People of the Philippines vs. Arnold Garchitorena Y Camba a.K.a. Junior; Joey Pamplona a.K.a. Nato...

2
People of the Philippines vs. Arnold Garchitorena Y Camba A.K.A. Junior; J Pamplona A.K.A. Nato and Jessie Garcia Y Adorino, G. . No. !"#$%#, Au&ust '(, '%%) *+C -N / he increase in the a0ard of dama&es is predicated on the 1ualifyin& circumstances present in the case and not on the penalty imposed. 2AC 3/ Garchitorena,Pamplona, and Garcia, herein accused4appellants, 0ere char&ed and found &uilty for the crime of murder 0ith abuse of superior stren&th as the 1ualifyin& a&&ravatin& circumstance, 0as sentenced to su5er the penalty of death and to indemnify 6ointly and severally the heirs of the victim in the amount of P#%,%%%.%% as civil indemnity, P#%,%%%.%% as moral dama&es, P#%,%%%.%% as e7emplary dama&es, P!$,"%%.%% as actual dama&es, P8%(,%%%.%% for loss of earnin& capacity and to pay the costs of the suit. he accused4appellants appealed but the appellate court a9rmed in toto the decision of the lo0er court. -n vie0 of the penalty, the case 0as for0arded to the 3upreme Court for automatic revie0 and 6ud&ment. -33: / hether or not the a0ard of dama&es appropriate in this case. < =*/ .A. No. )>8$, also ?no0n as the Anti4*eath Penalty =a0, prohibits imposition of death penalty and reclusion perpetua 0ithout eli&ibility for should instead be imposed. <o0ever, in People vs. @ictor, the a0ardin& of civil indemnity is not dependent on the actual imposition of the death penalty, but on the fact that 1ualifyin& circumstances 0arrantin& the imposition of the dea penalty attended the commission of the crime. Also, it is is mandatory and &ranted to the heirs of the victim 0ithout need of proof other than the commission of the crime. -n case of moral dama&es, it need not be alle&ed and proved as the emotional su5erin& of the heirs from the vicious ?illin& of the victim cannot be denied. he 3upreme Court, in People v. @illanueva, declared that B0hen actual dama&es proven by receipts durin& the trial amount to less than P'#,%%%.%%, as in this case, the a0ard of temperate dama&es for P'#,%%%.%% is 6usti ed in lieu of act dama&es of a lesser amount. -n the li&ht of such rulin&, the victimDs heirs in the present case should, therefore, be a0arded temperate dama&es in the amount of P'#,%%%.%% As to the loss of earnin& capacity, it is a rule that documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for dama&es, unless E!F the deceased is self4 employed and earnin& less than the minimum 0a&e under current labor la0s, in 0hich case 6udicial notice may be ta?en of the fact that in the deceasedDs line of 0or? no documentary evidence is available; or E'F the deceased is employed as a daily 0a&e 0or?er earnin& less than the minimum 0a&e under current labor la0s. -n

description

People of the Philippines vs. Arnold Garchitorena Y Camba A.K.A. Junior; Joey Pamplona A.K.A. Nato and Jessie Garcia Y Adorino, G. R. No. 175605, August 28, 2009

Transcript of People of the Philippines vs. Arnold Garchitorena Y Camba a.K.a. Junior; Joey Pamplona a.K.a. Nato...

People of the Philippines vs. Arnold Garchitorena Y Camba A.K.A. Junior; Joey Pamplona A.K.A. Nato and Jessie Garcia Y Adorino, G. R. No. 175605, August 28, 2009

DOCTRINE: The increase in the award of damages is predicated on the qualifying circumstances present in the case and not on the penalty imposed.

FACTS: Garchitorena, Pamplona, and Garcia, herein accused-appellants, were charged and found guilty for the crime of murder with abuse of superior strength as the qualifying aggravating circumstance, was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death and to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, P16,700.00 as actual damages, P408,000.00 for loss of earning capacity and to pay the costs of the suit.

The accused-appellants appealed but the appellate court affirmed in toto the decision of the lower court.

In view of the penalty, the case was forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review and judgment.

ISSUE: Whether or not the award of damages appropriate in this case.

HELD: R.A. No. 9346, also known as the Anti-Death Penalty Law, prohibits the imposition of death penalty and reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole should instead be imposed. However, in People vs. Victor, the awarding of civil indemnity is not dependent on the actual imposition of the death penalty, but on the fact that qualifying circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty attended the commission of the crime. Also, it is is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.

In case of moral damages, it need not be alleged and proved as the emotional suffering of the heirs from the vicious killing of the victim cannot be denied.

The Supreme Court, in People v. Villanueva, declared that "when actual damages proven by receipts during the trial amount to less than P25,000.00, as in this case, the award of temperate damages for P25,000.00 is justified in lieu of actual damages of a lesser amount." In the light of such ruling, the victims heirs in the present case should, therefore, be awarded temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00

As to the loss of earning capacity, it is a rule that documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for damages, unless (1) the deceased is self-employed and earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, in which case judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the deceaseds line of work no documentary evidence is available; or (2) the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws. In this case, the victim, at the time of his death, was self-employed and earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.

Hence, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and the award for loss of earning capacity, modifying the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua, and the award for civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages and replacing actual damages with temperate damages: P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of actual damages.