This case has been cited 22 times or more.
|
2014-02-12 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| This Court notes, however, that both the RTC and Court of Appeals overlooked the award of exemplary damages. Being corrective in nature, exemplary damages can be awarded even in the absence of an aggravating circumstance if the circumstances of the case show the highly reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the offender.[68] Thus, this Court deems it necessary to modify the civil liability of appellant Jastiva to include exemplary damages for the vindication of the sense of indignity and humiliation suffered by AAA, a woman of advanced age, and to set a public example, to serve as deterrent to those who abuse the elderly, and to protect the latter from sexual assaults. | |||||
|
2013-11-25 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The award of exemplary damages finds basis in Art. 2229 of the Civil Code as it pertinently provides that exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. Being corrective in nature, exemplary damages can be awarded where the circumstances of the case show the highly reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the offender.[30] The circumstances of the present case show the high degree of perversity and depravity of Garcia in sexually assaulting his neighbor's child. To deter such behavior, exemplary damages must be imposed on the accused as a warning to those persons who would be similarly disposed. | |||||
|
2013-11-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| The purpose of exemplary damages is to serve as a deterrent to future and subsequent parties from the commission of a similar offense. The case of People v. Rante[85] citing People v. Dalisay[86] held that: Also known as 'punitive' or 'vindictive' damages, exemplary or corrective damages are intended to serve as a deterrent to serious wrong doings, and as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured or a punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct. These terms are generally, but not always, used interchangeably. In common law, there is preference in the use of exemplary damages when the award is to account for injury to feelings and for the sense of indignity and humiliation suffered by a person as a result of an injury that has been maliciously and wantonly inflicted, the theory being that there should be compensation for the hurt caused by the highly reprehensible conduct of the defendant associated with such circumstances as willfulness, wantonness, malice, gross negligence or recklessness, oppression, insult or fraud or gross fraud that intensifies the injury. The terms punitive or vindictive damages are often used to refer to those species of damages that may be awarded against a person to punish him for his outrageous conduct. In either case, these damages are intended in good measure to deter the wrongdoer and others like him from similar conduct in the future.[87] | |||||
|
2012-02-01 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape in which only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[12] | |||||
|
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: | |||||
|
2011-10-05 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In both cases, since the death penalty would not have been imposed even without the enactment of Republic Act No. 9346, this Court affirms the award of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00, as well as moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00, both for each count of rape. [37] In addition, we have held that since exemplary damages are corrective in nature, the same can be awarded, not only in the presence of an aggravating circumstance, but also where the circumstances of the case show the highly reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the offender.[38] This Court believes that the conduct of accused-appellant herein, who raped her minor adoptive sister twice, falls under this category and is therefore liable for exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00 for each count of rape, in line with existing jurisprudence. [39] | |||||
|
2011-07-27 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In People v. Dalisay,[71] the Court clarified that "[b]eing corrective in nature, exemplary damages, therefore, can be awarded, not only in the presence of an aggravating circumstance, but also where the circumstances of the case show the highly reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the offender. In much the same way as Article 2230 prescribes an instance when exemplary damages may be awarded, Article 2229, the main provision, lays down the very basis of the award."[72] | |||||
|
2011-06-08 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape in which only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. [38] | |||||
|
2011-04-06 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Exemplary damages are intended to serve as deterrent to serious wrongdoings, as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured, or as punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct.[46] Being corrective in nature, exemplary damages can be awarded, not only in the presence of an aggravating circumstance, but also where the circumstances of the case show the highly reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the offender.[47] Accused-appellant herein is liable for exemplary damages for raping a minor, AAA, with the use of a knife and threats on the lives of AAA herself and her family, on four separate occasions, until AAA became pregnant. Consequently, accused-appellant should pay AAA exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00 for each count of rape, in line with existing jurisprudence.[48] | |||||
|
2011-03-16 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape in which only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[97] | |||||
|
2011-02-02 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Prevailing jurisprudence leads us to affirm the CA's ruling that AAA was entitled to P50,000.00 as civil indemnity,[17] and P50,000.00 as moral damages,[18] without need of any pleading and proof. Similarly correct was the CA's grant of P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. [19] In People v. Mira,[20] we observed that "when either one of the qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority is omitted or lacking, that which is pleaded in the information and proved by the evidence may be considered as an aggravating circumstance." In this case, the relationship between the victim and the accused is an aggravating circumstance because it was alleged in the information and duly proved during the trial. Thus, conformably with Article 2230 of the Civil Code, which provides that "in criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstance," we ratify the award of exemplary damages. | |||||
|
2010-12-15 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| It must be noted that, in the said cases, the Court used as basis Article 2229, rather than Article 2230, to justify the award of exemplary damages. Indeed, to borrow Justice Carpio Morales' words in her separate opinion in People of the Philippines v. Dante Gragasin y Par, "[t]he application of Article 2230 of the Civil Code strictissimi juris in such cases, as in the present one, defeats the underlying public policy behind the award of exemplary damages -- to set a public example or correction for the public good."[32] | |||||
|
2010-12-15 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| It must be noted that, in the said cases, the Court used as basis Article 2229, rather than Article 2230, to justify the award of exemplary damages. Indeed, to borrow Justice Carpio Morales' words in her separate opinion in People of the Philippines v. Dante Gragasin y Par, "[t]he application of Article 2230 of the Civil Code strictissimi juris in such cases, as in the present one, defeats the underlying public policy behind the award of exemplary damages -- to set a public example or correction for the public good."[64] (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2010-09-22 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape in which only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[77] | |||||
|
2010-08-25 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In People vs. Anthony R. Rante,[26] citing People vs. Antonio D. Dalisay[27] and People vs. Cristino Cañada,[28] the Court awarded exemplary damages to set a public example, to serve as deterrent to elders who abuse and corrupt the youth, and to protect the latter from sexual abuse. | |||||
|
2010-08-09 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The CA modified the award of damages by the RTC, adding civil indemnity and exemplary damages. This is but proper, considering that was done to conform to prevailing jurisprudence. The award of civil indemnity to the rape victim is mandatory upon finding that rape took place.[19] As to the award of exemplary damages, it finds support in People v. Dalisay.[20] Art. 2229 of the Civil Code serves as the basis for the award of exemplary damages as it pertinently provides, "Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages." Being corrective in nature, exemplary damages, therefore, can be awarded, not only in the presence of an aggravating circumstance, but also where the circumstances of the case show the highly reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the offender.[21] By subjecting a child to his sexual depredations, accused-appellant has displayed behavior that society has an interest in curbing. Thus, the purpose of exemplary damages to serve as a deterrent finds application to the present case, to protect the youth from sexual abuse. | |||||
|
2010-07-13 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Three principles guide the courts in resolving rape cases: (1) and accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape in which only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[7] | |||||
|
2010-07-09 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Three principles guide the courts in resolving rape cases: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape in which only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[29] | |||||
|
2010-07-09 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The award of exemplary damages is likewise proper. As held in People v. Dalisay,[40] "being corrective in nature, exemplary damages, therefore, can be awarded, not only in the presence of an aggravating circumstance, but also where the circumstances of the case show the highly reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the offender." In much the same way as Article 2230 of the Civil Code prescribes an instance when exemplary damages may be awarded, Article 2229, the main provision, lays down the very basis of the award. Thus, in People v. Matrimonio,[41] the Court imposed exemplary damages to deter other fathers with perverse tendencies or aberrant sexual behavior from sexually abusing their own daughters. Also, in People v. Cristobal,[42] the Court awarded exemplary damages on account of the moral corruption, perversity and wickedness of the accused in sexually assaulting a pregnant married woman. Recently, in People v. Cristino Cañada,[43] People v. Pepito Neverio[44] and People v. Lorenzo Layco, Sr.,[45] the Court awarded exemplary damages to set a public example, to serve as deterrent to elders who abuse and corrupt the youth, and to protect the latter from sexual abuse. It must be noted that, in the said cases, the Court used as basis Article 2229, rather than Article 2230, to justify the award of exemplary damages. Indeed, the deplorable act of the accused in defiling his daughter must not go unpunished. | |||||
|
2010-07-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The award by the CA of civil indemnity ex delicto in the amount of PhP 75,000 up from the PhP 50,000 decreed by the RTC, and the increase from PhP 50,000 to PhP 75,000 of the award of moral damages, should be modified. The award of both items at the level set forth in the CA decision is proper only in qualified rape where the imposable penalty under the law is death, albeit Republic Act No. 9346[19] now prohibits the imposition of the death penalty. The charge against appellant, however, and for which he was convicted, was simple rape punishable under paragraph 1 of Art. 266-B of the Revised Penal Code by reclusion perpetua. In line with current jurisprudence, the correct amount should be PhP 50,000 as civil indemnity and the same amount as moral damages.[20] | |||||
|
2010-06-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The award of exemplary damages is also proper not only to deter outrageous conduct,[32] but also in view of the aggravating circumstances of minority and relationship surrounding the commission of the offense, [33] both of which were alleged in the information and proved during the trial. To conform to current jurisprudence,[34] PhP 30,000 for each count of rape ought to be awarded, upped from the PhP 25,000 given by the courts a quo. | |||||
|
2010-03-29 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The rich jurisprudence in rape cases shows that there are two legal bases for awarding exemplary damages. People v. Dalisay[61] is instructive. Thus: [B]y focusing only on Article 2230 as the legal basis for the grant of exemplary damages--taking into account simply the attendance of an aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime, courts have lost sight of the very reason why exemplary damages are awarded. Catubig is enlightening on this point, thus-- | |||||