Premium Content

You accessing premium content on FREE trial.

PEOPLE v. DANILO CATUBIG Y HORIO

This case has been cited 98 times or more.

2015-06-22
BERSAMIN, J.
The aggravating circumstances of dwelling and nighttime are not appreciated to raise the penalty to be imposed because the information did not specifically allege them. But they should be appreciated in order to justify the grant of exemplary damages to the heirs of the victim in the amount of P30,000.00 in accordance with relevant jurisprudence.[25] Under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages may be granted if at least one aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the crime. The aggravating circumstance for this purpose need not be specifically alleged in the information, and can be either a qualifying or attendant circumstance. As expounded in People v. Catubig:[26]
2015-06-15
BERSAMIN, J.
Anent the civil liability, the CA ordered the accused to pay to AAA civil indemnity of P50,000.00 and moral damages of P50,000.00 for each count of rape.[37] Civil indemnity is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape, while moral damages are proper without need of proof other than the fact of rape by virtue of the undeniable moral suffering of AAA due to the rape. The amounts awarded are all in accord with prevailing jurisprudence.[38] However, the Court should award to AAA exemplary damages of P30,000.00 for each count of rape on account of the attendance of the circumstances of minority and relationship despite such circumstances not being considered in raising the criminal liability. Under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages may be granted if at least one aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the crime, which circumstance need not be specifically alleged in the information. It did not matter that the aggravating circumstance is a qualifying or attendant circumstance like minority and relationship. As the Court has said in People v. Catubig:[39]
2014-09-17
PEREZ, J.
Exemplary damages are intended to deter serious wrong doings, and to serve as vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured or a punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct.[32] They may be awarded when circumstances of the case show the highly reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the offender. On more than one occasion, we have 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.[33]
2014-09-08
BERSAMIN, J.
In addition, pursuant to Article 2229 and Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages are to be granted to the victim of a crime when at least one aggravating circumstance was attendant. AAA was entitled to exemplary damages of P30,000.00[37] due to the attendance of the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and the use of the deadly weapon in the commission of the rape. It was of no consequence that the information did not allege the circumstances, for, as the Court observed in People v. Catubig:[38]
2013-07-17
BERSAMIN, J.
Finally, although the RTC and the CA correctly imposed reclusion perpetua because the crime was simple rape, we need to revise the civil liability fixed and allowed by the RTC in order to have it accord with pertinent jurisprudence to the effect that civil indemnity of P50,000.00 and moral damages of P50,000.00 should be awarded to the victim of simple rape without need of proof other than the fact of rape.[28] This is because the victim unquestionably suffered actual loss and moral injuries from her experience. In addition, the attendance of AAA's minority as an aggravating circumstance, which, although not a proper basis to raise the penal sanction on account of the failure to allege it in the information, should still justify the grant of exemplary damages in order to set a public example and to establish a deterrent against elders who abuse and corrupt the youth.[29] According to People v. Catubig,[30] exemplary damages are justified regardless of whether or not the generic or qualifying aggravating circumstances are alleged in the information, considering that the grant of such damages pursuant to Article 2230 of the Civil Code is intended for the sole benefit of the victim and does not affect the criminal liability, the exclusive concern of the State. The grant in this regard should be in the sum of P30,000.00.[31]
2012-11-28
BERSAMIN, J.
Lastly, the Court reduces the indemnity from P75,000.00 to P50,000.00 in view of the crime actually proved being simple rape. However, the RTC and the CA did not award exemplary damages to AAA, despite her being entitled to such damages by reason of her minority under 18 years at the time of the rape, and because of the use by the accused of the bolo, a deadly weapon. This recognition of her right accords with the perceptive pronouncement in People v. Catubig[17] to the effect that exemplary damages were justified regardless of whether or not the generic or qualifying aggravating circumstances were alleged in the information because the grant of such damages pursuant to Article 2230 of the Civil Code was intended for the sole benefit of the victim and did not concern the criminal liability, the exclusive concern of the State. For that purpose, therefore, exemplary damages of P25,000.00 are hereby fixed.
2012-09-19
BERSAMIN, J.
Conformably with the Civil Code, the CA and the RTC should have recognized the entitlement of AAA to exemplary damages on account of the attendance of the aggravating circumstance of her minority under 12 years. It should not matter that the CA disregarded her testimony on her age due to such testimony not measuring up to the Pruna guidelines. At least, the RTC found her testimony on her minority under 12 years at the time of the rape credible enough to convict the accused of statutory rape. Nor was it of any consequence that such minority would have defined the rape as statutory had it been sufficiently established. What mattered was to consider the attendance of an aggravating circumstance of any kind to warrant the award of exemplary damages to the victim. This was the point stressed in People v. Catubig,[28] to wit: 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 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.
2012-07-30
BERSAMIN, J.
In addition, Arcillas was liable for exemplary damages. According to the Civil Code, exemplary damages may be imposed in criminal cases as part of the civil liability "when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances."[17] The law permits such damages to be awarded "by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages."[18] Accordingly, the CA and the RTC should have recognized the entitlement of AAA to exemplary damages on account of the attendance of her minority and the common-law relationship between him and her mother. It did not matter that such qualifying circumstances were not taken into consideration in fixing his criminal liability, because the term aggravating circumstances as basis for awarding exemplary damages under the Civil Code was understood in its generic sense. As the Court well explained in People v. Catubig:[19]
2012-03-14
BERSAMIN, J.
Although the CA deleted the RTC's award of exemplary damages because of the "absence of aggravating circumstance (sic),"[20] we reinstate the award in view of the attendance of the aggravating circumstance of use of a deadly weapon in the commission of the crime. The Civil Code provides that exemplary damages may be imposed in a criminal case as part of the civil liability "when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances."[21] The Civil Code allows such damages to be awarded "by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages."[22] Present here was the need for exemplarity. Thus, the CA should have recognized the entitlement to exemplary damages of AAA on account of the attendance of use of a deadly weapon. It was of no moment that the use of a deadly weapon was not specifically alleged in the information. As fittingly explained in People v. Catubig:[23]
2012-02-22
BERSAMIN, J.
Moreover, the Civil Code provides that exemplary damages may be imposed in criminal cases as part of the civil liability "when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances."[32] The Civil Code permits such damages to be awarded "by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages."[33] Conformably with such legal provisions, the CA and the RTC should have recognized the entitlement of the heirs of the victim to exemplary damages because of the attendance of treachery. It was of no moment that treachery was an attendant circumstance in murder, and, as such, inseparable and absorbed in murder. The Court explained so in People v. Catubig:[34]
2012-01-25
BERSAMIN, J.
The Civil Code provides that exemplary damages may be imposed in criminal cases as part of the civil liability "when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances."[36] The Civil Code permits such damages to be awarded "by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages."[37] In light of such legal provisions, the CA and the RTC should have recognized the entitlement of the heirs of the victim to exemplary damages on account of the attendance of treachery. It was of no moment that treachery was an attendant circumstance in murder, and, as such, inseparable and absorbed in murder. As well explained in People v. Catubig:[38]
2011-10-05
BERSAMIN, J.
Exemplary damages, which are intended to serve as deterrents to serious wrongdoings and as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured, or as a punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct,[17] are awarded under Article 2230 of the Civil Code when the crime is committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.[18] In People v. Catubig,[19] the Court held that the term aggravating circumstances as used by the Civil Code should be understood in its broad or generic sense, not in the sense of prescribing a heavier punishment on the offender; hence, the ordinary or qualifying nature of an aggravating circumstance should be a distinction that was of consequence only to the criminal, as contrasted from the civil, liability, thereby entitling the offended party or victim to an award of exemplary damages regardless of whether the aggravating circumstance was ordinary or qualifying.
2011-10-05
VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The failure of the prosecution to allege in the information AAA's relationship to appellant will not bar the consideration of the said circumstance in the determination of his civil liability. In any case, even without the attendance of aggravating circumstances, exemplary damages may still be awarded where the circumstances of the case show the "highly reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the offender."  Citing our earlier ruling in the case of People v. Catubig,[55]this Court clarified in People v. Dalisay[56]: Prior to the effectivity of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, courts generally awarded exemplary damages in criminal cases when an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, had been proven to have attended the commission of the crime, even if the same was not alleged in the information. This is in accordance with the aforesaid Article 2230. However, with the promulgation of the Revised Rules, courts no longer consider the aggravating circumstances not alleged and proven in the determination of the penalty and in the award of damages. Thus, even if an aggravating circumstance has been proven, but was not alleged, courts will not award exemplary damages. Pertinent are the following sections of Rule 110:
2011-04-04
BERSAMIN, J.
However, the CA did not explain why it did not review and revise the grant by the RTC of civil liability in the amount of only P50,000.00. Thereby, the CA committed a plainly reversible error for ignoring existing laws, like Article 2206 of the Civil Code,[53] which prescribes a death indemnity separately from moral damages, and Article 2230 of the Civil Code,[54] which requires exemplary damages in case of death due to crime when there is at least one aggravating circumstance; and applicable jurisprudence, specifically, People v. Gutierrez,[55] where we held that moral damages should be awarded to the heirs without need of proof or pleading in view of the violent death of the victim, and People v.Catubig,[56] where  we ruled that exemplary damages were warranted whenever the crime was attended by an aggravating circumstance, whether qualifying or ordinary. Here, the aggravating circumstance of treachery, albeit attendant or qualifying in its effect, justified the grant of exemplary damages.
2011-02-09
BERSAMIN, J.
And, fifthly, we will not disturb the awards of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P75,000.00 as moral damages, but we add the amount of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages by reason of the established presence of the qualifying circumstance of use of a deadly weapon. Under Art. 2230 of the Civil Code, AAA was entitled to recover exemplary damages.[9]
2011-02-09
BERSAMIN, J.
entitles the offended party to exemplary damages under Article 2230 of the Civil Code because the requirement of specificity in the information affected only the criminal liability of the accused, not his civil liability. The Court has well explained this in People v. Catubig:[33]
2010-10-13
BERSAMIN, J.
Both petitioners were adjudged solidarily liable to pay damages to the surviving heirs of Llona. Their solidary civil liability arising from the commission of the crime stands,[36] despite the reduction of Monreal's penalty. But we must reform the awards of damages in order to conform to prevailing jurisprudence. The CA granted only P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P30,000.00 as actual damages, and P50,000.00 as moral damages. We hold that the amounts for death indemnity and moral damages should each be raised to P75,000.00 to accord with prevailing case law;[37] and that exemplary damages of P30,000.00 due to the attendance of treachery should be further awarded,[38] to accord with the pronouncement in People v. Catubig,[39] to wit: The commission of an offense has two-pronged effect, one on the public as it breaches the social order and 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 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.
2010-07-06
BERSAMIN, J.
That treachery, being an attendant circumstance, was inseparable from murder did not matter. As well explained in People v. Catubig:[45]
2010-06-29
CARPIO MORALES, J.
The Court additionally awards exemplary damages to the victim in view of the qualifying circumstance of demand for ransom.  People v. Catubig[41] enlightens: 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 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. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
2010-02-24
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Finally, the Court of Appeals was correct in awarding exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00. 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[70] of the Civil Code.[71]
2010-01-26
CORONA, J.
Nonetheless, the victims are entitled to exemplary damages since appellant used a deadly weapon to perpetrate the offense.[19] While the use of a deadly weapon is not one of the generic aggravating circumstances in Article 14 of the RPC, under Article 266-B thereof, the presence of such circumstance in the commission of rape increases the penalty, provided that it has been alleged in the Information and proved during trial.[20] This manifests the legislative intent to treat the accused who resorts to this particular circumstance as one with greater perversity and, concomitantly, to address it by imposing a greater degree of liability. Thus, even if the use of a deadly weapon is not alleged in the Information but is proven during the trial, it may be appreciated to justify the award of civil liability, particularly exemplary damages.[21]
2009-10-13
PERALTA, J.
This Court, however, deems it necessary to include an award of exemplary damages in favor of the heirs of Hudo. 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[19] of the Civil Code.[20] The award of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages is therefore, proper under current jurisprudence.[21]
2009-09-30
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
As to the damages awarded, Article 2230 of the Civil Code provides that in criminal offenses, exemplary damages as part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Since the generic aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position was not alleged in the Information against petitioner it cannot be appreciated in the imposition of the penalty. But as regards the award of exemplary damages, in the case of People v. Catubig,[23] the Court declined retroactive application of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit: The retroactive application of procedural rules, nevertheless, cannot adversely affect the rights of the private offended party that have become vested prior to the effectivity of said rules. Thus, in the case at bar, although relationship has not been alleged in the information, the offense having been committed, however, prior to the effectivity of the new rules, the civil liability already incurred by appellant remains unaffected thereby.
2009-03-17
VELASCO JR., J.
In line moreover with People v. Catubig,[36] the presence of an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, entitles the offended party to an award of exemplary damages.[37] We modify the judgment with respect to exemplary damages by awarding PhP 25,000 per count.
2008-10-06
AZCUNA, J.
It is a settled doctrine that the assessment made by the trial court on the credibility of witnesses deserves great regard and weight on appeal.[38]  This is because the trial judge has a unique position of hearing first hand the witnesses and observing their deportment, conduct and attitude during the course of the testimony in open court.[39]  The exception is when the trial court's evaluation was reached arbitrarily or when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied certain facts or circumstances of weight and substance which could affect the result of the case.[40]  The Court, after a careful review of the records of this case, finds no compelling reason to reverse the finding of the trial court.
2008-09-22
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The purpose of awarding moral damages is to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversion or amusement that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone by reason of defendant's culpable action.[26] On the other hand, the aim of awarding exemplary damages is to deter serious wrongdoings.[27]
2008-09-17
QUISUMBING, J.
The award of exemplary damages[38] is also warranted because of the presence of the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery in the commission of the crime. This is in accordance with our ruling in People v. Catubig[39] where we emphasized that insofar as the civil aspect of the crime is concerned, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is recoverable if there is present an aggravating circumstance (whether qualifying or ordinary) in the commission of the crime.[40]
2008-08-20
AZCUNA, J.
The concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender are special qualifying circumstances that are needed to be alleged in the complaint or information for the penalty of death to be decreed.[29] The Constitution guarantees to be inviolable the right of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.[30] It is a requirement that renders it essential for every element of the offense with which he is charged to be properly alleged in the complaint or information.[31]
2008-04-30
TINGA, J,
As to damages, the appellate court correctly awarded P50,000.00 as moral damages, an award that rests on the jural foundation that the crime of rape necessarily brings with it shame, mental anguish, besmirched reputation, moral shock and social humiliation.[31] In addition, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 should be granted pursuant to the ruling in People v. Catubig[32] that the award of exemplary damages is justified pursuant to Article 2230 of the Civil Code.[33] Since the special aggravating circumstance of the use of a deadly weapon attended the commission of the rape, the offended party is entitled to exemplary damages.
2006-05-03
QUISUMBING, J.
For the treachery, P25,000 is further awarded to the heirs of the victim as exemplary damages. In People v. Catubig,[54] we ruled that insofar as the civil aspect is concerned, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000 is recoverable if there is present an aggravating circumstance, whether qualifying or ordinary, in the commission of the crime. Attorney's fees in the amount of P25,000 is also awarded.[55]
2004-06-29
PER CURIAM
We modify such awards. In line with recent jurisprudence, an award of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity is mandatory upon a finding of qualified rape.[33] In addition, the victim is entitled to an award of P75,000.00 as moral damages without need of proof because it is assumed that the victim has suffered moral injuries by reason of such crime.[34] Considering the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship, she is also entitled to exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00. As we held in People vs. Catubig,[35] "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."
2004-06-23
PER CURIAM
As regards the award of civil damages by the trial court, we observed that it only ordered the payment of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. The indemnity should be P75,000.00. This is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of qualified rape.[25] An additional award of P75,000.00 as moral damages is also proper without need of pleading or proof of the basis thereof since the anguish and pain she endured are evident.[26] Considering the presence of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship, she is also entitled to exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00. As we held in People vs. Catubig,[27] "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."
2004-06-08
DAVIDE JR., CJ.
As to the civil aspect of the case, the trial court awarded in favor of the victim's heirs "the amounts of P50,000.oo as indemnity for [the victim's] death and P50,000.oo as indemnity ex delicto." Such an award is duplicitous. Article 2206 of the Civil Code authorizes an award of civil indemnity for death caused by a crime, which current jurisprudence has set at P50,000. We, therefore, modify the decision by deleting the other award of P50,000. However, an award of exemplary damages in the sum of P25,000 is warranted because of the presence of the aggravating circumstance of treachery.[22] Exemplary damages is awarded when the commission of the offense is attended by an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying.[23]
2004-05-27
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
We also award the victim's heirs P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. This is pursuant to our ruling in People vs. Catubig[65] that if a crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance, either qualifying or generic, an award of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages is justified.
2004-02-13
CARPIO, J.
The Revised Penal Code is silent as to when relationship is mitigating and when it is aggravating.[52] Jurisprudence considers relationship as an aggravating circumstance in crimes against chastity.[53] However, rape is no longer a crime against chastity for it is now classified as a crime against persons.[54] The determination of whether an alternative circumstance is aggravating or not to warrant the death penalty cannot be left on a case-by-case basis. The law must declare unequivocally an attendant circumstance as qualifying to warrant the imposition of the death penalty. The Constitution expressly provides that the death penalty may only be imposed for crimes defined as heinous by Congress.[55] Any attendant circumstance that qualifies a crime as heinous must be expressly so prescribed by Congress.
2003-12-11
PER CURIAM
Going back to the penalty imposable, an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, entitles the offended party to exemplary damages within the meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil Code.[33] There being a demand for ransom in this case, an aggravating circumstance, an award of P25,000.00 as damages to the victim is in order.[34]
2003-12-01
TINGA, J.
But in light of the factual milieu in this case, the award of moral and exemplary damages is in order. The fact that the victims suffered the trauma of mental, physical and psychological ordeal constitutes sufficient basis for the award of moral damages.[61] Specifically, Marilyn was detained for six years and gave birth to two sons by the appellant while Marialisa was confined for three years and gave birth to a daughter also by the appellant. The award of moral damages to Marilyn and Marialisa in the amount of P300,000.00 and P200,000.00, respectively, is warranted. On exemplary damages, the presence of an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, entitles the offended party to the award thereof pursuant to Article 2230 of the Civil Code.[62] Accordingly, the award of P50,000.00 as exemplary damages for each case is reasonable.
2003-11-28
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Anent the award for exemplary damages, Article 2230 of the Civil Code provides that in criminal offenses, exemplary damages may be imposed only when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. In People vs. Catubig,[63] we held that exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 are recoverable if there is present an aggravating circumstance (whether qualifying or ordinary) in the commission of the crime.[64]
2003-11-19
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Considering that appellants acted in conspiracy, they should be held jointly and severally liable for civil liabilities. As correctly held by the trial court, appellants are jointly and severally liable to the heirs of the victim for civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 and for moral damages also in the amount of P50,000.00 for the pain and sorrow they suffered which were proved during the hearing. In view of the presence of abuse of superior strength and craft in the commission of the crime, the heirs are also entitled to exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00.[52] Appellants are also liable to the said heirs in the total amount of P63,000.00 as actual damages, the prosecution having proven that such amount was lost. The heirs failed to prove the expenses they incurred during the wake. However, in lieu thereof, they are entitled to temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00.[53]