
temperate damages in certain cases. The award of P25,000.00 as
temperate damages in homicide or murder cases is proper when
no evidence of burial and funeral expenses is presented in the
trial court. Under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate
damages may be recovered, as it cannot be denied that the heirs
of the victims suffered pecuniary loss although the exact amount
was not proved. In this case, the Court now increases the amount
to be awarded as temperate damages to P50,000.00.
Same; Double Jeopardy; The case against Estores and San
Miguel was dismissed before they were arraigned. Thus, there can
be no double jeopardy to speak of.—After all, such reinvestigation
would not subject Estores and San Miguel to double jeopardy
because the same only attaches if the following requisites are
present: (1) a first jeopardy has attached before the second; (2) the
first jeopardy has been validly terminated; and (3) a second
jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first. In turn, a first
jeopardy attaches only (a) after a valid indictment; (b) before a
competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has
been entered; and (e) when the ac-

340

People vs. Jugueta
cused has been acquitted or convicted, or the case dismissed

or otherwise terminated without his express consent. In this case,
the case against Estores and San Miguel was dismissed before
they were arraigned. Thus, there can be no double jeopardy to
speak of. Let true justice be served by reinvestigating the real
participation, if any, of Estores and San Miguel in the killing of
Mary Grace and Claudine Divina.
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant.
PERALTA, J.:

This resolves the appeal from the Decision1 of the Court
of Appeals (CA) dated January 30, 2012 in C.A.-G.R. CR-
H.C. No. 03252. The CA affirmed the judgments of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 61, Gumaca, Quezon,
finding accused-appellant Ireneo Jugueta y Flores guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of Double Murder in Criminal
Case No. 7698-G and Multiple Attempted Murder in
Criminal Case No. 7702-G.
In Criminal Case No. 7698-G, appellant was charged
with Double Murder, defined and penalized under Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code, allegedly committed as
follows:

That on or about the 6th day of June 2002, at
about 9:00 o’clock in the evening, at Barangay
Caridad Ilaya, Municipality of Atimonan, Province of
Quezon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above named accused,
armed with a caliber .22 firearm, with intent to kill,
qualified by treachery and
_______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora T. Lantion, with Associate

Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Rodil V. Zalameda, concurring; Rollo, pp.
2-21.

341
VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 341
People vs. Jugueta
evident premeditation, did then and there willfully,

unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot
with said firearm Mary Grace Divina, a minor, 13
years old, who suffered the following:
“Gunshot wound –
Point of Entry – lower abdomen, right, 2 cm.
from the midline and 6 cm. from the level of the
umbilicus, directed upward toward the left
upper abdomen.”
and Claudine Divina, a minor, 3 1/2 years of age, who
suffered the following:
“Gunshot wound –
Point of Entry – 9th ICS along the mid-
axillary line, right, 1 cm. diameter
Point of Exit – 7th ICS mid-axillary line, left”;
which directly caused their instant death.
That the crime committed in the dwelling of the
offended party who had not given provocation for the
attack and the accused took advantage of nighttime to
facilitate the commission of the offense.
Contrary to law.2

In Criminal Case No. 7702-G, appellant, together with
Gilbert Estores and Roger San Miguel, was charged with
Multiple Attempted Murder, allegedly committed as
follows:

That on or about 9:00 o’clock in the evening of 6th
day of June, 2002, at Barangay Caridad Ilaya,
Municipality of Atimonan, Province of Quezon,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above named accused,
conspiring and confederating together and mutually
helping one another, armed with short firearms of
undetermined calibres, with intent to kill,
_______________
2 Records (Vol. I), pp. 2-3.

342
People vs. Jugueta
qualified by treachery, with evident premeditation

and abuse of superior strength, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault,
and shoot with the said firearms the house occupied
by the family of Norberto Divina, thereby
commencing the commission of the crime of Murder,
directly by overt acts, but did not perform all the acts
of execution which would have produced it by reason
of some cause or accident other than the spontaneous
desistance of the accused, that is, the occupants
Norberto Divina, his wife Maricel Divina and children
Elizabeth Divina and Judy Ann Divina, both
elementary pupils and who are minors, were not hit.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3

Roger San Miguel, however, moved for reinvestigation of
the case against them. At said proceedings, one Danilo
Fajarillo submitted his sworn statement stating that on
June 6, 2002, he saw appellant with a certain “Hapon” and
Gilbert Estores at the crime scene, but it was only
appellant who was carrying a firearm while the other two
had no participation in the shooting incident. Fajarillo
further stated that Roger San Miguel was not present at
the crime scene. Based on the sworn statement of Fajarillo,
the Provincial Prosecutor found no prima facie case against
Gilbert Estores and Roger San Miguel.4 Thus, upon motion
of the prosecution, the case for Attempted Murder against
Gilbert Estores and Roger San Miguel was dismissed, and
trial proceeded only as to appellant.5
At the trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of
Norberto Divina, the victim, and Dr. Lourdes Taguinod
who executed the Medico-Legal Certificate and confirmed
that the children of Norberto, namely, Mary Grace and
Claudine, died from gunshot wounds. Dr. Taguinod noted
that the trajectory
_______________
3 Records (Vol. II), p. 2.

4 Order of the Provincial Prosecutor, Records (Vol. I), pp. 12-14.
5 RTC Order, Records (Vol. II), pp. 66-67.

343
VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 343

People vs. Jugueta
of the bullet wounds showed that the victims were at a

higher location than the shooter, but she could not tell
what kind of ammunitions were used.6
Norberto testified that the appellant is his brother-in-
law. He recounted that in the evening of June 6, 2002, as
his entire family lay down on the floor of their one-room
nipa hut to sleep, the “sack” walling of their hut was
suddenly stripped off, and only the supporting bamboo
(fences) remained. With the covering of the wall gone, the
three (3) men responsible for the deed came into view.
Norberto clearly saw their faces which were illuminated by
the light of a gas lamp hanging in their small hut. Norberto
identified the 3 men as appellant, Gilbert Estores and
Roger San Miguel. The 3 men ordered Norberto to come
down from his house, but he refused to do so. The men then
uttered, “Magdasal ka na at katapusan mo na ngayon.”
Norberto pleaded with them, saying, “Maawa kayo sa
amin, matanda na ako at marami akong anak. Anong
kasalanan ko sa inyo?” Despite such plea for mercy, a
gunshot was fired, and Norberto immediately threw his
body over his children and wife in an attempt to protect
them from being hit. Thereafter, he heard successive
gunshots being fired in the direction where his family
huddled together in their hut.7
When the volley of shots ceased and the three (3) men
left, Norberto saw that his two (2) young daughters were
wounded. His wife went out of their house to ask for help
from neighbors, while he and his older daughter carried the
two (2) wounded children out to the street. His daughter
Mary Grace died on the way to the hospital, while Claudine
expired at the hospital despite the doctors’ attempts to
revive her.8
In answer to questions of what could have prompted
such an attack from appellant, Norberto replied that he
had a previous altercation with appellant who was angered
by the
_______________
6 TSN, February 5, 2004, Folder of TSNs.

7 TSN, March 3, 2004, Folder of TSNs.
8 Id.

344

People vs. Jugueta
fact that he (Norberto) filed a case against appellant’s

two other brothers for molesting his daughter.9
On the other hand, appellant was only able to proffer
denial and alibi as his defense. Appellant’s testimony,
along with those of Gilbert Estores, Roger San Miguel,
Isidro San Miguel and Ruben Alegre, was that he
(appellant) was just watching TV at the house of Isidro San
Miguel, where he had been living for several years, at the
time the shooting incident occurred. However, he and the
other witnesses admitted that said house was a mere five-
minut
Finding appellant’s defense to be weak, and ascribing
more credence to the testimony of Norberto, the trial court
ruled that the evidence clearly established that appellant,
together with two other assailants, conspired to shoot and
kill the family of Norberto. Appellant was then convicted of
Double Murder in Criminal Case No. 7698-G and Multiple
Attempted Murder in Criminal Case No. 7702-G.
The dispositive portion of the trial court’s judgment in
Criminal Case No. 7698-G reads:

WHEREFORE and in view of all the foregoing, the
Court finds accused Ireneo Jugueta guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for Double Murder defined and
punished under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code
and is hereby sentenced to suffer Reclusion Perpetua
for the death of Mary Grace Divina and to indemnify
her heirs in the amount of Php50,000.00 and another
to suffer Reclusion Perpetua for the death of Claudine
Divina and accused is further ordered to indemnify
the heirs of Claudine Divina in the sum of
Php50,000.00. In addition, he is hereby ordered to pay
the heirs of the victims actual damages in the amount
of Php16,150.00 and to pay for the costs.
e walk away from the crime scene.10
_______________
9 TSN, June 28, 2004, Folder of TSNs.

10 10 TSNs, February 10, 2005, April 7, 2005, February 15, 2006,
August 3, 2006, September 6, 2006 and June 7, 2006.


345
VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 345

People vs. Jugueta
SO ORDERED.11

On the other hand, the dispositive portion of the trial
court’s judgment in Criminal Case No. 7702-G, reads:

WHEREFORE and in view of all the foregoing, the
Court finds accused Ireneo Jugueta guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for Multiple Attempted Murder
defined and penalized under Article 248 in relation to
Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code and is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of FOUR (4) YEARS
and TWO (2) MONTHS of Prisión Correccional as
minimum to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of
Prisión Mayor as maximum for each of the offended
parties: Norberto Divina, Maricel Divina, Elizabeth
Divina and Judy Ann Divina. Further, accused is
ordered to pay for the costs of the suit.
SO ORDERED.12
Aggrieved by the trial court’s judgments, appellant

appealed to the CA. On January 30, 2012, the CA rendered
a Decision affirming appellant’s conviction for the crimes
charged.13
Dissatisfied with the CA Decision, appellant elevated
the case to this Court. On July 30, 2012, the Court issued a
Resolution14 notifying the parties that they may submit
their respective Supplemental Briefs. Both parties
manifested that they will no longer submit supplemental
briefs since they had exhaustively discussed their positions
before the CA.15
The main issue advanced in the Appellant’s Brief deals
with the inconsistencies in Norberto’s testimony, such as
his
_______________
11 Records (Vol, I), pp. 293-294.

13 Rollo, pp. 2-21.
14 Id., at p. 27.
15 Id., at pp. 33-34.

346

People vs. Jugueta
failure to state from the beginning that all three

assailants had guns, and to categorically identify appellant
as the one holding the gun used to kill Norberto’s children.
The appeal is unmeritorious.
At the outset, it must be stressed that factual findings of
the trial court, its assessment of the credibility of witnesses
and the probative weight of their testimonies, and the
conclusions based on these factual findings are to be given
the highest respect. Thus, generally, the Court will not
recalibrate and reexamine evidence that had been analyzed
and ruled upon by the trial court and affirmed by the CA.16
The evidence on record fully supports the trial court’s
factual finding, as affirmed by the CA, that appellant acted
in concert with two other individuals, all three of them
carrying firearms and simultaneously firing at Norberto
and his family, killing his two young daughters. Norberto
clearly saw all of the three assailants with their firearms
as there is illumination coming from a lamp inside their
house that had been laid bare after its walling was stripped
off, to wit:
Q: When the wall of your house was stripped off by these three persons at
the same time, do you have light in your house?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What kind of light was there?
A: A gas lamp.
Q: Where was the gas lamp placed at that time?
A: In the middle of our house.
xxxx
Q: When did they fire a shot?
A: On the same night, when they had stripped off the wallings.
_______________
16 People v. Mamaruncas, 680 Phil. 192, 211; 664 SCRA 182, 199
(2012).

347
VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 347

People vs. Jugueta
Q: How many gunshots did you hear?

A: Only one.
Q: Do you know the sound of a gunshot? A firearm?
A: Yes, sir, it is loud? (sic)
xxxx
Q: After the first shot, was there any second shot?
A: After that, successive fire shot (sic) followed and my youngest and eldest
daughters were hit.
xxxx
Q: How many of the three were holding guns at that time?
A: All of them.
Q: You mean to tell the honorable court that these three persons were
having one firearm each?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And they fired shots at the same time?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: To what direction these three persons fired (sic) their firearms during
that night?
A: To the place where we were.
Q: When those three persons were firing their respective firearms, what
was your position then?
A: I ordered my children to lie down.
Q: How about you, what was your position when you were ordering your
children to lie down?
A: (witness demonstrated his position as if covering his children with his
body and ordering them to line [sic] down facedown)
Q: Mr. Witness, for how long did these three persons fire shots at your
house?
A: Less than five minutes, sir.
Q: After they fired their shots, they left your house?
A: Yes, sir.

348

People vs. Jugueta
Q: And when these persons left your house, you inspected your children to
see what happened to them?
A: Yes, sir, they were hit.
x x x17

Appellant and the two other malefactors are equally
responsible for the death of Norberto’s daughters because,
as ruled by the trial court, they clearly conspired to kill
Norberto’s family. Conspiracy exists when two or more
persons come to an agreement regarding the commission of
a crime and decide to commit it. Proof of a prior meeting
between the perpetrators to discuss the commission of the
crime is not necessary as long as their concerted acts reveal
a common design and unity of purpose. In such case, the
act of one is the act of all.18 Here, the three men
undoubtedly acted in concert as they went to the house of
Norberto together, each with his own firearm. It is,
therefore, no longer necessary to identify and prove that it
is the bullet particularly fired from appellant’s firearm that
killed the children.
Murder is defined under Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code as the unlawful killing of a person, which is not
parricide or infanticide, attended by circumstances such as
treachery or evident premeditation.19 The presence of any
of the circumstances enumerated in Article 248 of the Code
is sufficient to qualify a killing as murder.20 The trial court
correctly
_______________
17 TSN, July 14, 2004, pp. 6-8.

18 People v. Nazareno, 698 Phil. 187, 193; 684 SCRA 604, 609 (2012).
19 People v. Adviento, 684 Phil. 507, 519; 668 SCRA 486, 497 (2012)
20 Art. 248. Murder.—Any person who, not falling within the
provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and
shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if
committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:

349
VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 349

People vs. Jugueta
ruled that appellant is liable for murder because

treachery attended the killing of Norberto’s two children,
thus:

x x x Evidence adduced show that the family of
Norberto Divina, were all lying down side by side
about to sleep on June 6, 2002 at around 9:00 o’clock

in the evening, when suddenly their wall made of
sack was stripped off by [appellant] Ireneo Jugueta,
Roger San Miguel and Gilberto Alegre (sic) [Gilbert
Estores]. They ordered him to go out of their house
and when he refused despite his plea for mercy, they
fired at them having hit and killed his two (2)
daughters. The family of Norberto Divina were
unarmed and his children were at very tender ages.
Mary Grace Divina and Claudine who were shot and
killed were 13 years old and 3 1/2 years old
respectively. In this case, the victims were defenseless
and manifestly overpowered by armed assailants
when they were gunned down. There was clear
showing that the attack was made suddenly and
unexpectedly as to render the victims helpless and
unable to defend themselves. Norberto and his wife
and his children could have already been asleep at
that time of the night. x x x21
_______________
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid

of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or
persons to insure or afford impunity.
2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck,
stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or
locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use
of any other means involving great waste and ruin.
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding
paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone,
epidemic or other public calamity.
5. With evident premeditation.
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the
suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.
21 Records (Vol. I), p. 287.

350

People vs. Jugueta
Verily, the presence of treachery qualified the killing of

the hapless children to murder. As held in People v.
Fallorina,22 the essence of treachery is the sudden and

unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim without the
slightest provocation on his part. Minor children, who by
reason of their tender years, cannot be expected to put up a
defense. When an adult person illegally attacks a child,
treachery exists.
As to the charge of multiple attempted murder, the last
paragraph of Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code states
that a felony is attempted when the offender commences
the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does
not perform all the acts of execution which should produce
the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than
his own spontaneous desistance. In Esqueda v. People,23
the Court held:
If one inflicts physical injuries on another but the

latter survives, the crime committed is either
consummated physical injuries, if the offender had no
intention to kill the victim, or frustrated or attempted
homicide or frustrated murder or attempted murder if
the offender intends to kill the victim. Intent to kill
may be proved by evidence of: (a) motive; (b) the
nature or number of weapons used in the commission
of the crime; (c) the nature and number of wounds
inflicted on the victim; (d) the manner the crime was
committed; and (e) the words uttered by the offender
at the time the injuries are inflicted by him on the
victim.

In this case, the prosecution has clearly established the
intent to kill on the part of appellant as shown by the use
of firearms, the words uttered24 during, as well as the
manner of, the commission of the crime. The Court thus
quotes with
_______________
22 468 Phil. 816, 840; 424 SCRA 655, 674 (2004), citing People v.
Bustamante, 445 Phil. 345, 363-364; 397 SCRA 326, 342 (2003); People v.
Magno, 379 Phil. 531, 554; 322 SCRA 494, 515 (2000).
23 607 Phil. 480, 505; 589 SCRA 489, 511 (2009).
24 “Magdasal ka na at katapusan mo na ngayon.”

351
VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 351

People vs. Jugueta
approval the trial court’s finding that appellant is liable

for attempted murder, viz.:

In the case at bar, the perpetrators who acted in
concert commenced the felony of murder first by
suddenly stripping off the wall of their house,
followed by successive firing at the intended victims
when Norberto Divina refused to go out of the house
as ordered by them. If only there were good in aiming
their target, not only Mary Grace and Claudine had
been killed but surely all the rest of the family would
surely have died. Hence, perpetrators were liable for
Murder of Mary Grace Divina and Claudine Divina
but for Multiple Attempted Murder for Norberto
Divina, Maricel Divina, Elizabeth Divina and Judy
Ann Divina. But as [appellant] Ireneo Jugueta was
the only one charged in this case, he alone is liable for
the crime committed.25

Meanwhile, the supposed inconsistencies in Norberto’s
testimony, i.e., that he failed to state from the very
beginning that all three assailants were carrying firearms,
and that it was the shots from appellant’s firearm that
killed the children, are too trivial and inconsequential to
put a dent on said witness’s credibility. An examination of
Norberto’s testimony would show that there are no real
inconsistencies to speak of. As ruled in People v.
Cabtalan,26 “[m]inor inconsistencies and discrepancies
pertaining to trivial matters do not affect the credibility of
witnesses, as well as their positive identification of the
accused as the perpetrators of the crime.”27 Both the trial
court and the CA found Norberto’s candid and
straightforward testimony to be worthy of belief and this
Court sees no reason why it should not conform to the
principle reiterated in Medina, Jr. v. People28 that:
_______________
25 Records (Vol. II), pp. 128-129.

26 682 Phil. 164; 666 SCRA 174 (2012).
27 Id., at p. 168; p. 178.
28 G.R. No. 161308, January 15, 2014, 713 SCRA 311.

352

People vs. Jugueta
Time and again, this Court has deferred to the trial

court’s factual findings and evaluation of the
credibility of witnesses, especially when affirmed by
the CA, in the absence of any clear showing that the
trial court overlooked or misconstrued cogent facts
and circumstances that would justify altering or
revising such findings and evaluation. This is because
the trial court’s determination proceeds from its
firsthand opportunity to observe the demeanor of the
witnesses, their conduct and attitude under grilling
examination, thereby placing the trial court in unique
position to assess the witnesses’ credibility and to
appreciate their truthfulness, honesty and candor x x
x.29

The records of this case, particularly the testimonies of
the witnesses, reveal no outstanding or exceptional
circumstance to justify a deviation from such long-standing
principle. There is no cogent reason to overturn the trial
court’s ruling that the prosecution evidence, particularly
the testimony of Norberto Divina identifying appellant as
one of the assailants, is worthy of belief. Thus, the
prosecution evidence established beyond any reasonable
doubt that appellant is one of the perpetrators of the crime.
However, the Court must make a clarification as to the
nomenclature used by the trial court to identify the crimes
for which appellant was penalized. There is some confusion
caused by the trial court’s use of the terms “Double
Murder” and “Multiple Attempted Murder” in convicting
appellant, and yet imposing penalties which nevertheless
show that the trial court meant to penalize appellant for
two (2) separate counts of Murder and four (4) counts of
Attempted Murder.
The facts, as alleged in the Information in Criminal
Case No. 7698-G, and as proven during trial, show that
appellant is guilty of 2 counts of the crime of Murder and
not Double Murder, as the killing of the victims was not the
result of a single
_______________
29 Id., at p. 320.

353
VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 353

People vs. Jugueta
act but of several acts of appellant and his cohorts. In

the same vein, appellant is also guilty of 4 counts of the
crime of Attempted Murder and not Multiple Attempted
Murder in Criminal Case No. 7702-G. It bears stressing
that the Informations in this case failed to comply with the
requirement in Section 13, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of
Court that an information must charge only one offense.
As a general rule, a complaint or information must
charge only one offense, otherwise, the same is defective.
The reason for the rule is stated in People of the Philippines
and AAA v. Court of Appeals, 21st Division, Mindanao
Station, et al.,30 thus:

The rationale behind this rule prohibiting
duplicitous complaints or informations is to give the
accused the necessary knowledge of the charge
against him and enable him to sufficiently prepare for
his defense. The State should not heap upon the
accused two or more charges which might confuse him
in his defense. Noncompliance with this rule is a
ground for quashing the duplicitous complaint or
information under Rule 117 of the Rules on Criminal
Procedure and the accused may raise the same in a
motion to quash before he enters his plea, otherwise,
the defect is deemed waived.

However, since appellant entered a plea of not guilty
during arraignment and failed to move for the quashal of
the Informations, he is deemed to have waived his right to
question the same. Section 9 of Rule 117 provides that
“[t]he failure of the accused to assert any ground of a
motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or
information, either because he did not file a motion to
quash or failed to allege the same in said motion, shall be
deemed a waiver of any objections except those based on
the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i)
of Section 3 of this Rule.”
_______________
30 G.R. No. 183652, February 25, 2015, 751 SCRA 675.


354

People vs. Jugueta
It is also well-settled that when two or more offenses are

charged in a single complaint or information but the
accused fails to object to it before trial, the court may
convict him of as many offenses as are charged and proved,
and impose upon him the proper penalty for each offense.31
Appellant can therefore be held liable for all the crimes
alleged in the Informations in Criminal Case Nos. 7698-G
and 7702-G, i.e., 2 counts of murder and 4 counts of
attempted murder, respectively, and proven during trial.
Meanwhile, in People v. Nelmida,32 the Court explained
the concept of a complex crime as defined in Article 4833 of
the Revised Penal Code, thus:
In a complex crime, two or more crimes are

actually committed, however, in the eyes of the law
and in the conscience of the offender they constitute
only one crime, thus, only one penalty is imposed.
There are two kinds of complex crime. The first is
known as a compound crime, or when a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies
while the other is known as a complex crime proper,
or when an offense is a necessary means for
committing the other. The classic example of the first
kind is when a single bullet results in the death of
two or more persons. A different rule governs where
separate and distinct acts result in a number killed.
Deeply rooted is the doctrine that when various
victims expire from separate shot, such acts
constitute separate and distinct crimes.34
_______________
31 Id.
32 People v. Nelmida, 694 Phil. 529, 581; 680 SCRA 386, 427 (2012).
33 Art. 48. Penalty for Complex Crimes.—When a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is
a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most
serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum
period.
34 People v. Nelmida, supra at pp. 569-570; p. 427. (Emphasis omitted)

355
VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 355

People vs. Jugueta
Here, the facts surrounding the shooting incident clearly

show that appellant and the two others, in firing successive
and indiscriminate shots at the family of Norberto from
their respective firearms, intended to kill not only
Norberto, but his entire family. When several gunmen, as
in this case, indiscriminately fire a series of shots at a
group of people, it shows their intention to kill several
individuals. Hence, they are committing not only one crime.
What appellant and his cohorts committed cannot be
classified as a complex crime because as held in People v.
Nelmida,35 “each act by each gunman pulling the trigger of
their respective firearms, aiming each particular moment
at different persons constitute distinct and individual acts
which cannot give rise to a complex crime.”36
Furthermore, the Court notes that both the trial court
and the CA failed to take into account dwelling as an
ordinary, aggravating circumstance, despite the fact that
the Informations in Criminal Case Nos. 7698-G and 7702-G
contain sufficient allegations to that effect, to wit:

Criminal Case No. 7698-G for Double Murder:
That the crime was committed in the dwelling of
the offended party who had not given provocation for
the attack and the accused took advantage of
nighttime to facilitate the commission of the offense.37

Criminal Case No. 7702-G for Multiple Attempted
Murder:
x x x the above named accused, conspiring and
confederating together and mutually helping one
another, armed with short firearms of undetermined
calibres, with intent to kill, qualified by treachery,
with evident premeditation and abuse of superior
strength, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, as-

_______________
35 Id.
36 Id., at p. 570; p. 428.

37 Records (Vol. I), pp. 2-3.

356

People vs. Jugueta
sault, and shoot with the said firearms the house

occupied by the family of Norberto Divina, thereby
commencing the commission of the crime of Murder,
directly by overt acts, but did not perform all the acts
of execution which would have produced it by reason
of some cause or accident other than the spontaneous
desistance of the accused. x x x38

In People v. Agcanas,39 the Court stressed that “[i]t has
been held in a long line of cases that dwelling is
aggravating because of the sanctity of privacy which the
law accords to human abode. He who goes to another’s
house to hurt him or do him wrong is more guilty than he
who offends him elsewhere.” Dwelling aggravates a felony
where the crime is committed in the dwelling of the
offended party provided that the latter has not given
provocation therefor.40 The testimony of Norberto
established the fact that the group of appellant violated the
victims’ home by destroying the same and attacking his
entire family therein, without provocation on the part of
the latter. Hence, the trial court should have appreciated
dwelling as an ordinary aggravating circumstance.
In view of the attendant ordinary aggravating
circumstance, the Court must modify the penalties imposed
on appellant. Murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to
death, thus, with an ordinary aggravating circumstance of
dwelling, the imposable penalty is death for each of two (2)
counts of murder.41 However, pursuant to Republic Act
(RA) No. 9346, proscribing the imposition of the death
penalty, the penalty to
_______________

39 674 Phil. 626, 635; 658 SCRA 842, 850 (2011).
40 People v. Evangelio, 672 Phil. 229, 248-249; 656 SCRA 579, 599
(2011).
41 Revised Penal Code, Art. 63, par. (1), provides, in part, that when
the penalty consists of two (2) indivisible penalties and is attended by one
or more aggravating circumstances, the greater penalty shall be applied,
and in this case, the death penalty shall be imposed.

357
VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 357

People vs. Jugueta
be imposed on appellant should be reclusion perpetua for

each of the two (2) counts of murder without eligibility for
parole. With regard to the four (4) counts of attempted
murder, the penalty prescribed for each count is prisión
mayor. With one ordinary aggravating circumstance, the
penalty should be imposed in its maximum period.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum
penalty should be from ten (10) years and one (1) day to
twelve years of prisión mayor, while the minimum shall be
taken from the penalty next lower in degree, i.e., prisión
correccional, in any of its periods, or anywhere from six (6)
months and one (1) day to six (6) years. This Court finds it
apt to impose on appellant the indeterminate penalty of
four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prisión
correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years and one (1) day
of prisión mayor, as minimum, for each of the four (4)
counts of attempted murder.
Anent the award of damages, the Court deems it proper
to address the matter in detail as regards criminal cases
where the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua to death.
Generally, in these types of criminal cases, there are three
kinds of damages awarded by the Court; namely: civil
indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages. Likewise,
actual damages may be awarded or temperate damages in
some instances.
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.42 This award stems from Article 100 of the RPC which
states, “Every person criminally liable for a felony is also
civilly liable.”
_______________
42 People v. Combate, 653 Phil. 487, 504; 638 SCRA 797, 811 (2010),
citing People v. Victor, 354 Phil. 195, 209; 292 SCRA 186, 200 (1998).

358

People vs. Jugueta
It is to be noted that civil indemnity is, technically, not a

penalty or a fine; hence, it can be increased by the Court
when appropriate.43 Article 2206 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 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:
(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss
of the earning capacity of the deceased, and the
indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter;
such indemnity shall in every case be assessed
and awarded by the court, unless the deceased
on account of permanent physical disability not
caused by the defendant, had no earning
capacity at the time of his death;
(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.

In our jurisdiction, civil indemnity is awarded to the
offended party as a kind of monetary restitution or
compensation to the victim for the damage or infraction
that was done to the latter by the accused, which in a sense
only covers the
_______________
43 Corpuz v. People, G.R. No. 180016, April 29, 2014, 724 SCRA 1, 57.

359
VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 359

People vs. Jugueta
civil aspect. Precisely, it is civil indemnity. Thus, in a

crime where a person dies, in addition to the penalty of
imprisonment imposed to the offender, the accused is also
ordered to pay the victim a sum of money as restitution.
Also, it is apparent from Article 2206 that the law only
imposes a minimum amount for awards of civil indemnity,
which is P3,000.00. The law did not provide for a ceiling.
Thus, although the minimum amount for the award cannot
be changed, increasing the amount awarded as civil
indemnity can be validly modified and increased when the
present circumstance warrants it.44
The second type of damages the Court awards are moral
damages, which are also compensatory in nature. Del
Mundo v. Court of Appeals45 expounded on 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 221946 and
Article 222047 of the Civil Code. x x x.
_______________
44 Id., at pp. 58-59.

45 G.R. No. 104576, January 20, 1995, 240 SCRA 348, 356-357.
46 Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and

analogous cases:
(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;

360

People vs. Jugueta
Similarly, in American jurisprudence, moral damages

are treated as “compensatory damages awarded for mental
pain and suffering or mental anguish resulting from a
wrong.”48 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
assailant’s 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.”49
The rationale for awarding moral damages has been
explained in Lambert v. Heirs of Ray 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.”50
_______________
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape or other lascivious acts;

(4) Adultery or concubinage;
(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
(6) Illegal search;
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
(8) Malicious prosecution;
(9) Acts mentioned in Article 309;
(10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32,
34, and 35.
The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped or abused, referred
to in No. 3 of this article, may also recover moral damages.
The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brother and sisters may
bring the action mentioned in No. 9 of this article, in the order named.
47 Art. 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for
awarding moral damages if the court should find that, under the
circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule applies to
breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad

faith.
48 Bagumbayan Corp. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, No. L-66274,
September 30, 1984, 132 SCRA 441, 446.
49 6A C.J.S. Assault §68.
50 G.R. No. 160709, February 23, 2005, 452 SCRA 285, 296.

361
VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 361

People vs. Jugueta
Corollarily, moral damages under Article 222051 of the

Civil Code also does not fix the amount of damages that
can be awarded. It is discretionary upon the court,
depending on the mental anguish or the suffering of the
private offended party. The amount of moral damages can,
in relation to civil indemnity, be adjusted so long as it does
not exceed the award of civil indemnity.52
Finally, the Civil Code of the Philippines provides, in
respect to exemplary damages, thus:

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.

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,53 the
theory being that there should be
_______________
51 Supra note 47.

52 Supra note 43 at p. 59.
53 People v. Dalisay, 620 Phil. 831, 844; 605 SCRA 807, 820-821
(2009), citing People v. Catubig, 416 Phil. 102, 119; 363 SCRA 621, 634-
635 (2001), citing American Cent. Corp. v. Stevens Van Lines,

362

People vs. Jugueta
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 fraud54 — 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.55
The term aggravating circumstances used by the Civil
Code, the law not having specified otherwise, is to be
understood in its broad or generic sense. The commission of
an offense has a two-pronged effect, one on the public as it
breaches the social order and the other upon the private
victim as it causes personal sufferings, each of which is
addressed by, respectively, the prescription of heavier
punishment for the accused and by an award of additional
damages to the victim. The increase of the penalty or a
shift to a graver felony underscores the exacerbation of the
offense by the attendance of aggravating circumstances,
whether ordinary or qualifying, in its commission. 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
_______________
Inc., 103 Mich App 507, 303 NW2d 234; Morris v. Duncan, 126 Ga 467,
54 SE 1045; Faircloth v. Greiner, 174 Ga app 845, 332 SE 2d 905; §731, 22
Am. Jur. 2d, p. 784; American Surety Co. v. Gold, 375 F 2d 523, 20 ALR 3d
335; Erwin v. Michigan, 188 Ark 658, 67 SW 2d 592.
54 §762, 22 Am. Jur. 2d pp. 817-818.
55 §733, 22 Am. Jur. 2d, p. 785; Symposium: Punitive Damages, 56 So
Cal LR 1, November 1982.

363
VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 363

People vs. Jugueta
ordinary or qualifying nature of an aggravating

circumstance is a distinction that should only be of
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.56
The reason is fairly obvious as to why the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure57 requires aggravating
circumstances, whether ordinary or qualifying, to be stated
in the complaint or information. It is in order not to
trample on the constitutional right of an accused to be
informed of the nature of the alleged offense that he or she
has committed. A criminal complaint or information should
basically contain the elements of the crime, as well as its
qualifying and ordinary aggravating circumstances, for the
court to effectively determine the proper penalty it should
impose. This, however, is not similar in the recovery of civil
liability. In the civil aspect, the presence of an aggravating
circumstance, even if not alleged in
_______________
56 People v. Catubig, supra note 53 at pp. 119-120; p. 635.

57 Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 8. Designation of the offense.—The complaint or information
shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the
acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying
and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the
offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute
punishing it. (Emphasis supplied)
Sec. 9. Cause of the accusations.—The acts or omissions complained

of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating
circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language
and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms
sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know
what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and
aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce
judgment. (Emphasis supplied)

364

People vs. Jugueta
the information but proven during trial would entitle the

victim to an award of exemplary damages.
Being corrective in nature, exemplary damages,
therefore, can be awarded, not only due to 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,58 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,59 the Court awarded
exemplary damages on account of the moral corruption,
perversity and wickedness of the accused in sexually
assaulting a pregnant married woman. In People v.
Cañada,60 People v. Neverio61 and People v. Layco, Sr.,62
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.
Existing jurisprudence pegs the award of exemplary
damages at P30,000.00,63 despite the lack of any
aggravating circumstance. The Court finds it proper to
increase the amount to P50,000.00 in order to deter similar
conduct.
If, however, the penalty for the crime committed is
death, which cannot be imposed because of the provisions
of RA No.
_______________
58 G.R. Nos. 82223-24, November 13, 1992, 215 SCRA 613, 634.
59 322 Phil. 551; 252 SCRA 507 (1996).
60 617 Phil. 587; 602 SCRA 378 (2009).
61 613 Phil. 507; 597 SCRA 149 (2009).
62 605 Phil. 877; 587 SCRA 883 (2009).
63 People v. Abellera, 553 Phil. 307; 526 SCRA 329 (2007).

365
VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 365

People vs. Jugueta
9346, prevailing jurisprudence64 sets the amount of

P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Before awarding any of the above mentioned damages,
the Court, however, must first consider the penalty
imposed by law. Under RA No. 7659 or An Act to Impose
the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending
for that Purpose the Revised Penal Laws, and for Other
Purposes, certain crimes under the RPC and special penal
laws were amended to impose the death penalty under
certain circumstances.65 Under the same law, the following
crimes are punishable by reclusion perpetua: piracy in
general,66 mutiny on the high seas,67 and simple rape.68
For the following crimes, RA No. 7659 has imposed the
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death: qualified piracy;69
qualified bribery under certain circum-
_______________
64 People v. Gambao, G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013, 706 SCRA

508, 533.
65 People v. Combate, supra note 42 at p. 509; 816.
66 Art. 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas or in
Philippine waters.—The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be inflicted
upon any person who, on the high seas, or in Philippine waters, shall
attack or seize a vessel or, not being a member of its complement nor a
passenger, shall seize the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its
equipment or passengers. The same penalty shall be inflicted in case of
mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine waters.
67 Id.
68 Art. 335. When and how rape is committed.—Rape is committed
by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:
1. By using force or intimidation;
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
and
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.
The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion temporal. x x x
69 Art. 123. Qualified piracy.—The penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death shall be imposed upon those who commit any of the

366

People vs. Jugueta
stances;70 parricide;71 murder;72 infanticide, except when

committed by the mother of the child for the purpose of
concealing
_______________
crimes referred to in the preceding article, under any of the following

circumstances:
1. Whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the
same;
2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means
of saving themselves; or
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical
injuries or rape.
70 Art. 211-A. Qualified Bribery.—If any public officer is entrusted
with law enforcement and he refrains from arresting or prosecuting an
offender who has committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua
and/or death in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present, he
shall suffer the penalty for the offense which was not prosecuted. x x x
71 Art. 246. Parricide.—Any person who shall kill his father, mother,
or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or
descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty of parricide and shall be
punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.
72 Art. 248. Murder.—Any person who, not falling within the
provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and
shall be punished by reclusion perpetua, to death if committed with any of
the following attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid
of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or
persons to insure or afford impunity.
2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise.
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck,

stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an
airship, or by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means
involving great waste and ruin.
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding
paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone,
epidemic or other public calamity.
5. With evident premeditation.
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the
suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

367
VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 367

People vs. Jugueta
her dishonor or either of the maternal grandparents for

the same purpose;73 kidnapping and serious illegal
detention under certain circumstances;74 robbery with
violence against or intimidation of persons under certain
circumstances;75 destructive arson, except when death
results as a consequence of the commission of any of the
acts penalized under the article;76 attempted or frustrated
rape, when a homicide is com-
_______________
73 Art. 255. Infanticide.—The penalty provided for parricide in

Article 246 and for murder in Article 248 shall be imposed upon any
person who shall kill any child less than three days of age.
74 Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention.—Any private
individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner
deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death:
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three
days.
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the
person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been
made.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when
the accused is any of the parents, female or a public officer.
xxxx
75 Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons
— Penalties.—Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence
against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:

1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on
occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed,
or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional
mutilation or arson.
x x x x.
76 Art. 320. Destructive Arson.—The penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death shall be imposed upon any person who shall burn:
1. One (1) or more buildings or edifices, consequent to one single act of
burning, or as a result of simultaneous burnings, committed on several or
different occasions.
2. Any building of public or private ownership, devoted to the public
in general or where people usually gather or congregate for a definite
purpose such as, but not limited to, official governmental

368

People vs. Jugueta
mitted by reason or on occasion thereof; plunder;77 and

car-
_______________
function or business, private transaction, commerce, trade, workshop,

meetings and conferences, or merely incidental to a definite purpose such
as but not limited to hotels, motels, transient dwellings, public
conveyances or stops or terminals, regardless of whether the offender had
knowledge that there are persons in said building or edifice at the time it
is set on fire and regardless also of whether the building is actually
inhabited or not.
3. Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel, airship or airplane, devoted
to transportation or conveyance, or for public use, entertainment or
leisure.
4. Any building, factory, warehouse installation and any
appurtenances thereto, which are devoted to the service of public utilities.
5. Any building the burning of which is for the purpose of concealing
or destroying evidence of another violation of law, or for the purpose of
concealing bankruptcy or defrauding creditors or to collect from insurance.
Irrespective of the application of the above enumerated qualifying
circumstances, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall likewise be
imposed when the arson is perpetrated or committed by two (2) or more
persons or by a group of persons, regardless of whether their purpose is
merely to burn or destroy the building or the burning merely constitutes

an overt act in the commission or another violation of law.
The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall also be imposed upon
any person who shall burn:
1. Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or military powder or fireworks
factory, ordnance, storehouse, archives or general museum of the
Government.
2. In an inhabited place, any storehouse or factory of inflammable or
explosive materials. x x x x
77 Republic Act No. 7080 (1991), Sec. 2. Definition of the Crime of
Plunder; Penalties.—Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance
with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity,
business associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates
or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt
criminal acts as described in Section 1(d) hereof in the aggregate amount
or total value of at least Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00) shall be
guilty of the crime of plunder and

369
VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 369

People vs. Jugueta
napping, when the driver or occupant of the carnapped

motor vehicle is killed or raped in the course of the
commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof.78
Finally, RA No. 7659 imposes the death penalty on the
following crimes:
(a) In qualified bribery, when it is the public officer
who asks or demands the gift or present.
(b) In kidnapping and serious illegal detention: (i)
when the kidnapping or detention was committed for the
purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other
person; (ii) when the victim is killed or dies as a
consequence of the detention; (iii) when the victim is raped,
subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts.
(c) In destructive arson, when as a consequence of the
commission of any of the acts penalized under Article 320,
death results.
(d) In rape: (i) when by reason or on occasion of the
rape, the victim becomes insane or homicide is committed;
(ii) when committed with any of the following attendant
circumstances: (1) when the victim is under eighteen (18)
years of age and
_______________
shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Any person who

participated with the said public officer in the commission of an offense
contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished for such
offense. In the imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the
attendance of mitigating and extenuating circumstances, as provided by
the Revised Penal Code, shall be considered by the court. The court shall
declare any and all ill-gotten wealth and their interests and other incomes
and assets including the properties and shares of stocks derived from the
deposit or investment thereof forfeited in favor of the State.
78 Republic Act No. 6539 (1972), Sec. 14. Penalty for Carnapping.—
Any person who is found guilty of carnapping, as this term is defined in
Section Two of this Act, shall, irrespective of the value of motor vehicle
taken, be punished by x x x the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death
shall be imposed when the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped
motor vehicle is killed or raped in the course of the commission of the
carnapping or on the occasion thereof.

370

People vs. Jugueta
the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent,

guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the
third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent
of the victim; (2) when the victim is under the custody of
the police or military authorities; (3) when the rape is
committed in full view of the husband, parent, any of the
children or other relatives within the third degree of
consanguinity; (4) when the victim is a religious or a child
below seven years old; (5) when the offender knows that he
is afflicted with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
(AIDS) disease; (6) when committed by any member of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines or the Philippine National
Police or any law enforcement agency; and (7) when by
reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has
suffered permanent physical mutilation.
From these heinous crimes, where the imposable
penalties consist of two (2) indivisible penalties or single
indivisible penalty, all of them must be taken in relation to
Article 63 of the RPC, which provides:

Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible

penalties.—In all cases in which the law prescribes a
single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the
courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstances that may have attended the
commission of the deed.

In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty
composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules
shall be observed in the application thereof:

1. when in the commission of the deed there is
present only one aggravating circumstance, the
greater penalty shall be applied.
2. when there are neither mitigating nor
aggravating circumstances in the commission of the
deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
3. when the commission of the act is attended by
some mitigating circumstance and there is no
aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be
applied.

371
VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 371

People vs. Jugueta
4. when both mitigating and aggravating

circumstances attended the commission of the act, the
courts shall reasonably allow them to offset one
another in consideration of their number and
importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in
accordance with the preceding rules, according to the
result of such compensation. (Revised Penal Code,
Art. 63)

Thus, in order to impose the proper penalty, especially
in cases of indivisible penalties, the court has the duty to
ascertain the presence of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstances. Accordingly, in crimes where the imposable
penalty is reclusion perpetua to death, the court can impose
either reclusion perpetua or death, depending on the
mitigating or aggravating circumstances present.
But with the enactment of RA No. 9346 or An Act
Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the
Philippines, the imposition of death penalty is now
prohibited. It provides that in lieu of the death penalty, the

penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed when the
law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the
penalties of the RPC.79
As a result, the death penalty can no longer be imposed.
Instead, they have to impose reclusion perpetua. Despite
this, the principal consideration for the award of damages,
following the ruling in People v. Salome80 and People v.
Quiachon,81 is “the penalty provided by law or imposable
for the offense because of its heinousness, not the public
penalty actually imposed on the offender.”82
When the circumstances surrounding the crime would
justify the imposition of the death penalty were it not for
RA No. 9346, the Court has ruled, as early as July 9, 1998
in People v.
_______________
79 RA No. 9346, Sec. 2.

80 532 Phil. 368, 385; 500 SCRA 659, 675-676 (2006).
81 532 Phil. 414, 428; 500 SCRA 704, 717-718 (2006).
82 See People v. Sarcia, 615 Phil. 97; 599 SCRA 20 (2009).

372

People vs. Jugueta
Victor,83 that the award of civil indemnity for the crime

of rape when punishable by death should be P75,000.00.
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.”84 Such reasoning also applies to
all heinous crimes found in RA No. 659. The amount was
later increased to P100,000.00.85
In addition to this, the Court likewise awards moral
damages. In People v. Arizapa,86 P50,000.00 was awarded
as moral damages without need of pleading or proving
them, for in rape cases, it is recognized that the victim’s
injury is concomitant with and necessarily results from the
odious crime of rape to warrant per se the award of moral
damages.87 Subsequently, the amount was increased to
P75,000.00 in People v. Soriano88 and P100,000.00 in

People v. Gambao.89
Essentially, despite the fact that the death penalty
cannot be imposed because of RA No. 9346, the imposable
penalty as provided by the law for the crime, such as those
found in RA No. 7569, must be used as the basis for
awarding damages and not the actual penalty imposed.
Again, for crimes where the imposable penalty is death
in view of the attendance of an ordinary aggravating
circumstance but due to the prohibition to impose the
death penalty, the actual penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua, the latest jurisprudence90 pegs the amount of
P100,000.00 as civil indemnity and P100,000.00 as moral
damages. For the qualify-
_______________
83 People v. Victor, supra note 42.

84 Id., at p. 210; pp. 200-201.
85 Supra note 64.
86 384 Phil. 766; 328 SCRA 214 (2000).
87 Id.
88 436 Phil. 719; 383 SCRA 676 (2002).
89 Supra note 64.
90 Id.

373
VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 373

People vs. Jugueta
ing aggravating circumstance and/or the ordinary

aggravating circumstances present, the amount of
P100,000.00 is awarded as exemplary damages aside from
civil indemnity and moral damages. Regardless of the
attendance of qualifying aggravating circumstance, the
exemplary damages shall be fixed at P100,000.00. “[T]his 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 x x x.”91
When the circumstances surrounding the crime call for
the imposition of reclusion perpetua only, there being no
ordinary aggravating circumstance, the Court rules that
the proper amounts should be P75,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and P75,000.00

exemplary damages, regardless of the number of qualifying
aggravating circumstances present.
When it comes to compound and complex crimes,
although the single act done by the offender caused several
crimes, the fact that those were the result of a single
design, the amount of civil indemnity and moral damages
will depend on the penalty and the number of victims. For
each of the victims, the heirs should be properly
compensated. If it is multiple murder without any ordinary
aggravating circumstance but merely a qualifying
aggravating circumstance, but the penalty imposed is
death because of Art. 48 of the RPC wherein the maximum
penalty shall be imposed,92 then, for every victim who dies,
the heirs shall be indemnified with P100,000.00
_______________
91 People v. Victor, supra note 42 at p. 210; pp. 200-201.

92 ARTICLE 48. Penalty for complex crimes.—When a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is
a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most
serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum
period.

374

People vs. Jugueta
as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages and

P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.
In case of a special complex crime, which is different
from a complex crime under Article 48 of the RPC, the
following doctrines are noteworthy:

In People of the Philippines v. Conrado Laog,93 this
Court ruled that special complex crime, or more
properly, a composite crime, has its own definition
and special penalty in the Revised Penal Code, as
amended. Justice Regalado, in his Separate Opinion
in the case of People v. Barros,94 explained that
composite crimes are “neither of the same legal basis
as nor subject to the rules on complex crimes in
Article 48 [of the Revised Penal Code], since they do
not consist of a single act giving rise to two or more

grave or less grave felonies [compound crimes] nor do
they involve an offense being a necessary means to
commit another [complex crime proper]. However,
just like the regular complex crimes and the present
case of aggravated illegal possession of firearms, only
a single penalty is imposed for each of such composite
crimes although composed of two or more offenses.”95
In People v. De Leon,96 we expounded on the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide, as follows:
In robbery with homicide, the original criminal
design of the malefactor is to commit robbery, with
homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of
the robbery. The intent to commit robbery must
precede the taking of human life. The homicide may
take place before, during or after the robbery. It is
only the result obtained, without reference or
distinction as to the circumstances, causes or modes
or persons intervening in the commission
_______________
93 674 Phil. 444; 658 SCRA 654 (2011).

94 315 Phil. 314; 245 SCRA 312 (1995).
95 Id., at p. 338; p. 329.
96 608 Phil. 701; 591 SCRA 178 (2009).

375
VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 375

People vs. Jugueta
of the crime that has to be taken into

consideration. There is no such felony of robbery with
homicide through reckless imprudence or simple
negligence. The constitutive elements of the crime,
namely, robbery with homicide, must be
consummated.
It is immaterial that the death would supervene by
mere accident; or that the victim of homicide is other
than the victim of robbery, or that two or more
persons are killed, or that aside from the homicide,
rape, intentional mutilation, or usurpation of
authority, is committed by reason or on the occasion
of the crime. Likewise immaterial is the fact that the
victim of homicide is one of the robbers; the felony

would still be robbery with homicide. Once a homicide
is committed by or on the occasion of the robbery, the
felony committed is robbery with homicide. All the
felonies committed by reason of or on the occasion of
the robbery are integrated into one and indivisible
felony of robbery with homicide. The word “homicide”
is used in its generic sense. Homicide, thus, includes
murder, parricide, and infanticide.97
In the special complex crime of rape with homicide,
the term “homicide” is to be understood in its generic
sense, and includes murder and slight physical
injuries committed by reason or on occasion of the
rape.98 Hence, even if any or all of the circumstances
(treachery, abuse of superior strength and evident
premeditation) alleged in the information have been
duly established by the
_______________
97 Id., at pp. 716-717; pp. 192-193, citing People v. Salazar, 342 Phil.
745, 765; 277 SCRA 67, 85 (1997); People v. Abuyen, G.R. No. 77285,
September 4, 1992, 213 SCRA 569, 582; People v. Ponciano, G.R. No.
86453, December 5, 1991, 204 SCRA 627, 638-639 and People v.
Mangulabnan, 99 Phil. 992, 999 (1956).
98 People v. Nanas, 415 Phil. 683; 363 SCRA 452 (2001), citing People
v. Penillos, G.R. No. 65673, January 30, 1992, 205 SCRA 546, 564 and
People v. Sequiño, 332 Phil. 90; 264 SCRA 79 (1996).

376

People vs. Jugueta
prosecution, the same would not qualify the killing

to murder and the crime committed by appellant is
still rape with homicide. As in the case of robbery
with homicide, the aggravating circumstance of
treachery is to be considered as a generic aggravating
circumstance only. Thus we ruled in People v.
Macabales:99
Finally, appellants contend that the trial court
erred in concluding that the aggravating
circumstance of treachery is present. They aver that
treachery applies to crimes against persons and not to
crimes against property. However, we find that the

trial court in this case correctly characterized
treachery as a generic aggravating, rather than
qualifying, circumstance. Miguel was rendered
helpless by appellants in defending himself when his
arms were held by two of the attackers before he was
stabbed with a knife by appellant Macabales, as their
other companions surrounded them. In People v.
Salvatierra, we ruled that when alevosia (treachery)
obtains in the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide, such treachery is to be regarded as a
generic aggravating circumstance. Robbery with
homicide is a composite crime with its own definition
and special penalty in the Revised Penal Code. There
is no special complex crime of robbery with murder
under the Revised Penal Code. Here, treachery forms
part of the circumstances proven concerning the
actual commission of the complex crime. Logically it
could not qualify the homicide to murder but, as
generic aggravating circumstance, it helps determine
the penalty to be imposed.100
_______________
99 400 Phil. 1221; 347 SCRA 429 (2000).

100 Id., at pp. 1236-1237; p. 442, citing People v. Vivas, G.R. No.
100914, May 6, 1994, 232 SCRA 238, 242.

377
VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 377

People vs. Jugueta
Applying the above discussion on special complex

crimes, if the penalty is death but it cannot be imposed due
to RA No. 9346 and what is actually imposed is the penalty
of reclusion perpetua, the civil indemnity and moral
damages will be P100,000.00 each, and another
P100,000.00 as exemplary damages in view of the
heinousness of the crime and to set an example. If there is
another composite crime included in a special complex
crime and the penalty imposed is death, an additional
P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 moral
damages and P100,000.00 exemplary damages shall be
awarded for each composite crime committed.
For example, in case of Robbery with Homicide101

wherein three (3) people died as a consequence of the
crime, the heirs
_______________
101 Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of

persons; Penalties.—Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence
against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on
occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed.
2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion
perpetua when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or
intentional mutilation, or if by reason or on occasion of such robbery, any
of the physical injuries penalized in subdivision 1 of Article 263 shall have
been inflicted; Provided, however, that when the robbery accompanied
with rape is committed with a use of a deadly weapon or by two or more
persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death (as amended by
PD No. 767).
3. The penalty of reclusion temporal, when by reason or on occasion of
the robbery, any of the physical injuries penalized in subdivision 2 of the
article mentioned in the next preceding paragraph, shall have been
inflicted.
4. The penalty of prisión mayor in its maximum period to reclusion
temporal in its medium period, if the violence or intimidation employed in
the commission of the robbery shall have been carried to a degree clearly
unnecessary for the commission of the crime, or when the course of its
execution, the offender shall have inflicted upon any person not
responsible for its commission any of the physi-

378

People vs. Jugueta
of the victims shall be entitled to the award of damages

as discussed earlier. This is true, however, only if those
who were killed were the victims of the robbery or mere
bystanders and not when those who died were the
perpetrators or robbers themselves because the crime of
robbery with homicide may still be committed even if one of
the robbers dies.102 This is also applicable in robbery with
rape where there is more than one victim of rape.
In awarding civil indemnity and moral damages, it is
also important to determine the stage in which the crime
was committed and proven during the trial. Article 6 of the

RPC provides:

Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted
felonies.—Consummated felonies, as well as those
which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.
A felony is consummated when all the elements
necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
present; and it is frustrated when an offender
performs all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender commences
the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and
does not perform all the acts of execution which
should produce the felony by reason of some cause or
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
_______________
cal injuries covered by subdivisions 3 and 4 of said Article 263 (as

amended by R.A. No. 18).
5. The penalty of prisión correccional in its maximum period to
prisión mayor in its medium period in other cases (as amended by R.A.
No. 18).
102 People v. De Leon, supra note 96; People v. Ebet, 649 Phil. 181; 634
SCRA 689 (2010).

379
VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 379

People vs. Jugueta
As discussed earlier, when the crime proven is

consummated and the penalty imposed is death but
reduced to reclusion perpetua because of RA No. 9346, the
civil indemnity and moral damages that should be awarded
will each be P100,000.00 and another P100,000.00 for
exemplary damages or when the circumstances of the crime
call for the imposition of reclusion perpetua only, the civil
indemnity and moral damages should be P75,000.00 each,
as well as exemplary damages in the amount of P75,000.00.
If, however, the crime proven is in its frustrated stage, the
civil indemnity and moral damages that should be awarded
will each be P50,000.00, and an award of P25,000.00 civil

indemnity and P25,000.00 moral damages when the crime
proven is in its attempted stage. The difference in the
amounts awarded for the stages is mainly due to the
disparity in the outcome of the crime committed, in the
same way that the imposable penalty varies for each stage
of the crime. The said amounts of civil indemnity and
moral damages awarded in cases of felonies in their
frustrated or attempted stages shall be the bases when the
crimes committed constitute complex crime under Article
48 of the RPC. For example, in a crime of murder with
attempted murder, the amount of civil indemnity, moral
damages and exemplary damages is P100,000.00 each,
while in the attempted murder, the civil indemnity, moral
damages and exemplary damages is P25,000.00 each.
In a special complex crime, like robbery with homicide,
if, aside from homicide, several victims (except the robbers)
sustained injuries, they shall likewise be indemnified. It
must be remembered that in a special complex crime,
unlike in a complex crime, the component crimes have no
attempted or frustrated stages because the intention of the
offender/s is to commit the principal crime which is to rob
but in the process of committing the said crime, another
crime is committed. For example, if on the occasion of a
robbery with homicide, other victims sustained injuries,
regardless of the severity, the crime committed is still
robbery with homicide as the injuries become part of the
crime, “Homicide,” in the special complex

380

People vs. Jugueta
crime of robbery with homicide, is understood in its

generic sense and now forms part of the essential element
of robbery,103 which is the use of violence or the use of force
upon anything. Hence, the nature and severity of the
injuries sustained by the victims must still be determined
for the purpose of awarding civil indemnity and damages.
If a victim suffered mortal wounds and could have died if
not for a timely medical intervention, the victim should be
awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary
damages equivalent to the damages awarded in a
frustrated stage, and if a victim suffered injuries that are
not fatal, an award of civil indemnity, moral damages and
exemplary damages should likewise be awarded equivalent

to the damages awarded in an attempted stage.
In other crimes that resulted in the death of a victim
and the penalty consists of divisible penalties, like
homicide, death under tumultuous affray, reckless
imprudence resulting to homicide, the civil indemnity
awarded to the heirs of the victim shall be P50,000.00 and
P50,000.00 moral damages without exemplary damages
being awarded. However, an award of P50,000.00
exemplary damages in a crime of homicide shall be added if
there is an aggravating circumstance present that has been
proven but not alleged in the information.
Aside from those discussed earlier, the Court also
awards temperate damages in certain cases. The award of
P25,000.00 as temperate damages in homicide or murder
cases is proper when no evidence of burial and funeral
expenses is presented
_______________
103 Revised Penal Code, Art. 293. Who are guilty of robbery.—Any
person who, with intent to gain, shall take any personal property
belonging to another, by means of violence against or intimidation of any
person, or using force upon anything, shall be guilty of robbery.

381
VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 381

People vs. Jugueta
in the trial court.104 Under Article 2224 of the Civil

Code, temperate damages may be recovered, as it cannot be
denied that the heirs of the victims suffered pecuniary loss
although the exact amount was not proved.105 In this case,
the Court now increases the amount to be awarded as
temperate damages to P50,000.00.
In the case at bar, the crimes were aggravated by
dwelling, and the murders committed were further made
atrocious by the fact that the victims are innocent,
defenseless minors — one is a mere 3 1/2-year-old toddler,
and the other a 13-year-old girl. The increase in the
amount of awards for damages is befitting to show not only
the Court’s, but all of society’s outrage over such crimes
and wastage of lives.
In summary:
I. For those crimes106 like, Murder,107 Parricide,108

Serious Intentional Mutilation,109 Infanticide,110 and other
crimes involving death of a victim where the penalty
consists of indivisible penalties:
_______________
104 People v. Molina, 600 Phil. 565, 590; 581 SCRA 519, 542 (2009),
citing People v. Dacillo, 471 Phil. 497, 510; 427 SCRA 528, 538 (2004).
105 Id., citing People v. Surongon, 554 Phil. 448, 458; 527 SCRA 577,
588 (2007).
106 Article 255, RTC.
110 Note that if the crime penalized in Article 255 [Infanticide] was
committed by the mother of the child for the purpose of concealing her
dishonor, she shall suffer the penalty of prisión mayor in its medium and
maximum periods, and if said crime was committed for the same purpose
by the maternal grandparents or either of them, the penalty shall be
reclusion temporal (as amended by R.A. No. 7659). Hence, the damages to
be awarded should be the same as in Roman Numeral Number Five (V) of
the summary, i.e., in other crimes that result in the death of the victim
and the penalty consists of divisible, because the prescribed penalties are
divisible.

382

People vs. Jugueta
1.1 Where the penalty imposed is death but reduced to

reclusion perpetua because of RA No. 9346:
a. Civil indemnity – P100,000.00
b. Moral damages – P100,000.00
c. Exemplary damages – P100,000.00
1.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated:
a. Frustrated:
i. Civil indemnity – P75,000.00
ii. Moral damages – P75,000.00
iii. Exemplary damages – P75,000.00
b. Attempted:
2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua,

other than the above mentioned:
2.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated:
a. Frustrated:
b. Attempted:
II. For Simple Rape/Qualified Rape:
1.1 Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to

383
VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 383

People vs. Jugueta
c. Exemplary damages111 – P100,000.00

1.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated
but merely attempted:112
2.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated,
but merely attempted:
III. For Complex crimes under Article 48 of the
Revised Penal Code where death, injuries, or sexual abuse
results, the civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary
damages will depend on the penalty, extent of violence and
sexual abuse; and the number of victims where the penalty

_______________
111 Exemplary damages in rape cases are awarded for the inherent
bestiality of the act committed even if no aggravating circumstance
attended the commission of the crime.
112 There is no frustrated stage in the crime of rape.

384

People vs. Jugueta

The above Rules apply to every victim who dies as a
result of the crime committed. In other complex crimes
where death does not result, like in Forcible Abduction
with Rape, the civil indemnity, moral and exemplary
damages depend on the prescribed penalty and the penalty
imposed, as the case may be.
IV. For Special Complex Crimes like Robbery with
Homicide,113 Robbery with Rape,114 Robbery with
Intentional Mutilation,115 Robbery with Arson,116 Rape
with Homicide,117 Kidnapping with Murder,118 Carnapping
with Homicide119 or Carnapping with Rape,120 Highway
Robbery with Homicide,121 Qualified Piracy,122 Arson with
Homicide,123 Hazing with Death, Rape, Sodomy or
Mutilation124 and other crimes with death, injuries, and
sexual abuse as the composite crimes, where the penalty
_______________
113 Art. 294(1), RPC.

114 Id.
115 Id.
116 Id.
117 Art. 266-A, RPC as amended by RA No. 8353.
118 Art. 267, RPC.
119 RA No. 6539.
120 Id.
121 P.D. No. 532.
122 Art. 123, RPC.
123 Art. 320, RPC.
124 RA No. 8049.

385
VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 385

People vs. Jugueta
In Robbery with Intentional Mutilation, the amount of

damages is the same as the above if the penalty imposed is
Death but reduced to reclusion perpetua although death did
not occur.
1.2 For the victims who suffered mortal/fatal
wounds125 and could have died if not for a timely medical
intervention, the following shall be awarded:
1.3 For the victims who suffered non-mortal/nonfatal
injuries:
In Robbery with Intentional Mutilation, the amount of
damages is the same as the above if the penalty imposed is
reclusion perpetua.
2.2 For the victims who suffered mortal/fatal wounds

and could have died if not for a timely medical
intervention, the following shall be awarded:
_______________
125 This is so because there are no stages of the component crime in

special complex crimes but the victims must be compensated as if the
component crimes were separately committed.

386

People vs. Jugueta
2.3 For the victims who suffered non-mortal/nonfatal

injuries:
In Robbery with Physical Injuries,126 the amount of
damages shall likewise be dependent on the
nature/severity of the wounds sustained, whether fatal or
nonfatal.
The above Rules do not apply if in the crime of Robbery
with Homicide, the robber/s or perpetrator/s are themselves
killed or injured in the incident.
Where the component crime is rape, the above Rules
shall likewise apply, and that for every additional rape
committed, whether against the same victim or other
victims, the victims shall be entitled to the same damages
unless the other crimes of rape are treated as separate
crimes, in which case, the damages awarded to simple
rape/qualified rape shall apply.
V. In other crimes that result in the death of a victim
and the penalty consists of divisible penalties, i.e.,
Homicide, Death under Tumultuous Affray, Infanticide to
conceal the dishonour of the offender,127 Reckless
Imprudence Resulting to Homicide, Duel, Intentional
Abortion and Unintentional Abortion, etc.:
1.1 Where the crime was consummated:
_______________
126 Art. 294(3), RPC.

127 If the crime of infanticide in Art. 255 of the RPC was committed by
the mother of the child or by the maternal grandparent/s in order to
conceal her dishonor, the penalties against them are divisible, i.e., prisión
mayor in its medium and maximum periods, and reclusion temporal,
respectively.

387
VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 387

People vs. Jugueta
1.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated,

except those crimes where there are no stages, i.e.,
Reckless Imprudence and Death under tumultuous affray:
a. Frustrated:
b. Attempted:
If an aggravating circumstance was proven during the
trial, even if not alleged in the Information,128 in addition
to the above mentioned amounts as civil indemnity and
moral damages, the amount of P50,000.00 exemplary
damages for consummated; P30,000.00 for frustrated; and
P20,000.00 for attempted, shall be awarded.
VI. A. In the crime of Rebellion where the imposable
penalty is reclusion perpetua and death occurs in the course
of the rebellion, the heirs of those who died are entitled to
the following:129
B. For the victims who suffered mortal/fatal wounds in
the course of the rebellion and could have died if not for a
timely medical intervention, the following shall be
awarded:
_______________
128 See People v. Catubig, supra note 53.

129 Although the penalty prescribed by law is reclusion perpetua, the
damages awarded should be the same as those where the penalty is death
due to the gravity of the offense and the manner of committing the same.
130 In order to deter the commission of the crime of rebellion and serve
as an example, exemplary damages should be awarded.

388

People vs. Jugueta

C. For the victims who suffered non-mortal/nonfatal
injuries:
VII. In all of the above instances, when no
documentary evidence of burial or funeral expenses is
presented in court, the amount of P50,000.00 as temperate
damages shall be awarded.
To reiterate, Article 2206 of the Civil Code provides that
the minimum amount for awards of civil indemnity is
P3,000.00, but does not provide for a ceiling. Thus,
although the minimum amount cannot be changed,
increasing the amount awarded as civil indemnity can be
validly modified and increased when the present
circumstance warrants it.131
Prescinding from the foregoing, for the two (2) counts of
murder, attended by the ordinary aggravating
circumstance of dwelling, appellant should be ordered to
pay the heirs of the victims the following damages: (1)
P100,000.00 as civil indemnity for each of the two children
who died; (2) P100,000.00 as moral damages for each of the
two victims; (3) another P100,000.00 as exemplary
damages for each of the two victims; and (4) temperate
damages in the amount of P50,000.00 for each of the two
deceased. For the four (4) counts of Attempted Murder,
appellant should pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P50,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as exemplary
damages for each of the four victims. In addition, the civil
indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages and
temperate damages payable by the appellant are subject to

interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the
finality of this decision until fully paid.132
_______________

132 See Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013,
703 SCRA 439, 459.

389
VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 389

People vs. Jugueta
Lastly, this Court echoes the concern of the trial court

regarding the dismissal of the charges against Gilberto
Estores and Roger San Miguel who had been identified by
Norberto Divina as the companions of appellant on the
night the shooting occurred. Norberto had been very
straightforward and unwavering in his identification of
Estores and San Miguel as the two other people who fired
the gunshots at his family. More significantly, as noted by
the prosecutor, the testimonies of Estores and San Miguel,
who insisted they were not at the crime scene, tended to
conflict with the sworn statement of Danilo Fajarillo, which
was the basis for the Provincial Prosecutor’s ruling that he
finds no probable cause against the two. Danilo Fajarillo’s
sworn statement said that on June 6, 2002, he saw
appellant with a certain “Hapon” and Gilbert Estores at the
crime scene, but it was only appellant who was carrying a
firearm and the two other people with him had no
participation in the shooting incident. Said circumstances
bolster the credibility of Norberto Divina’s testimony that
Estores and San Miguel may have been involved in the
killing of his two young daughters.
After all, such reinvestigation would not subject Estores
and San Miguel to double jeopardy because the same only
attaches if the following requisites are present: (1) a first
jeopardy has attached before the second; (2) the first
jeopardy has been validly terminated; and (3) a second
jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first. In turn, a
first jeopardy attaches only (a) after a valid indictment; (b)
before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) when a
valid plea has been entered; and (e) when the accused has
been acquitted or convicted, or the case dismissed or

otherwise terminated without his express consent.133 In
this case, the case against Estores and San Miguel was
dismissed before they were arraigned. Thus, there can be
no double jeopardy to speak of. Let true justice be served by
reinvestigating the real participation, if
_______________
133 Quiambao v. People, G.R. No. 185267, September 17, 2014, 735
SCRA 345, 356-357.

390

People vs. Jugueta
any, of Estores and San Miguel in the killing of Mary

Grace and Claudine Divina.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 30, 2012 in
C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03252 is AFFIRMED with the
following MODIFICATIONS:
(1) In Criminal Case No. 7698-G, the Court finds
accused-appellant Ireneo Jugueta GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of the crime of murder
defined under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code,
attended by the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, and
hereby sentences him to suffer two (2) terms of reclusion
perpetua without eligibility for parole under RA No. 9346.
He is ORDERED to PAY the heirs of Mary Grace Divina
and Claudine Divina the following amounts for each of the
two victims: (a) P100,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b)
P100,000.00 as moral damages; (c) P100,000.00 as
exemplary damages; and (d) P50,000.00 as temperate
damages.
(2) In Criminal Case No. 7702-G, the Court finds
accused-appellant Ireneo Jugueta GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of four (4) counts of the crime of
attempted murder defined and penalized under Article 248
in relation to Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code,
attended by the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, and
sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four
(4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prisión
correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years and one (1) day
of prisión mayor, as maximum, for each of the four (4)

counts of attempted murder. He is ORDERED to PAY
moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00, civil
indemnity of P50,000.00 and exemplary damages of
P50,000.00 to each of the four victims, namely, Norberto
Divina, Maricel Divina, Elizabeth Divina and Judy Ann
Divina.
(3) Accused-appellant Ireneo Jugueta is also
ORDERED to PAY interest at the rate of six percent (6%)
per annum from the time of finality of this decision until
fully paid, to be

391
VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 391

People vs. Jugueta
imposed on the civil indemnity, moral damages,

exemplary damages and temperate damages.
(4) Let the Office of the Prosecutor General, through
the Department of Justice, be FURNISHED a copy of this
Decision. The Prosecutor General is DIRECTED to
immediately conduct a REINVESTIGATION on the
possible criminal liability of Gilbert Estores and Roger San
Miguel regarding this case. Likewise, let a copy of this
Decision be furnished the Secretary of Justice for his
information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno (CJ.), Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro,

Brion, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Perez, Mendoza, Reyes,
Leonen and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Perlas-Bernabe, J., On Leave.
Jardeleza, J., No part.
Appeal dismissed, judgment affirmed with

modifications.
Notes.—Evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes

against persons may consist, among other things, of the
means used by the malefactors; the conduct of the
malefactors before, at the time of, or immediately after the
killing of the victim; and the nature, location and number
of wounds sustained by the victim. (Guevarra vs. People,
715 SCRA 384 [2014])
The essential element in frustrated or attempted

homicide is the intent of the offender to kill the victim
immediately before or simultaneously with the infliction of
injuries. (De Guzman, Jr. vs. People, 742 SCRA 501 [2014])

——o0o——
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

D. People V Juguilon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

D. People V Juguilon

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

D. People V Juguilon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 788

G.R. No. 202124. April 5, 2016.*

Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Appeals; Factual

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as the unlawful killing of a

332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

treachery or evident premeditation. The presence of any of

the nature or number of weapons used in the commission of the

VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 333

established the intent to kill on the part of appellant as

real inconsistencies to speak of. As ruled in People v. Cabtalan,

334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

reason for the rule is stated in People of the Philippines and

because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the

VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 335

Criminal Law; Complex Crimes; What appellant and his

336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

circumstance and/or the ordinary aggravating circumstances

Same; Same; When the circumstances surrounding the crime

VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 337

the victims, the heirs should be properly compensated. If it is

penalty is death but it cannot be imposed due to RA No. 9346 and

338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

of the crime committed, in the same way that the imposable

murder, the civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary

VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 339

damages and exemplary damages should likewise be awarded

Same; Damages; In other crimes that resulted in the death of

340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

cused has been acquitted or convicted, or the case dismissed

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

1 Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora T. Lantion, with Associate

VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 341

People vs. Jugueta

evident premeditation, did then and there willfully,

2 Records (Vol. I), pp. 2-3.

342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Jugueta

qualified by treachery, with evident premeditation

3 Records (Vol. II), p. 2.

VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 343

of the bullet wounds showed that the victims were at a

6 TSN, February 5, 2004, Folder of TSNs.

344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

fact that he (Norberto) filed a case against appellant’s

9 TSN, June 28, 2004, Folder of TSNs.

VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 345

Aggrieved by the trial court’s judgments, appellant

11 Records (Vol, I), pp. 293-294.

346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

failure to state from the beginning that all three

VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 347

Q: How many gunshots did you hear?

348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

17 TSN, July 14, 2004, pp. 6-8.

VOL. 788, APRIL 5, 2016 349

ruled that appellant is liable for murder because

about to sleep on June 6, 2002 at around 9:00 o’clock

1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid

350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED