Premium Content

You accessing premium content on FREE trial.

PEOPLE v. ELBERTO TUBONGBANUA Y PAHILANGA

This case has been cited 34 times or more.

2010-12-15
VELASCO JR., J.
When death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases.[59] In People v. Tubongbanua,[60] interest at the rate of six percent (6%) was ordered to be applied on the award of damages. This rule would be subsequently applied by the Court in several cases such as Mendoza v. People,[61] People v. Buban,[62] People v. Guevarra,[63] and People v. Regalario.[64] Thus, we likewise adopt this rule in the instant case. Interest of six percent (6%) per annum should be imposed on the award of civil indemnity and all damages, i.e., actual or compensatory damages, moral damages and exemplary damages, from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.
2010-02-16
VELASCO JR., J.
Finally, as regards the damages awarded by the CA, we find them in order. Civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory and is granted to the heirs of the victim without need of any evidence or proof of damages other than the commission of the crime.[31] Based on current jurisprudence, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto of PhP 50,000 in favor of the heirs of Vincent Pimentel is in order.[32] The CA also correctly awarded moral damages in the amount of PhP 50,000 in view of the violent death of the victim and the resultant grief to his family.[33]
2009-10-27
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[52] The trial court and the Court of Appeals properly awarded the amount of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim as civil indemnity. The amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity is awarded only if the crime is qualified by circumstances that warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[53]
2009-08-25
NACHURA, J.
It is worth stressing that, at the outset, the appellant, together with Lumbayan, was sentenced by the RTC to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Thus, the CA's reliance on our ruling in People v. dela Cruz[15] was misplaced. In dela Cruz, this Court cited our ruling in People v. Tubongbanua,[16] wherein we held that the civil indemnity imposed should be P75,000.00. However, the instant case does not share the same factual milieu as dela Cruz and Tubongbanua. In the said cases, at the outset, the accused were sentenced to suffer the penalty of death. However, in view of the enactment of Republic Act No. 9346 or the Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penalty on June 24, 2006, the penalty meted to the accused was reduced to reclusion perpetua. This jurisprudential trend was followed in the recent case of People of the Philippines v. Generoso Rolida y Moreno, etc.,[17] where this Court also increased the civil indemnity from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00. Based on the foregoing disquisitions and the current applicable jurisprudence, we hereby reduce the civil indemnity awarded herein to P50,000.00.[18] We affirm all the other awards made by the CA.
2009-08-04
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[67] The trial court properly awarded the amount of P50,000.00 to each of the heirs of the victims as civil indemnity. The amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity is awarded only if the crime is qualified by circumstances that warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[68]
2009-04-24
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[26] We affirm the award of civil indemnity given by the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Under the prevailing jurisprudence,[27] the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for each count of murder, to be paid to the heirs of the victims, is proper.
2009-04-07
QUISUMBING, J.
When death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, and (6) interest, in proper cases.[33]
2009-03-13
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[55] We affirm the award of civil indemnity given by the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Under the prevailing jurisprudence,[56] the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for each count of murder, to be paid to the heirs of the victims, is proper.
2009-03-04
CARPIO MORALES, J.
The award of P50,000 as moral damages is in order in view of the violent death of the victim and the resultant grief of his family.[23]  The award of exemplary damages of P25,000 is in order too, the crime having been committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.[24]
2009-03-02
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[33]  Under prevailing jurisprudence, the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim as civil indemnity is in order.[34]  Thus, P50,000.00 is awarded to the heirs of Marvin Indon and P50,000.00 to the heirs of Melissa Indon.
2009-03-02
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The heirs of Marvin Indon and Melissa Indon are not entitled to actual damages, because said damages were not adequately proved.  The party seeking actual damages must produce competent proof or the best evidence obtainable, such as receipts, to justify an award therefor.[35] The funeral expenses, to which Raquel Indon referred in her testimony, were not supported by receipts.  Nevertheless, the award of P25,000.00 in temperate damages for homicide or murder cases is proper when no evidence of burial or funeral expenses is presented in the trial court.[36]  Under Article 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate damages may be recovered, as it cannot be denied that the heirs of the victim suffered pecuniary loss although the exact amount was not proved.[37]  Thus, the heirs of Marvin Indon and Melissa Indon are entitled to temperate damages of P25,000.00 for each death.
2009-02-04
QUISUMBING, J.
As for the award of damages, when death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases.[30]
2008-12-11
REYES, R.T., J.
Appellant even admitted his presence at the scene of the crime when it was committed.[48] He admitted hiding from the clutches of the law for more than a year instead of reporting the matter to the police.[49] His flight is indicative of guilt.[50]
2008-11-28
CORONA, J.
With regard to Criminal Case No. 16095, in view of Section 2 of RA 9346,[9] appellant is sentenced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. Conformably with present jurisprudence, he is also ordered to pay the heirs of Benjamin P75,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto.[10] He is further ordered to pay P50,000 as moral damages, as these are warranted under the circumstances. In cases of violent death, moral damages are awarded even in the absence of proof because an untimely death invariably brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family.[11]
2008-10-08
TINGA, J.
The civil indemnity should be increased to P75,000.00.[43] The award of civil indemnity may be granted without any need of proof other than the death of the victim.[44] In line with jurisprudence, the moral damages should also be increased to P 500,000.00.[45]
2008-09-30
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victims without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[37] We affirm the award of civil indemnity given by the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Under prevailing jurisprudence,[38] the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of each of the victims as civil indemnity is proper.
2008-09-29
TINGA, J.
As to damages, the Court finds that the civil indemnity should be increased to P75,000.00.[67] The award of civil indemnity may be granted without any need of proof other than the death of the victim.[68]
2008-09-25
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[48] We affirm the award of civil indemnity given by the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Under prevailing jurisprudence,[49] the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim as civil indemnity is proper.
2008-09-23
CORONA, J.
The award of civil indemnity is mandatory and must be granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[12] However, it should be increased from P50,000 to P75,000 to conform with current jurisprudence.[13]
2008-09-22
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
However, on June 30, 2006, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9346, entitled An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines, took effect.[28] Pertinent provisions thereof provide as follows:Section 1. The imposition of the penalty of death is hereby prohibited. Accordingly, Republic Act No. Eight Thousand One Hundred Seventy-Seven (R.A. No. 8177), otherwise known as the Act Designating Death by Lethal Injection is hereby repealed. Republic Act No. Seven Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-Nine (R.A. No. 7659) otherwise known as the Death Penalty Law and all other laws, executive orders and decrees insofar as they impose the death penalty are hereby repealed or amended accordingly.
2008-09-17
QUISUMBING, J.
As for damages, when death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases.[35]
2008-08-28
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[68] Under prevailing jurisprudence,[69] the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim as civil indemnity is in order.[70]
2008-03-04
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[65] Under prevailing jurisprudence,[66] the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim as civil indemnity is in order.[67]
2008-02-26
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As to damages, when death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases.[68]
2008-01-18
CARPIO, J.
In this case, appellant killed April by hitting her head with a hammer and stabbing her neck using a bladed weapon. The medical and autopsy reports revealed that April sustained contusion, lacerated wounds and hematoma on the scalp and forehead, and a neck stab wound.[5] Clearly, the killing of April was attended by treachery and abuse of superior strength. There is treachery when the mode of the attack tends to insure the accomplishment of the criminal purpose without risk to the attacker arising from any defense the victim might offer.[6] Furthermore, an attack by a man with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes abuse of superior strength.[7] However, abuse of superior strength as an aggravating circumstance is already absorbed in treachery.[8]
2007-12-04
REYES, R.T., J.
Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the murder victim without need of further proof.[67] Under current jurisprudence, the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto is in order.
2007-09-28
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[35]  We affirm the award of civil indemnity given by the trial court and the Court of Appeals.  Under prevailing jurisprudence,[36] the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim as civil indemnity is proper.
2007-08-31
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It should be kept in mind that accused-appellants could not avail themselves of parole if their appeal is dismissed, unless they also apply for executive clemency and ask for the commutation of their reclusion perpetua sentences. Republic Act No. 4108, as amended, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, does not apply to persons convicted of offenses punishable with death penalty or life imprisonment. In several cases,[23] we have considered the penalty of reclusion perpetua as synonymous to life imprisonment for purposes of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and ruled that said law does not apply to persons convicted of offenses punishable with the said penalty. As further discussed by Associate Justice Dante Tinga in his Concurring Opinion in People v. Tubongbanua[24]:Parole is extended only to those convicted of divisible penalties. Reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty, with no minimum or maximum period. Under section 5 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, it is after "any prisoner shall have served the minimum penalty imposed on him," that the Board of Indeterminate Sentence may consider whether such prisoner may be granted parole. There being no "minimum penalty" imposable on those convicted to reclusion perpetua, it follows that even prior to the enactment of Rep. Act No. 9346, persons sentenced by final judgment to reclusion perpetua could not have availed of parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. This Court cannot review, much less preempt, the exercise of executive clemency under the pretext of preventing the accused from evading the penalty of reclusion perpetua or from trifling with our judicial system. Clemency is not a function of the judiciary; it is an executive function.[25] Thus, it is the President, not the judiciary, who should exercise caution and utmost circumspection in the exercise of executive clemency in order to prevent a derision of the criminal justice system. We cannot and shall not deny accused-appellants' Motions to Withdraw Appeal just because of their intention of applying for executive clemency. With the Constitution bestowing upon the Executive the power to grant clemency,[26] it behooves the Court to pass the ball to the President and let her determine the fate of accused-appellants.
2007-08-28
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.[57] We affirm the award of civil indemnity given by the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Under prevailing jurisprudence,[58] the award of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim as civil indemnity is in order. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals awarded P25,000.00 as civil indemnity because the two accused who pleaded guilty to the lower offense of homicide were ordered to pay P25,000.00 or half of the P50,000.00 civil indemnity. Considering that half of the P50,000.00 was already paid, appellants should therefore pay only the difference.
2007-07-12
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
However, on June 30, 2006, Republic Act No. 9346 (R.A. 9346), entitled An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines, took effect.[28] Pertinent provisions thereof provide as follows:Section 1. The imposition of the penalty of death is hereby prohibited. Accordingly, Republic Act No. Eight Thousand One Hundred Seventy-Seven (R.A. No. 8177), otherwise known as the Act Designating Death by Lethal Injection is hereby repealed. Republic Act No. Seven Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-Nine (R.A.No. 7659) otherwise known as the Death Penalty Law and all other laws, executive orders and decrees insofar as they impose the death penalty are hereby repealed or amended accordingly.
2007-05-11
QUISUMBING, J.
As to damages, when death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered:  (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases.[49]
2007-02-08
TINGA, J.
The trial court properly appreciated the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery.  There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in their execution, without risk to himself arising from the defenses which the offended party might make.[21]  To establish treachery, two elements must concur: (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself, and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means of attack employed.[22]  The essence of treachery is the unexpected and sudden attack on the victim which renders the latter unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack.[23]  Appellant's wife witnessed the incident from its inception up to its consummation. She testified:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Q- Madam Witness, at about 7:20 in the evening of November 19, 1997, do you recall where were you then? A- I was inside our house and I went out of the house to open our gate, Sir.  
2006-10-30
TINGA, J.
Article 248[69] of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7659,[70] prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death for the crime of murder. Considering the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the aggravating circumstance of the use of an unlicensed firearm,[71] which was proven through Ochinang's testimony and the Certification that Taan is not a licensed holder of a firearm, the proper imposable penalty would have been death. However, in view of the enactment of R.A. No. 9346 or the Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penalty, the penalty that should be imposed is reclusion perpetua.[72]
2006-09-27
TINGA, J.
We should point out that the benefit of parole cannot be extended to Gardon even if he committed the crimes for which he is now convicted prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 9346.[34] Sec. 2 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law provides that the law "shall not apply to persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life- imprisonment." Although the law makes no reference to persons convicted to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua such as Gardon, the Court has consistently held that the Indeterminate Sentence Law likewise does not apply to persons sentenced to reclusion perpetua. In People v. Enriquez,[35] we declared:[R]eclusion perpetua is the only penalty that can be imposed against the appellants. As correctly argued by the Solicitor General, Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, cannot be applied in the case of appellants considering the proscription in Sec. 2 thereof, viz: