G.R. No.

202124, April 5, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, 
vs.
IRENEO JUGUETA, Accused-Appellant.

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:
This resolves the appeal from the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated January
30, 2012 in CA-G.R. CR HC 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 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 ½ 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 nipa hut to sleep, the "sack" walling of their hut was suddenly stripped off, and only the
provocation for the attack and the accused took advantage of nighttime to facilitate the supporting bamboo (fences) remained. With the covering of the wall gone, the three (3)
commission of the offense. 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
Contrary to law.2 the 3 men as appellant, Gilbert Estores and Roger San Miguel.
In Criminal Case No. 7702-G, appellant, together with Gilbert Estores and Roger San The 3 men ordered Norberto to come down from his house, but he refused to do so. The
Miguel, was charged with Multiple Attempted Murder, allegedly committed as follows: men then uttered, "Magdasal ka na at katapusan mo na ngayon." Norberto pleaded with
That on or about 9:00 o’clock in the evening of 6th day of June, 2002, at Barangay them, saying, "Maawa kayo sa amin, matanda na ako at marami akong anak. Anong
Caridad Ilaya, Municipality of Atimonan, Province of Quezon, Philippines and within the kasalanan ko sa inyo?" Despite such plea for mercy, a gunshot was fired, and Norberto
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and immediately threw his body over his children and wife in an attempt to protect them
confederating together and mutually helping one another, armed with short firearms of from being hit. Thereafter, he heard successive gunshots being fired in the direction
undetermined calibres, with intent to kill, qualified by treachery, with evident where his family huddled together in their hut.7
premeditation and abuse of superior strength, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and When the volley of shots ceased and the three (3) men left, Norberto saw that his two
feloniously attack, assault, and shoot with the said firearms the house occupied by the (2) young daughters were wounded. His wife went out of their house to ask for help
family of Norberto Divina, thereby commencing the commission of the crime of Murder, from neighbors, while he and his older daughter carried the two (2) wounded children
directly by overt acts, but did not perform all the acts of execution which would have out to the street. His daughter Mary Grace died on the way to the hospital, while
produced it by reason of some cause or accident other than the spontaneous desistance Claudine expired at the hospital despite the doctors' attempts to revive her.8
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 In answer to questions of what could have prompted such an attack from appellant,
minors, were not hit. Norberto replied that he had a previous altercation with appellant who was angered by
the fact that he (Norberto) filed a case against appellant's two other brothers for
CONTRARY TO LAW.3 molesting his daughter.9
Roger San Miguel, however, moved for reinvestigation of the case against them. At said On the other hand, appellant was only able to proffer denial and alibi as his defense.
proceedings, one Danilo Fajarillo submitted his sworn statement stating that on June 6, Appellant's testimony, along with those of Gilbert Estores, Roger San Miguel, Isidro San
2002, he saw appellant with a certain "Hapon" and Gilbert Estores at the crime scene, Miguel and Ruben Alegre, was that he (appellant) was just watching TV at the house of
but it was only appellant who was carrying a firearm while the other two had no Isidro San Miguel, where he had been living for several years, at the time the shooting
participation in the shooting incident. Fajarillo further stated that Roger San Miguel was incident occurred. However, he and the other witnesses admitted that said house was a
not present at the crime scene. Based on the sworn statement of Fajarillo, the Provincial mere five-minute walk away from the crime scene.10
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 Finding appellant’s defense to be weak, and ascribing more credence to the testimony of
Gilbert Estores and Roger San Miguel was dismissed, and trial proceeded only as to Norberto, the trial court ruled that the evidence clearly established that appellant,
appellant.5 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
At the trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of Norberto Divina, the victim, Attempted Murder in Criminal Case No. 7702-G.
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. The dispositive portion of the trial court’s judgment in Criminal Case No. 7698-G reads:
Dr. Taguinod noted that the trajectory of the bullet wounds showed that the victims
were at a higher location than the shooter, but she could not tell what kind of WHEREFORE and in view of all the foregoing, the Court finds accused Ireneo Jugueta
ammunitions were used.6 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
Norberto testified that the appellant is his brother-in-law. He recounted that in the the death of Mary Grace Divina and to indemnify her heirs in the amount of
evening of June 6, 2002, as his entire family lay down on the floor of their one-room 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 illumination coming from a lamp inside their house that had been laid bare after its
Php50,000.00. In addition, he is hereby ordered to pay the heirs of the victims actual walling was stripped off, to wit:
damages in the amount of Php16,150.00 and to pay for the costs.
Q: When the wall of your house was stripped off by these three persons at the same
11
SO ORDERED. time, do you have light in your house?
On the other hand, the dispositive portion of the trial court’s judgment in Criminal Case A: Yes, sir.
No. 7702-G, reads:
Q: What kind of light was there?
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 A: A gas lamp.
under Article 248 in relation to Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code and is hereby Q: Where was the gas lamp placed at that time?
sentenced to suffer the penalty of FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of Prision
Correccional  as minimum to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor  as A: In the middle of our house.
maximum for each of the offended parties; Norberto Divina, Maricel Divina, Elizabeth
xxxx
Divina and Judy Ann Divina. Further, accused is ordered to pay for the costs of the suit.
Q: when did they fire a shot?
SO ORDERED.12
A: On the same night, when they had stripped off the wallings.
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 Q: How many gunshots did you hear?
charged.13
A: Only one.
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 Q: Do you know the sound of a gunshot? A firearm?
respective Supplemental Briefs. Both parties manifested that they will no longer submit A: Yes, sir, it is loud? (sic)
supplemental briefs since they had exhaustively discussed their positions before the CA.15
xxxx
The main issue advanced in the Appellant's Brief deals with the inconsistencies in
Norberto's testimony, such as his failure to state from the beginning that all three Q: After the first shot, was there any second shot?
assailants had guns, and to categorically identify appellant as the one holding the gun
used to kill Norberto’s children. A: After that, successive fire shot (sic) followed and my youngest and eldest daughters
were hit.
The appeal is unmeritorious.
xxxx
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 Q: How many of the three were holding guns at that time?
conclusions based on these factual findings are to be given the highest respect. Thus, A: All of them.
generally, the Court will not recalibrate and re-examine evidence that had been analyzed
and ruled upon by the trial court and affirmed by the CA.16 Q: You mean to tell the honorable court that these three persons were

The evidence on record fully supports the trial court's factual finding, as affirmed by the having one firearm each?
CA, that appellant acted in concert with two other individuals, all three of them carrying
A: Yes, sir.
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 Q: And they fired shots at the same time?
A: Yes, sir. trial court correctly ruled that appellant is liable for murder because treachery attended
the killing of Norberto’s two children, thus:
Q: To what direction these three persons fired (sic) their firearms during that night?
x x x Evidence adduced show that the family of Norberto Divina, were all lying down side
A: To the place where we were. by side about to sleep on June 6, 2002 at around 9:00 o’clock in the evening, when
Q: When those three persons were firing their respective firearms, what was your suddenly their wall made of sack was stripped off by [appellant] Ireneo Jugueta, Roger
position then? 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
A: I ordered my children to lie down. 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
Q: How about you, what was your position when you were ordering your children to lie
killed were 13 years old and 3 ½ years old respectively. In this case, the victims were
down?
defenseless and manifestly overpowered by armed assailants when they were gunned
A: (witness demonstrated his position as if covering his children with his body and down. There was clear showing that the attack was made suddenly and unexpectedly as
ordering them to line (sic) down face down) 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 x 21
Q: Mr. Witness, for how long did these three persons fire shots at your house?
Verily, the presence of treachery qualified the killing of the hapless children to murder.
A: Less than five minutes, sir. As held in People v. Fallorina,22 the essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected
Q: After they fired their shots, they left your house? 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.
A: Yes, sir. When an adult person illegally attacks a child, treachery exists.

Q: And when these persons left your house, you inspected your children to see what As to the charge of multiple attempted murder, the last paragraph of Article 6 of the
happened to them? 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
A: Yes, sir, they were hit. execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other
x x x17 than his own spontaneous desistance. In Esqueda v. People,23 the Court held:

Appellant and the two other malefactors are equally responsible for the death of If one inflicts physical injuries on another but the latter survives, the crime committed is
Norberto's daughters because, as ruled by the trial court, they clearly conspired to kill either consummated physical injuries, if the offender had no intention to kill the victim,
Norberto's family. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement or frustrated or attempted homicide or frustrated murder or attempted murder if the
regarding the commission of a crime and decide to commit it. Proof of a prior meeting offender intends to kill the victim. Intent to kill may be proved by evidence of: (a)
between the perpetrators to discuss the commission of the crime is not necessary as motive; (b) the nature or number of weapons used in the commission of the crime; (c)
long as their concerted acts reveal a common design and unity of purpose. In such case, the nature and number of wounds inflicted on the victim; (d) the manner the crime was
the act of one is the act of all.18 Here, the three men undoubtedly acted in concert as committed; and (e) the words uttered by the offender at the time the injuries are
they went to the house of Norberto together, each with his own firearm. It is, therefore, inflicted by him on the victim.
no longer necessary to identify and prove that it is the bullet particularly fired from In this case, the prosecution has clearly established the intent to kill on the part of
appellant's firearm that killed the children. appellant as shown by the use of firearms, the words uttered 24during, as well as the
Murder is defined under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as the unlawful killing of a manner of, the commission of the crime. The Court thus quotes with approval the trial
person, which is not parricide or infanticide, attended by circumstances such as court’s finding that appellant is liable for attempted murder, viz.:
treachery or evident premeditation.19 The presence of any one of the circumstances In the case at bar, the perpetrators who acted in concert commenced the felony of
enumerated in Article 248 of the Code is sufficient to qualify a killing as murder. 20 The 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 The facts, as alleged in the Information in Criminal Case No. 7698-G, and as proven
ordered by them. If only there were good in aiming their target, not only Mary Grace during trial, show that appellant is guilty of 2 counts of the crime of Murder and not
and Claudine had been killed but surely all the rest of the family would surely have died. Double Murder, as the killing of the victims was not the result of a single act but of
Hence, perpetrators were liable for Murder of Mary Grace Divina and Claudine Divina but several acts of appellant and his cohorts. In the same vein, appellant is also guilty of 4
for Multiple Attempted Murder for Norberto Divina, Maricel Divina, Elizabeth Divina and counts of the crime of Attempted Murder and not Multiple Attempted Murder in Criminal
Judy Ann Divina. But as [appellant] Ireneo Jugueta was the only one charged in this Case No. 7702-G. It bears stressing that the Informations in this case failed to comply
case, he alone is liable for the crime committed.25 with the requirement in Section 13, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court that an
information must charge only one offense.
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 As a general rule, a complaint or information must charge only one offense, otherwise,
was the shots from appellant’s firearm that killed the children, are too trivial and the same is defective. The reason for the rule is stated in People of the Philippines and
inconsequential to put a dent on said witness's credibility. An examination of Norberto's AAA v. Court of Appeals, 21st Division, Mindanao Station, et al.,30 thus:
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 The rationale behind this rule prohibiting duplicitous complaints or informations is to give
matters do not affect the credibility of witnesses, as well as their positive identification of the accused the necessary knowledge of the charge against him and enable him to
the accused as the perpetrators of the crime."27 Both the trial court and the CA found sufficiently prepare for his defense. The State should not heap upon the accused two or
Norberto's candid and straightforward testimony to be worthy of belief and this Court more charges which might confuse him in his defense. Non-compliance with this rule is a
sees no reason why it should not conform to the principle reiterated in Medina, Jr. v. ground for quashing the duplicitous complaint or information under Rule 117 of the
People28 that: 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.
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 However, since appellant entered a plea of not guilty during arraignment and failed to
absence of any clear showing that the trial court overlooked or misconstrued cogent move for the quashal of the Informations, he is deemed to have waived his right to
facts and circumstances that would justify altering or revising such findings and question the same. Section 9 of Rule 117 provides that "[t]he failure of the accused to
evaluation. This is because the trial court's determination proceeds from its first-hand assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or
opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, their conduct and attitude under information, either because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same
grilling examination, thereby placing the trial court in unique position to assess the in said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any objections except those based on the
witnesses' credibility and to appreciate their truthfulness, honesty and candor x x x.29 grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i) of Section 3 of this Rule."

The records of this case, particularly the testimonies of the witnesses, reveal no It is also well-settled that when two or more offenses are charged in a single complaint
outstanding or exceptional circumstance to justify a deviation from such long-standing or information but the accused fails to object to it before trial, the court may convict him
principle. There is no cogent reason to overturn the trial court's ruling that the of as many offenses as are charged and proved, and impose upon him the proper
prosecution evidence, particularly the testimony of Norberto Divina identifying appellant penalty for each offense.31
as one of the assailants, is worthy of belief. Thus, the prosecution evidence established Appellant can therefore be held liable for all the crimes alleged in the Informations in
beyond any reasonable doubt that appellant is one of the perpetrators of the crime. Criminal Case Nos. 7698-G and 7702-G, i.e.,  2 counts of murder and 4 counts of
However, the Court must make a clarification as to the nomenclature used by the trial attempted murder, respectively, and proven during trial.
court to identify the crimes for which appellant was penalized. There is some confusion Meanwhile, in People v. Nelmida,32 the Court explained the concept of a complex crime
caused by the trial court's use of the terms "Double Murder" and "Multiple Attempted as defined in Article 4833 of the Revised Penal Code, thus:
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 In a complex crime, two or more crimes are actually committed, however, in the eyes of
and four (4) counts of Attempted Murder. 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 given provocation therefor.40The testimony of Norberto established the fact that the
necessary means for committing the other. The classic example of the first kind is when group of appellant violated the victims' home by destroying the same and attacking his
a single bullet results in the death of two or more persons. A different rule governs entire family therein, without provocation on the part of the latter. Hence, the trial court
where separate and distinct acts result in a number killed. Deeply rooted is the doctrine should have appreciated dwelling as an ordinary aggravating circumstance.
that when various victims expire from separate shot, such acts constitute separate and
distinct crimes.34 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,
Here, the facts surrounding the shooting incident clearly show that appellant and the thus, with an ordinary aggravating circumstance of dwelling, the imposable penalty is
two others, in firing successive and indiscriminate shots at the family of Norberto from death for each of two (2) counts of murder. 41 However, pursuant to Republic Act (RA)
their respective firearms, intended to kill not only Norberto, but his entire family. When No. 9346, proscribing the imposition of the death penalty, the penalty to be imposed on
several gunmen, as in this case, indiscriminately fire a series of shots at a group of appellant should be reclusion perpetua  for each of the two (2) counts of murder without
people, it shows their intention to kill several individuals. Hence, they are committing not eligibility for parole. With regard to the four (4) counts of attempted murder, the penalty
only one crime. What appellant and his cohorts committed cannot be classified as a prescribed for each count is prision mayor. With one ordinary aggravating circumstance,
complex crime because as held in People v. Nelmida,35 "each act by each gunman pulling the penalty should be imposed in its maximum period. Applying the Indeterminate
the trigger of their respective firearms, aiming each particular moment at different Sentence Law, the maximum penalty should be from ten (10) years and one (1) day to
persons constitute distinct and individual acts which cannot give rise to a complex twelve (12) years of prision mayor, while the minimum shall be taken from the penalty
crime."36 next lower in degree, i.e., prision 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
Furthermore, the Court notes that both the trial court and the CA failed to take into appellant the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day
account dwelling as an ordinary, aggravating circumstance, despite the fact that the of prision correccional,  as minimum, to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor,
Informations in Criminal Case Nos. 7698-G and 7702-G contain sufficient allegations to as minimum, for each of the four (4) counts of attempted murder.
that effect, to wit:
Anent the award of damages, the Court deems it proper to address the matter in detail
Criminal Case No. 7698-G for Double Murder: as regards criminal cases where the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua  to death.
That the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party who had not given Generally, in these types of criminal cases, there are three kinds of damages awarded by
provocation for the attack and the accused took advantage of nighttime to facilitate the the Court; namely: civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages. Likewise, actual
commission of the offense.37 damages may be awarded or temperate damages in some instances.

Criminal Case No. 7702-G for Multiple Attempted Murder: 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
x x x the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually other proven actual damages, which itself is equivalent to actual or compensatory
helping one another, armed with short firearms of undetermined calibres, with intent to damages in civil law.42 This award stems from Article 100 of the RPC which states, "Every
kill, qualified by treachery, with evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable."
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 It is to be noted that civil indemnity is, technically, not a penalty or a fine; hence, it can
the commission of the crime of Murder, directly by overt acts, but did not perform all the be increased by the Court when appropriate.43 Article 2206 of the Civil Code provides:
acts of execution which would have produced it by reason of some cause or accident Art. 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be
other than the spontaneous desistance of the accused x x x38 at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have been mitigating
In People v. Agcanas,39 the Court stressed that "[i]t has been held in a long line of cases circumstances. In addition:
that dwelling is aggravating because of the sanctity of privacy which the law accords to (1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased,
human abode. He who goes to another's house to hurt him or do him wrong is more and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter; such indemnity shall in every
guilty than he who offends him elsewhere." Dwelling aggravates a felony where the case be assessed and awarded by the court, unless the deceased on account of
crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party provided that the latter has not
permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant, had no earning capacity at The rationale for awarding moral damages has been explained in Lambert v. Heirs of
the time of his death; Rey Castillon: "[T]he award of moral damages is aimed at a restoration, within the limits
possible, of the spiritual status quo ante; and therefore, it must be proportionate to the
(2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the provisions of Article suffering inflicted."50
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, Corollarily, moral damages under Article 222051 of the Civil Code also does not fix the
for a period not exceeding five years, the exact duration to be fixed by the court; 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
(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased moral damages can, in relation to civil indemnity, be adjusted so long as it does not
may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. exceed the award of civil indemnity.52
In our jurisdiction, civil indemnity is awarded to the offended party as a kind of monetary Finally, the Civil Code of the Philippines provides, in respect to exemplary damages,
restitution or compensation to the victim for the damage or infraction that was done to thus:
the latter by the accused, which in a sense only covers the civil aspect. Precisely, it is
civil indemnity. Thus, in a crime where a person dies, in addition to the penalty of ART. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or
imprisonment imposed to the offender, the accused is also ordered to pay the victim a correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or
sum of money as restitution. Also, it is apparent from Article 2206 that the law only compensatory damages.
imposes a minimum amount for awards of civil indemnity, which is ₱3,000.00. The law
did not provide for a ceiling. Thus, although the minimum amount for the award cannot ART. 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be
be changed, increasing the amount awarded as civil indemnity can be validly modified imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.
and increased when the present circumstance warrants it.44 Such damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended
party.
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 Also known as "punitive" or "vindictive" damages, exemplary or corrective damages are
purpose of moral damages, viz.: 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
Moral damages, upon the other hand, may be awarded to compensate one for manifold guilty of outrageous conduct. These terms are generally, but not always, used
injuries such as physical suffering, mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched interchangeably. In common law, there is preference in the use of exemplary damages
reputation, wounded feelings and social humiliation. These damages must be understood when the award is to account for injury to feelings and for the sense of indignity and
to be in the concept of grants, not punitive or corrective in nature, calculated to humiliation suffered by a person as a result of an injury that has been maliciously and
compensate the claimant for the injury suffered. Although incapable of exactness and no wantonly inflicted,53 the theory being that there should be compensation for the hurt
proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral damages may be awarded, the caused by the highly reprehensible conduct of the defendant – associated with such
amount of indemnity being left to the discretion of the court, it is imperative, circumstances as willfulness, wantonness, malice, gross negligence or recklessness,
nevertheless, that (1) injury must have been suffered by the claimant, and (2) such oppression, insult or fraud or gross fraud54 – that intensifies the injury. The terms
injury must have sprung from any of the cases expressed in Article 2219 46 and Article punitive or vindictive damages are often used to refer to those species of damages that
222047 of the Civil Code. x x x. 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
Similarly, in American jurisprudence, moral damages are treated as "compensatory like him from similar conduct in the future.55
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, The term aggravating circumstances used by the Civil Code, the law not having specified
and for humiliation, indignity, and vexation suffered by the plaintiff as result of his or her otherwise, is to be understood in its broad or generic sense. The commission of an
assailant's conduct, as well as the factors of provocation, the reasonableness of the force offense has a two-pronged effect, one on the public as it breaches the social order and
used, the attendant humiliating circumstances, the sex of the victim, [and] mental the other upon the private victim as it causes personal sufferings, each of which is
distress."49 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 If, however, the penalty for the crime committed is death, which cannot be imposed
to a graver felony underscores the exacerbation of the offense by the attendance of because of the provisions of R.A. No. 9346, prevailing jurisprudence 64 sets the amount of
aggravating circumstances, whether ordinary or qualifying, in its commission. Unlike the ₱100,000.00 as exemplary damages.
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 Before awarding any of the above mentioned damages, the Court, however, must first
make little sense for an award of exemplary damages to be due the private offended consider the penalty imposed by law. Under RA 7659 or An Act to Impose the Death
party when the aggravating circumstance is ordinary but to be withheld when it is Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal Laws,
qualifying. Withal, the ordinary or qualifying nature of an aggravating circumstance is a and for Other Purposes, certain crimes under the RPC and special penal laws were
distinction that should only be of consequence to the criminal, rather than to the civil, amended to impose the death penalty under certain circumstances.65 Under the same
liability of the offender. In fine, relative to the civil aspect of the case, an aggravating law, the following crimes are punishable by reclusion perpetua: piracy in
circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, should entitle the offended party to an general,66 mutiny on the high seas,67 and simple rape.68 For the following crimes, RA
award of exemplary damages within the unbridled meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil 7659 has imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua  to death: qualified piracy;69 qualified
Code. 56 bribery under certain circumstances;70 parricide;71 murder;72 infanticide, except when
committed by the mother of the child for the purpose of concealing her dishonor or
The reason is fairly obvious as to why the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure57 requires either of the maternal grandparents for the same purpose; 73kidnapping and serious
aggravating circumstances, whether ordinary or qualifying, to be stated in the complaint illegal detention under certain circumstances;74 robbery with violence against or
or information. It is in order not to trample on the constitutional right of an accused to intimidation of persons under certain circumstances;75 destructive arson, except when
be informed of the nature of the alleged offense that he or she has committed. A death results as a consequence of the commission of any of the acts penalized under the
criminal complaint or information should basically contain the elements of the crime, as article;76 attempted or frustrated rape, when a homicide is committed by reason or on
well as its qualifying and ordinary aggravating circumstances, for the court to effectively occasion thereof; plunder;77 and carnapping, when the driver or occupant of the
determine the proper penalty it should impose. This, however, is not similar in the carnapped motor vehicle is killed or raped in the course of the commission of the
recovery of civil liability. In the civil aspect, the presence of an aggravating carnapping or on the occasion thereof.78 Finally, RA 7659 imposes the death penalty on
circumstance, even if not alleged in the information but proven during trial would entitle the following crimes:
the victim to an award of exemplary damages.
(a) In qualified bribery, when it is the public officer who asks or demands the gift or
Being corrective in nature, exemplary damages, therefore, can be awarded, not only due present.
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 (b) In kidnapping and serious illegal detention: (i) when the kidnapping or detention was
same way as Article 2230 prescribes an instance when exemplary damages may be committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person; (ii)
awarded, Article 2229, the main provision, lays down the very basis of the award. Thus, when the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention; (iii) when the victim
in People v. Matrimonio,58 the Court imposed exemplary damages to deter other fathers is raped, subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts.
with perverse tendencies or aberrant sexual behavior from sexually abusing their own (c) In destructive arson, when as a consequence of the commission of any of the acts
daughters. Also, in People v. Cristobal,59 the Court awarded exemplary damages on penalized under Article 320, death results.
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. (d) In rape: (i) when by reason or on occasion of the rape, the victim becomes insane or
Neverio61 and People v. Layco, Sr.,62 the Court awarded exemplary damages to set a homicide is committed; (ii) when committed with any of the following attendant
public example, to serve as deterrent to elders who abuse and corrupt the youth, and to circumstances: (1) when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender
protect the latter from sexual abuse. is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within
the third civil degree, or the common-law-spouse of the parent of the victim; (2) when
Existing jurisprudence pegs the award of exemplary damages at ₱30,000.00,63 despite the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities; (3) when the rape is
the lack of any aggravating circumstance. The Court finds it proper to increase the committed in full view of the husband, parent, any of the children or other relatives
amount to ₱50,000.00 in order to deter similar conduct. 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 penalty provided by law or imposable for the offense because of its heinousness, not the
the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the Philippine National Police or any law public penalty actually imposed on the offender."82
enforcement agency; and (7) when by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim
has suffered permanent physical mutilation. When the circumstances surrounding the crime would justify the imposition of the death
penalty were it not for RA 9346, the Court has ruled, as early as July 9, 1998 in People
From these heinous crimes, where the imposable penalties consist of two (2) indivisible v. Victor,83 that the award of civil indemnity for the crime of rape when punishable by
penalties or single indivisible penalty, all of them must be taken in relation to Article 63 death should be ₱75,000.00 We reasoned that "[t]his is not only a reaction to the
of the RPC, which provides: 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
Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. - In all cases in which the law crimes against chastity."84 Such reasoning also applies to all heinous crimes found in RA
prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any 7659. The amount was later increased to ₱100,000.00.85
mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the
deed. In addition to this, the Court likewise awards moral damages. In People v.
Arizapa,86 ₱50,000.00 was awarded as moral damages without need of pleading or
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, proving them, for in rape cases, it is recognized that the victim's injury is concomitant
the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof: with and necessarily results from the odious crime of rape to warrant per se the award
1. when in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating of moral damages.87 Subsequently, the amount was increased to ₱75,000.00 in People v.
circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied. Soriano88 and P100,000.00 in People v. Gambao.89

2. when there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of Essentially, despite the fact that the death penalty cannot be imposed because of RA
the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied. 9346, the imposable penalty as provided by the law for the crime, such as those found in
RA 7569, must be used as the basis for awarding damages and not the actual penalty
3. when the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstance and imposed.1avvphi1
there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
Again, for crimes where the imposable penalty is death in view of the attendance of an
4. when both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the ordinary aggravating circumstance but due to the prohibition to impose the death
act, the courts shall reasonably allow them to offset one another in consideration of their penalty, the actual penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, the latest jurisprudence90 pegs
number and importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the the amount of ₱100,000.00 as civil indemnity and ₱100,0000.00 as moral damages. For
preceding rules, according to the result of such compensation. (Revised Penal Code, Art. the qualifying aggravating circumstance and/or the ordinary aggravating circumstances
63) present, the amount of ₱100,000.00 is awarded as exemplary damages aside from civil
indemnity and moral damages. Regardless of the attendance of qualifying aggravating
Thus, in order to impose the proper penalty, especially in cases of indivisible penalties,
circumstance, the exemplary damages shall be fixed at ₱100,000.00. "[T]his is not only a
the court has the duty to ascertain the presence of any mitigating or aggravating
reaction to the apathetic societal perception of the penal law and the financial fluctuation
circumstances. Accordingly, in crimes where the imposable penalty is reclusion
over time, but also an expression of the displeasure of the Court over the incidence of
perpetua  to death, the court can impose either reclusion perpetua  or death, depending
heinous crimes x x x."91
on the mitigating or aggravating circumstances present.
When the circumstances surrounding the crime call for the imposition of reclusion
But with the enactment of RA 9346 or An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty
perpetua  only, there being no ordinary aggravating circumstance, the Court rules that
in the Philippines, the imposition of death penalty is now prohibited. It provides that in
the proper amounts should be ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱75,000.00 as moral
lieu of the death penalty, the penalty of reclusion perpetua  shall be imposed when the
damages and ₱75,000.00 exemplary damages, regardless of the number of qualifying
law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC.79
aggravating circumstances present.
As a result, the death penalty can no longer be imposed. Instead, they have to
When it comes to compound and complex crimes, although the single act done by the
impose reclusion perpetua. Despite this, the principal consideration for the award of
offender caused several crimes, the fact that those were the result of a single design,
damages, following the ruling in People v. Salome80 and People v. Quiachon,81 is "the
the amount of civil indemnity and moral damages will depend on the penalty and the homicide. The word "homicide" is used in its generic sense. Homicide, thus, includes
number of victims. For each of the victims, the heirs should be properly compensated. If murder, parricide, and infanticide.97
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 In the special complex crime of rape with homicide, the term "homicide" is to be
of the RPC wherein the maximum penalty shall be imposed,92 then, for every victim who understood in its generic sense, and includes murder and slight physical injuries
dies, the heirs shall be indemnified with ₱100,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱100,000.00 as committed by reason or on occasion of the rape.98 Hence, even if any or all of the
moral damages and ₱100,000.00 as exemplary damages. circumstances (treachery, abuse of superior strength and evident premeditation) alleged
in the information have been duly established by the prosecution, the same would not
In case of a special complex crime, which is different from a complex crime under Article qualify the killing to murder and the crime committed by appellant is still rape with
48 of the RPC, the following doctrines are noteworthy: 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 of the Philippines v. Conrado Laog,93 this Court ruled that special complex in People v. Macabales:99
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 Finally, appellants contend that the trial court erred in concluding that the aggravating
case of People v. Barros,94 explained that composite crimes are "neither of the same circumstance of treachery is present. They aver that treachery applies to crimes against
legal basis as nor subject to the rules on complex crimes in Article 48 [of the Revised persons and not to crimes against property. However, we find that the trial court in this
Penal Code], since they do not consist of a single act giving rise to two or more grave or case correctly characterized treachery as a generic aggravating, rather than qualifying,
less grave felonies [compound crimes] nor do they involve an offense being a necessary circumstance. Miguel was rendered helpless by appellants in defending himself when his
means to commit another [complex crime proper]. However, just like the regular arms were held by two of the attackers before he was stabbed with a knife by appellant
complex crimes and the present case of aggravated illegal possession of firearms, only a Macabales, as their other companions surrounded them. In People v. Salvatierra,  we
single penalty is imposed for each of such composite crimes although composed of two ruled that when alevosia (treachery) obtains in the special complex crime of robbery with
or more offenses."95 homicide, such treachery is to be regarded as a generic aggravating circumstance.
In People v. De Leon,96 we expounded on the special complex crime of robbery with Robbery with homicide is a composite crime with its own definition and special penalty in
homicide, as follows: 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
In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor is to commit concerning the actual commission of the complex crime. Logically it could not qualify the
robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. The homicide to murder but, as generic aggravating circumstance, it helps determine the
intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life. The homicide may take penalty to be imposed.100
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 Applying the above discussion on special complex crimes, if the penalty is death but it
commission of the crime that has to be taken into consideration. There is no such felony cannot be imposed due to RA 9346 and what is actually imposed is the penalty
of robbery with homicide through reckless imprudence or simple negligence. The of reclusion perpetua, the civil indemnity and moral damages will be ₱100,000.00 each,
constitutive elements of the crime, namely, robbery with homicide, must be and another ₱100,000.00 as exemplary damages in view of the heinousness of the crime
consummated. 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 ₱100,000.00 as civil indemnity,
It is immaterial that the death would supervene by mere accident; or that the victim of ₱100,000.00 moral damages and ₱100,000.00 exemplary damages shall be awarded for
homicide is other than the victim of robbery, or that two or more persons are killed, or each composite crime committed.
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 For example, in case of Robbery with Homicide101 wherein three (3) people died as a
the victim of homicide is one of the robbers; the felony would still be robbery with consequence of the crime, the heirs of the victims shall be entitled to the award of
homicide. Once a homicide is committed by or on the occasion of the robbery, the felony damages as discussed earlier. This is true, however, only if those who were killed were
committed is robbery with homicide. All the felonies committed by reason of or on the the victims of the robbery or mere bystanders and not when those who died were the
occasion of the robbery are integrated into one and indivisible felony of robbery with 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 the crime committed is still robbery with homicide as the injuries become part of the
rape where there is more than one victim of rape. 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, 103 which is
In awarding civil indemnity and moral damages, it is also important to determine the the use of violence or the use of force upon anything. Hence, the nature and severity of
stage in which the crime was committed and proven during the trial. Article 6 of the RPC the injuries sustained by the victims must still be determined for the purpose of
provides: awarding civil indemnity and damages. If a victim suffered mortal wounds and could
Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. - Consummated felonies, as have died if not for a timely medical intervention, the victim should be awarded civil
well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable. 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
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages should likewise be awarded
accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when an offender performs all the acts equivalent to the damages awarded in an attempted stage.
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. 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
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly homicide, the civil indemnity awarded to the heirs of the victim shall be ₱50,000.00 and
by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the ₱50,000.00 moral damages without exemplary damages being awarded. However, an
felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. award of ₱50,000.00 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
As discussed earlier, when the crime proven is consummated and the penalty imposed is
information.
death but reduced to reclusion perpetua  because of R.A. 9346, the civil indemnity and
moral damages that should be awarded will each be ₱100,000.00 and another Aside from those discussed earlier, the Court also awards temperate damages in certain
₱100,000.00 for exemplary damages or when the circumstances of the crime call for the cases. The award of ₱25,000.00 as temperate damages in homicide or murder cases is
imposition of reclusion perpetua  only, the civil indemnity and moral damages should be proper when no evidence of burial and funeral expenses is presented in the trial
₱75,000.00 each, as well as exemplary damages in the amount of ₱75,000.00. If, court.104 Under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate damages may be recovered, as
however, the crime proven is in its frustrated stage, the civil indemnity and moral it cannot be denied that the heirs of the victims suffered pecuniary loss although the
damages that should be awarded will each be ₱50,000.00, and an award of ₱25,000.00 exact amount was not proved.105 In this case, the Court now increases the amount to be
civil indemnity and ₱25,000.00 moral damages when the crime proven is in its attempted awarded as temperate damages to ₱50,000.00.
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 In the case at bar, the crimes were aggravated by dwelling, and the murders committed
penalty varies for each stage of the crime. The said amounts of civil indemnity and moral were further made atrocious by the fact that the victims are innocent, defenseless
damages awarded in cases of felonies in their frustrated or attempted stages shall be the minors – one is a mere 3½-year-old toddler, and the other a 13-year-old girl. The
bases when the crimes committed constitute complex crime under Article 48 of the RPC. increase in the amount of awards for damages is befitting to show not only the Court's,
For example, in a crime of murder with attempted murder, the amount of civil indemnity, but all of society's outrage over such crimes and wastage of lives.
moral damages and exemplary damages is ₱100,000.00 each, while in the attempted In summary:
murder, the civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages is ₱25,000.00 each.
I. For those crimes106 like, Murder,107 Parricide,108 Serious Intentional
In a special complex crime, like robbery with homicide, if, aside from homicide, several Mutilation,109 Infanticide,110 and other crimes involving death of a victim where the
victims (except the robbers) sustained injuries, they shall likewise be indemnified. It penalty consists of indivisible penalties:
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 1.1 Where the penalty imposed is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua  because of
offender/s is to commit the principal crime which is to rob but in the process of RA 9346:
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, a. Civil indemnity – ₱100,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱100,000.00 1.1 Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to reclusion perpetua  because of
RA 9346:
c. Exemplary damages – ₱100,000.00
a. Civil indemnity – ₱100,000.00
1.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated:
b. Moral damages – ₱100,000.00
a. Frustrated:
c. Exemplary damages111 – ₱100,000.00
i. Civil indemnity – ₱75,000.00
1.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated but merely attempted:112
ii. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00
a. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00
iii. Exemplary damages – ₱75,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱50,000.00
b. Attempted:
c. Exemplary damages – ₱50,000.00
i. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00
2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua,  other than the above-mentioned:
ii. Exemplary damages – ₱50,000.00
a. Civil indemnity – ₱75,000.00
iii. Exemplary damages – ₱50,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00
2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, other than the above-mentioned:
c. Exemplary damages – ₱75,000.00
a. Civil indemnity – ₱75,000.00
2.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated, but merely attempted:
b. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00
a. Civil indemnity – ₱25,000.00
c. Exemplary damages – ₱75,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱25,000.00
2.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated:
c. Exemplary damages – ₱25,000.00
a. Frustrated:
III. For Complex crimes under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code where death,
i. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00 injuries, or sexual abuse results, the civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary
ii. Moral damages – ₱50,000.00 damages will depend on the penalty, extent of violence and sexual abuse; and the
number of victims where the penalty consists of indivisible penalties:
iii. Exemplary damages – ₱50,000.00
1.1 Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to reclusion perpetua  because of
b. Attempted: RA 9346:
i. Civil indemnity – ₱25,000.00 a. Civil indemnity – ₱100,000.00
ii. Moral damages – ₱25,000.00 b. Moral damages – ₱100,000.00
iii. Exemplary damages – ₱25,000.00 c. Exemplary damages – ₱100,000.00
II. For Simple Rape/Qualified Rape: 1.2 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua,  other than the above-mentioned:
a. Civil indemnity – ₱75,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00 a. Civil indemnity – ₱75,000.00
c. Exemplary damages – ₱75,000.00 b. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00
The above Rules apply to every victim who dies as a result of the crime committed. In c. Exemplary damages – ₱75,000.00
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 In Robbery with Intentional Mutilation, the amount of damages is the same as the above
the penalty imposed, as the case may be. if the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua.

IV. For Special Complex Crimes like Robbery with Homicide,113 Robbery with 2.2 For the victims who suffered mortal/fatal wounds and could have died if not for a
Rape,114 Robbery with Intentional Mutilation,115 Robbery with timely medical intervention, the following shall be awarded:

Arson,116 Rape with Homicide,117 Kidnapping with Murder,118 Carnapping with a. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00

Homicide119 or Carnapping with Rape,120 Highway Robbery with Homicide,121 Qualified b. Moral damages – ₱50,000.00
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 c. Exemplary damages – ₱50,000.00
penalty consists of indivisible penalties:
2.3 For the victims who suffered non-mortal/non-fatal injuries:
1.1 Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to reclusion perpetua  because of
a. Civil indemnity – ₱25,000.00
RA 9346:
b. Moral damages – ₱25,000.00
a. Civil indemnity – ₱100,000.00
c. Exemplary damages – ₱25,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱100,000.00
In Robbery with Physical Injuries,126 the amount of damages shall likewise be dependent
c. Exemplary damages – ₱100,000.00
on the nature/severity of the wounds sustained, whether fatal or non-fatal.
In Robbery with Intentional Mutilation, the amount of damages is the same as the above
The above Rules do not apply if in the crime of Robbery with Homicide, the robber/s or
if the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to reclusion perpetua  although death did
perpetrator/s are themselves killed or injured in the incident.1âwphi1
not occur.
Where the component crime is rape, the above Rules shall likewise apply, and that for
1.2 For the victims who suffered mortal/fatal wounds 125 and could have died if not for a
every additional rape committed, whether against the same victim or other victims, the
timely medical intervention, the following shall be awarded:
victims shall be entitled to the same damages unless the other crimes of rape are
a. Civil indemnity – ₱75,000.00 treated as separate crimes, in which case, the damages awarded to simple rape/qualified
rape shall apply.
b. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00
V. In other crimes that result in the death of a victim and the penalty consists of divisible
c. Exemplary damages – ₱75,000.00 penalties, i.e., Homicide, Death under Tumultuous Affray, Infanticide to conceal the
1.3 For the victims who suffered non-mortal/non-fatal injuries: dishonour of the offender,127 Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide, Duel,
Intentional Abortion and Unintentional Abortion, etc.:
a. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00
1.1 Where the crime was consummated:
b. Moral damages – ₱50,000.00
a. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00
c. Exemplary damages – ₱50,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱50,000.00
2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua,  other than the above-mentioned:
1.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated, except those crimes where there VII. In all of the above instances, when no documentary evidence of burial or funeral
are no stages, i.e., Reckless Imprudence and Death under tumultuous affray: expenses is presented in court, the amount of ₱50,000.00 as temperate damages shall
be awarded.
a. Frustrated:
To reiterate, Article 2206 of the Civil Code provides that the minimum amount for
i. Civil indemnity – ₱30,000.00 awards of civil indemnity is P3,000.00, but does not provide for a ceiling. Thus, although
ii. Moral damages – ₱30,000.00 the minimum amount cannot be changed, increasing the amount awarded as civil
indemnity can be validly modified and increased when the present circumstance
b. Attempted: warrants it.131
i. Civil indemnity – ₱20,000.00 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
ii. Moral damages – ₱20,000.00
heirs of the victims the following damages: (1) ₱100,000.00 as civil indemnity for each of
If an aggravating circumstance was proven during the trial, even if not alleged in the the two children who died; (2) ₱100,000.00 as moral damages for each of the two
Information,128 in addition to the above mentioned amounts as civil indemnity and moral victims; (3) another ₱100,000.00 as exemplary damages for each of the two victims; and
damages, the amount of ₱50,000.00 exemplary damages for consummated; ₱30,000.00 (4) temperate damages in the amount of ₱50,000.00 for each of the two deceased. For
for frustrated; and ₱20,000.00 for attempted, shall be awarded. the four (4) counts of Attempted Murder, appellant should pay ₱50,000.00 as civil
indemnity, ₱50,000.00 as moral damages and ₱50,000.00 as exemplary damages for
VI. A. In the crime of Rebellion where the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua  and each of the four victims. In addition, the civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary
death occurs in the course of the rebellion, the heirs of those who died are entitled to damages and temperate damages payable by the appellant are subject to interest at the
the following:129 rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this decision until fully paid.132
a. Civil indemnity – ₱100,000.00 Lastly, this Court echoes the concern of the trial court regarding the dismissal of the
b. Moral damages – ₱100,000.00 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.
c. Exemplary damages – ₱100,000.00130 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
B. For the victims who suffered mortal/fatal wounds in the course of the rebellion and significantly, as noted by the prosecutor, the testimonies of Estores and San Miguel, who
could have died if not for a timely medical intervention, the following shall be awarded: insisted they were not at the crime scene, tended to conflict with the sworn statement of
a. Civil indemnity – ₱75,000.00 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
b. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00 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
c. Exemplary damages – ₱75,000.00
had no participation in the shooting incident. Said circumstances bolster the credibility of
C. For the victims who suffered non-mortal/non-fatal injuries: Norberto Divina's testimony that Estores and San Miguel may have been involved in the
killing of his two young daughters.
a. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00
After all, such reinvestigation would not subject Estores and San Miguel to double
b. Moral damages – ₱50,000.00 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
c. Exemplary damages – ₱50,000.00
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 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 CA-G.R. CR HC 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 R.A. 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) ₱100,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) ₱100,000.00 as moral damages; (c)
₱100,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (d) ₱50,000.00 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 prision correccional,  as minimum, to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision
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 PS0,000.00 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 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.