Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 > April 2016 Decisions > G.R. No. 202124, April 05, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. IRENEO JUGUETA Accused-Appellant.:




G.R. No. 202124, April 05, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. IRENEO JUGUETA Accused-Appellant.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. 202124, April 05, 2016

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

D E C I S I O N

PERALTA, J.:

This resolves the appeal from the Decision1 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:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
"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 V% 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 provocation for the attack and the accused took advantage of nighttime to facilitate the commission of the offense.

Contrary to law.2ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

In Criminal Case No. 7702-G, appellant, together with Gilbert Estores and Roger San Miguel, was charged with Multiple Attempted Murder, allegedly committed as follows:

That on or about 9:00 o'clock in the evening of 6th day of June, 2002, at Barangay Caridad Ilaya, Municipality of Atimonan, Province of Quezon, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, armed with short firearms of undetermined calibres, with intent to kill, qualified by treachery, with evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, 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 the commission of the crime of Murder, directly by overt acts, but did not perform all the acts of execution which would have produced it by reason of some cause or accident other than the spontaneous desistance 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 minors, were not hit.

CONTRARY TO LAW.3

Roger San Miguel, however, moved for reinvestigation of the case against them. At said proceedings, one Danilo Fajarillo submitted his sworn statement stating that on June 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 while the other two had no participation in the shooting incident. Fajarillo further stated that Roger San Miguel was not present at the crime scene. Based on the sworn statement of Fajarillo, the Provincial 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 Gilbert Estores and Roger San Miguel was dismissed, and trial proceeded only as to appellant.5

At the trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of Norberto Divina, the victim, 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. 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 ammunitions were used.6

Norberto testified that the appellant is his brother-in-law. He recounted that in the evening of June 6, 2002, as his entire family lay down on the floor of their one-room nipa hut to sleep, the "sack" walling of their hut was suddenly stripped off, and only the supporting bamboo (fences) remained. With the covering of the wall gone, the three (3) 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 the 3 men as appellant, Gilbert Estores and Roger San Miguel.

The 3 men ordered Norberto to come down from his house, but he refused to do so. The men then uttered, "Magdasal ka na at katapusan mo na ngayon" Norberto pleaded with them, saying, "Maawa kayo sa amin, matanda na ako at marami akong anak. Anong kasalanan ko sa inyo?" Despite such plea for mercy, a gunshot was fired, and Norberto immediately threw his body over his children and wife in an attempt to protect them from being hit. Thereafter, he heard successive gunshots being fired in the direction where his family huddled together in their hut.7

When the volley of shots ceased and the three (3) men left, Norberto saw that his two (2) young daughters were wounded. His wife went out of their house to ask for help from neighbors, while he and his older daughter carried the two (2) wounded children out to the street. His daughter Mary Grace died on the way to the hospital, while Claudine expired at the hospital despite the doctors' attempts to revive her.8

In answer to questions of what could have prompted such an attack from appellant, 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 molesting his daughter.9

On the other hand, appellant was only able to proffer denial and alibi as his defense. Appellant's testimony, along with those of Gilbert Estores, Roger San Miguel, Isidro San Miguel and Ruben Alegre, was that he (appellant) was just watching TV at the house of Isidro San Miguel, where he had been living for several years, at the time the shooting incident occurred. However, he and the other witnesses admitted that said house was a mere five-minute walk away from the crime scene.10

Finding appellant's defense to be weak, and ascribing more credence to the testimony of Norberto, the trial court ruled that the evidence clearly established that appellant, 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 Attempted Murder in Criminal Case No. 7702-G.

The dispositive portion of the trial court's judgment in Criminal Case No. 7698-G reads:

WHEREFORE and in view of all the foregoing, the Court finds accused Ireneo Jugueta 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 the death of Mary Grace Divina and to indemnify her heirs in the amount of 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 Php50,000.00. In addition, he is hereby ordered to pay the heirs of the victims actual damages in the amount of Php16,150.00 and to pay for the costs,

SO ORDERED.11ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

On the other hand, the dispositive portion of the trial court's judgment in Criminal Case No. 7702-G, reads:

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 under Article 248 in relation to Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of Prision Correctional as minimum to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor as maximum for each of the offended parties; Norberto Divina, Maricel Divina, Elizabeth Divina and Judy Ann Divina. Further, accused is ordered to pay for the costs of the suit.

SO ORDERED.12

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 charged.13

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 respective Supplemental Briefs. Both parties manifested that they will no longer submit supplemental briefs since they had exhaustively discussed their positions before the CA.15

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 assailants had guns, and to categorically identify appellant as the one holding the gun used to kill Norberto's children.

The appeal is unmeritorious.

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 conclusions based on these factual findings are to be given the highest respect. Thus, 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

The evidence on record fully supports the trial court's factual finding, as affirmed by the CA, that appellant acted in concert with two other individuals, all three of them carrying 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 illumination coming from a lamp inside their house that had been laid bare after its walling was stripped off, to wit:

Q: When the wall of your house was stripped off by these three persons at the same time, do you have light in your house?
A: Yes., sir.

Q: What kind of light was there?
A: A gas lamp.

Q: Where was the gas lamp placed at that time?
A: In the middle of our house.

x x x x

Q: when did they fire a shot?
A: On the same night, when they had stripped off the wallings.

Q: How many gunshots did you hear?
A: Only one.

Q: Do you know the sound of a gunshot? A firearm? A: Yes, sir, it is loud? (sic)

x x x x

Q: After the first shot, was there any second shot?
A: After that, successive fire shot (sic) followed and my youngest and eldest daughters were hit.

x x x x

Q: How many of the three were holding guns at that time?
A: All of them.

Q: You mean to tell the honorable court that these three persons were having one firearm each?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: And they fired shots at the same time?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: To what direction these three persons fired (sic) their firearms during that night?
A: To the place where we were.

Q: When those three persons were firing their respective firearms, what was your position then?
A: I ordered my children to lie down.

Q: How about you, what was your position when you were ordering your children to lie down?
A: (witness demonstrated his position as if covering his children with his body and ordering them to line (sic) down face down)

Q: Mr. Witness, for how long did these three persons fire shots at your house?
A: Less than five minutes, sir.

Q: After they fired their shots, they left your house?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: And when these persons left your house, you inspected your children to see what happened to them?
A: Yes, sir, they were hit.

x x x17

Appellant and the two other malefactors are equally responsible for the death of Norberto's daughters because, as ruled by the trial court, they clearly conspired to kill Norberto's family. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement regarding the commission of a crime and decide to commit it. Proof of a prior meeting between the perpetrators to discuss the commission of the crime is not necessary as long as their concerted acts reveal a common design and unity of purpose. In such case, the act of one is the act of all.18 Here, the three men undoubtedly acted in concert as they went to the house of Norberto together, each with his own firearm. It is, therefore, no longer necessary to identify and prove that it is the bullet particularly fired from appellant's firearm that killed the children.

Murder is defined under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as the unlawful killing of a person, which is not parricide or infanticide, attended by circumstances such as treachery or evident premeditation.19 The presence of any one of the circumstances enumerated in Article 248 of the Code is sufficient to qualify a killing as murder.20 The trial court correctly ruled that appellant is liable for murder because treachery attended the killing of Norberto's two children, thus:

xxx Evidence adduced show that the family of Norberto Divina, were all lying down side by side about to sleep on June 6, 2002 at around 9:00 o'clock in the evening, when suddenly their wall made of sack was stripped off by [appellant] Ireneo Jugueta, Roger San Miguel and Gilbcrto 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 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 killed were 13 years old and 3 lA years old respectively. In this case, the victims were defenseless and manifestly overpowered by armed assailants when they were gunned down. There was clear showing that the attack was made suddenly and unexpectedly as 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, xxx21

Verily, the presence of treachery qualified the killing of the hapless children to murder. As held in People v. Fallorina,22 the essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected 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. When an adult person illegally attacks a child, treachery exists.

As to the charge of multiple attempted murder, the last paragraph of Article 6 of the 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 execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. In Esqueda v. People,23 the Court held:

If one inflicts physical injuries on another but the latter survives, the crime committed is either consummated physical injuries, if the offender had no intention to kill the victim, or frustrated or attempted homicide or frustrated murder or attempted murder if the offender intends to kill the victim. Intent to kill may be proved by evidence of: (a) motive; (b) the nature or number of weapons used in the commission of the crime; (c) the nature and number of wounds inflicted on the victim; (d) the manner the crime was committed; and (e) the words uttered by the offender at the time the injuries are inflicted by him on the victim.

In this case, the prosecution has clearly established the intent to kill on the part of appellant as shown by the use of firearms, the words uttered24 during, as well as the manner of, the commission of the crime. The Court thus quotes with approval the trial court's finding that appellant is liable for attempted murder, viz.:

In the case at bar, the perpetrators who acted in concert commenced the felony of 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 ordered by them. If only there were good in aiming their target, not only Mary Grace and Claudine had been killed but surely all the rest of the family would surely have died. Hence, perpetrators were liable for Murder of Mary Grace Divina and Claudine Divina but for Multiple Attempted Murder for Norberto Divina, Maricel Divina, Elizabeth Divina and Judy Ann Divina. But as [appellant] Ireneo Jugueta was the only one charged in this case, he alone is liable for the crime committed.25

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 was the shots from appellant's firearm that killed the children, are too trivial and inconsequential to put a dent on said witness's credibility. An examination of Norberto's 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 matters do not affect the credibility of witnesses, as well as their positive identification of the accused as the perpetrators of the crime."27 Both the trial court and the CA found Norberto's candid and straightforward testimony to be worthy of belief and this Court sees no reason why it should not conform to the principle reiterated in Medina, Jr. v. People28 that:

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 absence of any clear showing that the trial court overlooked or misconstrued cogent facts and circumstances that would justify altering or revising such findings and evaluation. This is because the trial court's determination proceeds from its first-hand opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, their conduct and attitude under grilling examination, thereby placing the trial court in unique position to assess the witnesses' credibility and to appreciate their truthfulness, honesty and candor x x x.29

The records of this case, particularly the testimonies of the witnesses, reveal no outstanding or exceptional circumstance to justify a deviation from such long-standing principle. There is no cogent reason to overturn the trial court's ruling that the prosecution evidence, particularly the testimony of Norberto Divina identifying appellant as one of the assailants, is worthy of belief. Thus, the prosecution evidence established beyond any reasonable doubt that appellant is one of the perpetrators of the crime.

However, the Court must make a clarification as to the nomenclature used by the trial court to identify the crimes for which appellant was penalized. There is some confusion caused by the trial court's use of the terms "Double Murder" and "Multiple Attempted 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 and four (4) counts of Attempted Murder.

The facts, as alleged in the Information in Criminal Case No. 7698-G, and as proven during trial, show that appellant is guilty of 2 counts of the crime of Murder and not Double Murder, as the killing of the victims was not the result of a single act but of several acts of appellant and his cohorts. In the same vein, appellant is also guilty of 4 counts of the crime of Attempted Murder and not Multiple Attempted Murder in Criminal Case No. 7702-G. It bears stressing that the Informations in this case failed to comply with the requirement in Section 13, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court that an information must charge only one offense.

As a general rule, a complaint or information must charge only one offense, otherwise, the same is defective. The reason for the rule is stated in People of the Philippines and AAA v. Court of Appeals, 21st Division, Mindanao Station, et al.,30 thus:

The rationale behind this rule prohibiting duplicitous complaints or informations is to give the accused the necessary knowledge of the charge against him and enable him to sufficiently prepare for his defense. The State should not heap upon the accused two or more charges which might confuse him in his defense. Non-compliance with this rule is a ground for quashing the duplicitous complaint or information under Rule 117 of the 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.

However, since appellant entered a plea of not guilty during arraignment and failed to move for the quashal of the Informations, he is deemed to have waived his right to question the same. Section 9 of Rule 117 provides that "[t]he failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information, either because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same in said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any objections except those based on the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i) of Section 3 of this Rule."

It is also well-settled that when two or more offenses are charged in a single complaint or information but the accused fails to object to it before trial, the court may convict him of as many offenses as are charged and proved, and impose upon him the proper penalty for each offense.31 Appellant can therefore be held liable for all the crimes alleged in the Informations in Criminal Case Nos. 7698-G and 7702-G, i.e., 2 counts of murder and 4 counts of attempted murder, respectively, and proven during trial.

Meanwhile, in People v. Nelmida,32 the Court explained the concept of a complex crime as defined in Article 4833 of the Revised Penal Code, thus:

In a complex crime, two or more crimes are actually committed, however, in the eyes of 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 necessary means for committing the other. The classic example of the first kind is when a single bullet results in the death of two or more persons. A different rule governs where separate and distinct acts result in a number killed. Deeply rooted is the doctrine that when various victims expire from separate shot, such acts constitute separate and distinct crimes.34

Here, the facts surrounding the shooting incident clearly show that appellant and the two others, in firing successive and indiscriminate shots at the family of Norberto from their respective firearms, intended to kill not only Norberto, but his entire family. When several gunmen, as in this case, indiscriminately fire a series of shots at a group of people, it shows their intention to kill several individuals. Hence, they are committing not only one crime. What appellant and his cohorts committed cannot be classified as a complex crime because as held in People v. Nelmida,35 "each act by each gunman pulling the trigger of their respective firearms, aiming each particular moment at different persons constitute distinct and individual acts which cannot give rise to a complex crime."36

Furthermore, the Court notes that both the trial court and the CA failed to take into account dwelling as an ordinary, aggravating circumstance, despite the fact that the Informations in Criminal Case Nos. 7698-G and 7702-G contain sufficient allegations to that effect, to wit:

Criminal Case No. 7698-G for Double Murder:

That the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party who had not given provocation for the attack and the accused took advantage of nighttime to facilitate the commission of the offense.37ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Criminal Case No. 7702-G for Multiple Attempted Murder:

xxx the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, armed with short firearms of undetermined calibres, with intent to kill, qualified by treachery, with evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, 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 the commission of the crime of Murder, directly by overt acts, but did not perform all the acts of execution which would have produced it by reason of some cause or accident other than the spontaneous desistance of the accused x x x38ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

In People v. Agcanas,39 the Court stressed that "[i]t has been held in a long line of cases that dwelling is aggravating because of the sanctity of privacy which the law accords to human abode. He who goes to another's house to hurt him or do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere." Dwelling aggravates a felony where the crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party provided that the latter has not given provocation therefor.40 The testimony of Norberto established the fact that the group of appellant violated the victims' home by destroying the same and attacking his entire family therein, without provocation on the part of the latter. Hence, the trial court should have appreciated dwelling as an ordinary aggravating circumstance.

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, thus, with an ordinary aggravating circumstance of dwelling, the imposable penalty is death for each of two (2) counts of murder.41 However, pursuant to Republic Act (RA) No. 9346, proscribing the imposition of the death penalty, the penalty to be imposed on appellant should be reclusion perpetua for each of the two (2) counts of murder without eligibility for parole. With regard to the four (4) counts of attempted murder, the penalty prescribed for each count is prision mayor. With one ordinary aggravating circumstance, the penalty should be imposed in its maximum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum penalty should be from ten (10) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years of prision mayor, while the minimum shall be taken from the penalty 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 appellant 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 minimum, for each of the four (4) counts of attempted murder.

Anent the award of damages, the Court deems it proper to address the matter in detail as regards criminal cases where the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. Generally, in these types of criminal cases, there are three kinds of damages awarded by the Court; namely: civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages. Likewise, actual damages may be awarded or temperate damages in some instances.

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 other proven actual damages, which itself is equivalent to actual or compensatory damages in civil law.42

This award stems from Article 100 of the RPC which states, "Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable."

It is to be noted that civil indemnity is, technically, not a penalty or a fine; hence, it can be increased by the Court when appropriate.43 Article 2206 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have been mitigating circumstances. In addition:

(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter; such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the court, unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant, had no earning capacity at the time of his death;

(2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the provisions of Article 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, for a period not exceeding five years, the exact duration to be fixed by the court;

(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased.

In our jurisdiction, civil indemnity is awarded to the offended party as a kind of monetary restitution or compensation to the victim for the damage or infraction that was done to 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 imprisonment imposed to the offender, the accused is also ordered to pay the victim a sum of money as restitution. Also, it is apparent from Article 2206 that the law only imposes a minimum amount for awards of civil indemnity, which is P3,000.00. The law did not provide for a ceiling. Thus, although the minimum amount for the award cannot be changed, increasing the amount awarded as civil indemnity can be validly modified and increased when the present circumstance warrants it.44

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 purpose of moral damages, viz.:

Moral damages, upon the other hand, may be awarded to compensate one for manifold injuries such as physical suffering, mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings and social humiliation. These damages must be understood to be in the concept of grants, not punitive or corrective in nature, calculated to compensate the claimant for the injury suffered. Although incapable of exactness and no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral damages may be awarded, the amount of indemnity being left to the discretion of the court, it is imperative, nevertheless, that (1) injury must have been suffered by the claimant, and (2) such injury must have sprung from any of the cases expressed in Article 221946 and Article 222047 of the Civil Code, x x x.

Similarly, in American jurisprudence, moral damages are treated as "compensatory 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, and for humiliation, indignity, and vexation suffered by the plaintiff as result of his or her assailant's conduct, as well as the factors of provocation, the reasonableness of the force used, the attendant humiliating circumstances, the sex of the victim, [and] mental distress."49

The rationale for awarding moral damages has been explained in Lambert v. Heirs ofRey 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 suffering inflicted."50

Corollarily, moral damages under Article 222051 of the Civil Code also does not fix the 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 moral damages can, in relation to civil indemnity, be adjusted so long as it does not exceed the award of civil indemnity.52

Finally, the Civil Code of the Philippines provides, in respect to exemplary damages, thus:

ART. 2229. 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.

ART. 2230. 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 circumstances. Such damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended party.

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,53 the theory being that there should be compensation for the hurt caused by the highly reprehensible conduct of the defendant


Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






April-2016 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 200302, April 20, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. GERRY LIPATA Y ORTIZA, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 222702, April 05, 2016 - RAPPLER, INC., Petitioner, v. ANDRES D. BAUTISTA, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10677, April 18, 2016 - RUDENIA L. TIBURDO, Complainant, v. ATTY. BENIGNO M. PUNO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 195176, April 18, 2016 - THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., Petitioner, v. PAZ Y. KHU, FELIPE Y. KHU, JR., AND FREDERICK Y. KHU, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 196470, April 20, 2016 - ROSARIO VICTORIA AND ELMA PIDLAOAN, Petitioners, v. NORMITA JACOB PIDLAOAN, HERMINIGILDA PIDLAOAN AND EUFEMIA PIDLAOAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 194260, April 13, 2016 - HEIRS OF FELICIANO YAMBAO, NAMELY: CHONA YAMBAO, JOEL YAMBAO, WILLY YAMBAO, LENNIE YAMBAO AND RICHARD YAMBAO, AND ALL OTHER PERSONS ACTING UNDER THEIR AUTHORITY, Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF HERMOGENES YAMBAO, NAMELY: ELEANOR YAMBAO, ALBERTO YAMBAO, DOMINIC YAMBAO, ASESCLO YAMBAO, GERALD DANTIC AND MARIA PILAR YAMBAO, WHO ARE ALL REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MARIA PILAR YAMBAO., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 193554, April 13, 2016 - SPOUSES RODRIGO IMPERIAL, JR. AND JOCELYN IMPERIAL, AND FE IMPERIAL, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES ROGELIO AND ASUNCION PINIGAT., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 195155, April 13, 2016 - DIVINE WORD COLLEGE OF LAOAG, Petitioner, v. SHIRLEY B. MINA, AS HEIR-SUBSTITUTE OF THE LATE DELFIN A. MINA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 217930, April 18, 2016 - SPOUSES JORGE NAVARRA AND CARMELITA NAVARRA, Petitioners, v. YOLANDA LIONGSON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 208648, April 13, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REYNALDO UMANITO, Accused-Appellant.

  • A.C. No. 11128, April 06, 2016 - PEDRO RAMOS, Complainant, v. ATTY. MARIA NYMPHA C. MANDAGAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. Nos. 208896-97, April 06, 2016 - EDREN RICASATA, Petitioner, v. CARGO SAFEWAY, INC. AND EVERGREEN MARINE CORPORATION (TAIWAN), LTD., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 195054, April 04, 2016 - ATTY. CORAZON CHAVEZ, Petitioner, v. RENATO GARCIA AND THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 204314, April 06, 2016 - HEIRS OF DANILO ARRIENDA, ROSA G. ARRIENDA, MA. CHARINA ROSE ARRIENDA-ROMANO, MA. CARMELLIE ARRIENDA-MARA, DANILO MARIA ALVIN G. ARRIENDA, JR., AND JESUS FRANCIS DOMINIC G. ARRIENDA, Petitioners, v. ROSARIO KALAW, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 6934, April 06, 2016 - HELEN CHANG, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSE R. HIDALGO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198774, April 04, 2016 - TEOFILO ALOLINO, Petitioner, v. FORTUNATO FLORES AND ANASTACIA MARIE FLORES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 184348, April 04, 2016 - TAN PO CHU, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, FELIX T. CHINGKOE, ROSITA L. CHINGKOE, AND RODRIGO GARCIA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 198222, April 04, 2016 - GOLDEN CANE FURNITURE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. STEELPRO PHILIPPINES, INC., SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, AIR LIQUIDE PHILIPPINES, INC., CLARK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, UP-TOWN INDUSTRIES SALES, INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 187633, April 04, 2016 - HEIRS OF DELFIN AND MARIA TAPPA, Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF JOSE BACUD, HENRY CALABAZARON AND VICENTE MALUPENG, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 205414, April 04, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. EDUARDO DELA CRUZ Y GUMABAT @ "EDDIE", Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 207408, April 18, 2016 - HEIRS OF FELINO M. TIMBOL, JR., NAMELY, MICHAEL JOHN JORGE TIMBOL, FELINO JAMES JORGE TIMBOL, AND MARILOU TIMBOL, Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 217120, April 18, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. THE HEIRS OF SPOUSES FLORENTINO AND PACENCIA MOLINYAWE, REPRESENTED BY MARITES MOLINYAWE AND FRED SANTOS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 202756, April 06, 2016 - HEIRS OF CORAZON AFABLE SALUD, REPRESENTED BY DEOGRACIAS A. SALUD, NAPOLA Y. SALUD, JOSEPH Y. SALUD, AND JOE VINCENT Y. SALUD, Petitioners, v. RURAL BANK OF SALINAS, INC. Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 195611, April 04, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF DIEGO LIM, NAMELY, PRUDENCIA D. LIM, ANGELINA D. LIM, SIXTA D. LIM BAJA, ERNESTO D. LIM, MIGUEL D. LIM, JOSEFAD.LIM, CASIMIRO D. LIM, BUENAVENTURA D. LIM, AND ENGRACIA D. LIM UY, (THE LAST FIVE BEING DECEASED, BUT REPRESENTED BY PRUDENCIA D. LIM), HEIRS OF JEORGE* JOSEFAT,** EPIFANIO ROMAMBAN, SANTIAGO PARONG, ANTONIO P. CACHO, JESSMAG, INC., ROSITA LAGUERTA, EMILIO JOSE, HEIRS OF NESTOR P. TRINIDAD, ANTONIO DIAZ, ANTONIO CHUA, GUILLERMO J. JOSE, DANIEL MA. JOSE, LOURDES JOSE, JUNA MA. JOSE, WILFREDO V. GARCIA, JESUS BILBAO, JOSECONCEPCION,JR., FRANCISCO ACHACOSO, DENNIS B. PABLIZO,*** ROMEO A. CRUZ, JOSE DE LA ROSA, VICTORIOSO DIAZ CARPIO, ROSARIO CARPIO SANTOS, MARIETA CARPIO BACAY, MARIETA PALMA, SPOUSES ROLANDO AND OFELIA HUANG, PELAGIO M. ACHACOSO, AND MELBA M. MANDOCDOC, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 214567, April 04, 2016 - DRA. MERCEDES OLIVER, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK AND LILIA CASTRO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 200274, April 20, 2016 - MELECIO DOMINGO, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES GENARO MOLINA AND ELENA B. MOLINA, SUBSTITUTED BY ESTER MOLINA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 199628, April 20, 2016 - HEIRS OF EXEQUIEL HAGORILES, NAMELY, PACITA P. HAGORILES, CONSEJO H. SABIDONG, CESAR HAGORILES, REYNALDO HAGORILES, ANITA H. GERONGANI, LOURDES H. CAPISTRANO, ANA LINA H. BOLUSO, AND SUZETTE H. PE

  • G.R. No. 206779, April 20, 2016 - LEVI STRAUSS & CO., Petitioner, v. ATTY. RICARDO R. BLANCAFLOR, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. 15-09-314-RTC, April 19, 2016 - RE: EVALUATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY OF HON. ANTONIO C. LUBAO, BRANCH 22, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, GENERAL SANTOS CITY, WHO COMPULSORILY RETIRED ON JANUARY 13, 2015, IN CONNECTION WITH THE CASES SUBJECT OF THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED THEREAT FROM MAY 19-22, 2014, AND OTHER RELEVANT DIRECTIVES ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR.

  • G.R. No. 190466, April 18, 2016 - LUIS DERILO Y GEPOLEO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206522, April 18, 2016 - DOEHLE-PHILMAN1 MANNING AGENCY INC., DOHLE (IOM) LIMITED AND CAPT. MANOLO T. GACUTAN, Petitioners, v. HENRY C. HARO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200693, April 18, 2016 - NENA C. ANG, SPOUSES RENATO C. ANG AND PAULINE ANG, SPOUSES GUILLERMO SY AND ALISON ANG-SY, NELSON C. ANG, RICKY C. ANG , AS SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, AND MELINDA C. ANG, Petitioners, v. CHINATRUST (PHILIPPINES) COMMERCIAL BANK CORPORATION AND THE ASIAN DEBT FUND, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208676, April 13, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALLAN MENALING Y CANEDO Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. Nos. 210220-21, April 06, 2016 - EDWARD THOMAS F. JOSON, Petitioner, v. THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, GOV. AURELIO M. UMALI, ALEJANDRO R. ABESAMIS, EDILBERTO M. PANCHO, MA. CHRISTINA G. ROXAS, AND FERDINAND R. ABESAMIS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 219811, April 06, 2016 - REX DACLISON, Petitioner, v. EDUARDO BAYTION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 201852, April 05, 2016 - ROBERTO G. ROSALES, NICANOR M. BRIONES, PONCIANO D. PAYUYO, JOSE R. PING-AY, ISIDRO Q. LICO, AND JOSE TAN RAMIREZ, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR CONSUMER EMPOWERMENT OF ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES AND ON BEHALF OF THE NINE MILLION (9,000,000) MEMBER CONSUMERS OF NEA-ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES NATIONWIDE WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED THE MEMBERS' CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES (MCC) OR REINVESTMENT FUND FOR SUSTAINABLE CAPITAL EXPENDITURES (RFSC), Petitioners, v. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (ERC), ASELCO, AKELCO, ALECO, ANTECO, AURELCO, BATELEC I, BATELEC II, BENECO, BILECO, BOHECO I, BOHECO II, FIBECO, BUSECO, CAGELCO I, CAGELCO II, CASURECO I, CASURECO II, CASURECO III, CASURECO IV, CAMELCO, CAPELCO, CEBECO I, CEBECO II, CEBECO III, CENECO, CENPELCO, DORECO, DASURECO, ESAMELCO, FLECO, GUIMELCO, IFELCO, INEC, ISECO, ILECO I, ILECO II, ILECO III, ISELCO I, KAELCO, LUELCO, SORECO I, LANECO, LEYECO I/DORELCO, LEYECO II, LEYECO III, LEYECO IV, LEYECO V, PENELCO, MOELCO I, MOELCO II, MORESCO I, MORESCO II, MOPRECO, NORECO I, NORSAMELCO, NEECO I, NEECO II - Area I, NEECO II - Area II, PELCO I, PELCO II, CANORECO, PRESCO, QUEZELCO I, QUEZELCO II, SAMELCO I, SAMELCO II, SIARELCO, SOCOTECO I, SOCOTECO II, SOLECO, SUKELCO, SURNECO, SURSECO I, SURSECO II, TARELCO I, TARELCO II, VRESCO, ZAMECO I, ZAMECO II, ZAMCELCO, ZANECO, ZAMSURECO I, ZAMSURECO II, BATANELCO, LUBELCO, OMECO, ORMECO, MARELCO, TIELCO, ROMELCO, BISELCO, FICELCO, MACELCO, TISELCO, BANELCO, PROSIELCO, CELCO, COTELCO, TAWELCO, SIASELCO, SULECO, BASELCO, CASELCO, LASURECO, MAGELCO, DIELCO, and COTELCO-PALMA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 206226, April 04, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NIEVES CONSTANCIO Y BACUNGAY, ERNESTO BERRY Y BACUNGAY, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 207659, April 20, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FUNDADOR CAMPOSANO Y TIOLANTO, @ "Punday/Masta" AND HERMAN' DE LOS REYES @ "YOB," Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 209165, April 12, 2016 - LNL ARCHIPELAGO MINERALS, INC., Petitioner, v. AGHAM PARTY LIST (REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT REP. ANGELO B. PALMONES), Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213394, April 06, 2016 - SPOUSES EMMANUEL D. PACQUIAO AND JINKEE J. PACQUIAO, Petitioners, v. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS - FIRST DIVISION AND THE COMMISSION OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192320, April 04, 2016 - BENJAMIN L. VERGARA, JONA M. SARVIDA AND JOSEPHINE P. SABALLA, Petitioners, v. ATTY. EUSEBIO I. OTADOY, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 216572, April 19, 2016 - FELICIANO LEGASPI, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ALFREDO D. GERMAR, AND ROGELIO P. SANTOS, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 196028, April 18, 2016 - SAMAHAN NG MAGSASAKA AT MANGINGISDA NG SITIO NASWE, INC. [SAMMANA], REPRESENTED BY ROGELIO A. COMMENDADOR, PRESIDENT, Petitioner, v. TOMAS TAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 186107, April 20, 2016 - NARCISA M. NICOLAS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SPOUSES RALPH ADORABLE AND ROWENA ADORABLE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 205002, April 20, 2016 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF THE PORT OF BATANGAS, AND THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, Petitioners, v. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION (PSPC), WILLIE J. SARMIENTO, PSPC VICE-PRESIDENT FOR FINANCE AND TREASURER AND ATTY. CIPRIANO U. ASILO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 195728, April 19, 2016 - PARAMOUNT LIFE & GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. CHERRY T. CASTRO AND GLENN ANTHONY T. CASTRO, Respondents.; G.R. No. 211329 - CHERRY T. CASTRO AND GLENN ANTHONY T. CASTRO, Petitioners, v. PARAMOUNT LIFE & GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 189607, April 18, 2016 - RENATO A. CASTILLO, Petitioner, v. LEA P. DE LEON CASTILLO, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3447 (formerly: OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2915-P), April 19, 2016 - LUALHATI C. GUBATANGA, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, BALAGTAS, BULACAN, Complainant, v. RENATO V. BODOY, UTILITY WORKER I, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, BALAGTAS, BULACAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 202124, April 05, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. IRENEO JUGUETA Accused-Appellant.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3436 [Formerly A.M. No. 13-12-261-RTC], April 05, 2016 - REPORT ON THE THEFT OF COURT EXHIBIT BY ROBERTO R. CASTRO, UTILITY WORKER I, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 172, VALENZUELA CITY

  • A.C. No. 10781 [Formerly CBD Case No. 10-2764], April 12, 2016 - COBALT RESOURCES, INC., Complainant, v. ATTY. RONALD AGUADO, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 7110, April 20, 2016 - ARTHUR S. TULIO, Complainant, v. ATTY. GREGORY F. BUHANGIN, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3437 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3665-P], April 20, 2016 - PROSECUTOR III LEO C. TABAO, Petitioner, v. SHERIFF IV JOSE P. CABCABIN, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, TACLOBAN CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 181892, April 19, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA, THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, AND MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, Petitioners, v. HON. JESUS M. MUPAS, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION, BRANCH 117, PASAY CITY, AND PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS CO., INC., Respondents.; G.R. NO. 209917 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, AND MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS COMPANY, INC., TAKENAKA CORPORATION AND ASAHIKOSAN CORPORATION, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 209696 - TAKENAKA CORPORATION AND ASAHIKOSAN CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, AND PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS COMPANY, INC. Respondents.; G.R. NO. 209731 - PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS CO., INC., Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, AS REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, TAKENAKA CORPORATION, AND ASAHIKOSAN CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-14-2385 [Formerly A.M. No. 14-4-115-RTC], April 20, 2016 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Petitioner, v. JUDGE ROMEO B. CASALAN, [FORMERLY A.M. NO. 14-4-115-RTC (REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT [RTC], BRANCHES 13 AND 65, CULASI AND BUGASONG, ANTIQUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 191616, April 18, 2016 - FRANCIS C. CERVANTES, Petitioner, v. CITY SERVICE CORPORATION AND VALENTIN PRIETO, JR., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192428, April 20, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ELPEDIO CASTA

  • G.R. No. 202051, April 18, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS & HIGHWAYS; ENGINEER SIMPLICIO D. GONZALES, DISTRICT ENGINEER, SECOND ENGINEERING DISTRICT OF CAMARINES SUR; AND ENGINEER VICTORINO M. DEL SOCORRO, JR., PROJECT ENGINEER, DPWH, BARAS, CANAMAN, CAMARINES SUR, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES ILDEFONSO B. REGULTO AND FRANCIA R. REGULTO, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 8172, April 12, 2016 - ALEX NULADA, Complainant, v. ATTY. ORLANDO S. PAULMA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 184933, April 13, 2016 - VIOLETA BALBA, FOR AND IN BEHALF OF HER MINOR CHILDREN ROY VINCE AND VIENNA GRACIA, BOTH SURNAMED BALBA, Petitioners, v. TIWALA HUMAN RESOURCES, INC., AND/OR TOGO MARITIME CORP., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 210308, April 06, 2016 - ASIAN INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206766, April 06, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDUARDO YEPES, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 195552, April 18, 2016 - ACS DEVELOPMENT & PROPERTY MANAGERS, INC., Petitioner, v. MONTAIRE REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 216607, April 05, 2016 - ARLENE LLENA EMPAYNADO CHUA, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, IMELDA E. FRAGATA, AND KRYSTLE MARIE C. BACANI, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 210621, April 04, 2016 - ALFREDO MANAY, JR., FIDELINO SAN LUIS, ADRIAN SAN LUIS, ANNALEE SAN LUIS, MARK ANDREW JOSE, MELISSA JOSE, CHARLOTTE JOSE, DAN JOHN DE GUZMAN, PAUL MARK BALUYOT, AND CARLOS S. JOSE, Petitioners, v. CEBU AIR,INC, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 184068, April 19, 2016 - SIMNY G. GUY, AS MINORITY STOCKHOLDER AND FOR AND IN BEHALF OF GOODLAND COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. GILBERT G. GUY, ALVIN AGUSTIN T. IGNACIO AND JOHN AND/OR JANE DOES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 214349, April 20, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEO MENDOZA, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 216010, April 20, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JIMMY ULANDAY @ "SAROY", Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 216776, April 19, 2016 - PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE (PCSO), Petitioner, v. CHAIRPERSON MA. GRACIA M. PULIDO-TAN, COMMISSIONER HEIDI L. MENDOZA, COMMISSIONER ROWENA V. GUANZON, THE COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 215534, April 18, 2016 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. LIQUIGAZ PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, Respondent.; G.R. NO. 215557 - LIQUIGAZ PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 197136, April 18, 2016 - ROMEO PUCYUTAN, FOR AND IN BEHALF OF THE CITY OF MUNTINLUPA, METRO MANILA AS ITS CITY TREASURER, Petitioner, v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 203949, April 06, 2016 - SPOUSES GEORGE A. GALLENT, SR. AND MERCEDES M. GALLENT, Petitioners, v. JUAN G. VELASQUEZ, Respondent.; G.R. No. 205071 - JUAN G. VELASQUEZ, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES GEORGE A. GALLENT, SR. AND MERCEDES M. GALLENT, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 217508, April 18, 2016 - JOSEPH SCOTT PEMBERTON, Petitioner, v. HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, JUDGE ROLINE GINEZ- JABALDE, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 74 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF OLONGAPO CITY, AND MARILOU LAUDE Y SERDONCILLO, Respondents.

  • G.R. Nos. 221849-50, April 04, 2016 - DATU GUIMID P. MATALAM, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 204325, April 18, 2016 - LYNMAN BACOLOR, JEFFREY R. GALURA, HELEN B. TORRES, FRITZIE C. VELLEGAS, RAYMOND CANLAS AND ZHEILA C. TORRES, Petitioners, v. VL MAKABALI MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., ALEJANDRO S. MAKABALI, MELCHOR CATAMBING AND DAX M. TIDULA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 175869, April 18, 2016 - ROBINA FARMS CEBU/UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ELIZABETH VILLA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212382, April 06, 2016 - SCANMAR MARITIME SERVICES, INCORPORATED, CROWN SHIPMANAGEMENT INC., LOUIS DREYFUS ARMATEURS AND M/T ILE DE BREHAT AND/OR MR. EDGARDO CANOZA, Petitioners, v. EMILIO CONAG, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 211098, April 20, 2016 - THE WELLEX GROUP, INC., Petitioner, v. SHERIFF EDGARDO A. URIETA OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN SECURITY AND SHERIFF SERVICES, THE SANDIGANBAYAN SECURITY AND SHERIFF SERVICES, AND BDO UNIBANK, INC. (FORMERLY EQUITABLE PCI BANK, INC.), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 199464, April 18, 2016 - ROGELIO ROSARIO, RUDY ROSARIO, MARY ANN GUTIERREZ, SYLVIA CASTILLO, LOURDES JOSE, LORENA ESTEPA, VIRGINIA ESTEPA AND REMEDIOS SABADO, Petitioners, v. RIZALITO F. ALBA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206459, April 06, 2016 - SPOUSES FLORANTE E. JONSAY AND LUZVIMINDA L. JONSAY AND MOMARCO IMPORT CO., INC., Petitioners, v. SOLIDBANK CORPORATION (NOW METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY), Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 167838, April 20, 2016 - JOSE V. TOLEDO, GLENN PADIERNOS AND DANILO PADIERNOS, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS, LOURDES RAMOS, ENRIQUE RAMOS, ANTONIO RAMOS, MILAGROS RAMOS AND ANGELITA RAMOS AS HEIRS OF SOCORRO RAMOS, GUILLERMO PABLO, PRIMITIVA CRUZ AND A.R.C. MARKETING CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, ALBERTO C. DY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 189577, April 20, 2016 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v. SPS. VICTORIANO & JOVITA FARICIA RIVERA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 209011, April 20, 2016 - MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. DIANA P. ALIBUDBUD, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 167679, April 20, 2016 - ING BANK N.V., ENGAGED IN BANKING OPERATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES AS ING BANK N.V. MANILA BRANCH, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 207662, April 13, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. FABIAN URZAIS Y LANURIAS, ALEX BAUTISTA, AND RICKY BAUTISTA, Accused.; FABIAN URZAIS Y LANURIAS, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 174333, April 20, 2016 - PILIPINAS SHELL FOUNDATION, INC. AND SHELL PHILIPPINES EXPLORATION B.V., Petitioners, v. TOMAS M. FREDELUCES, MARCOS B. CORPUZ, JR., REYNALDO M. SAMONTE, NORMA M. SAMONTE, AMBROCIO VILLANUEVA, SALVACION A. BON, RAMIRO A. BON, LUZVIMINDA B. ANDILLO, LUDIVICO F. BON, ELMO AREGLO, ROSE A. SAN PEDRO, DANTE U. SANTOS, SR., MIGUEL SANTOS, EFREN U. SANTOS, RIC U. SANTOS, SIMON MARCE, JR., JOEL F. SALINEL, BEBIANA SAN PEDRO, AND MARINA SANTOS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 175736 & 175898, April 12, 2016 - JOSE RIZAL L. REMO, REYNALDO G. PANALIGAN, TITA L. MATULIN, ISAGANI CASALME, CIPRIANO P. ROXAS, CESARIO S. GUTIERREZ, CELSO A. LANDICHO, AND EDUARDO L. TAGLE, Petitioners, v. ADMINISTRATOR EDITA S. BUENO, NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION (NEA) BOARD OF ADMINISTRATORS AND MEMBER-CONSUMERS OF BATELEC II, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 175898 - JOSE RIZAL L. REMO, REYNALDO G. PANALIGAN, TITA L. MATULIN, ISAGANI CASALME, CIPRIANO P. ROXAS, CESARIO S. GUTIERREZ, CELSO A. LANDICHO, AND EDUARDO L. TAGLE, Petitioners, v. ADMINISTRATOR EDITA S. BUENO, SEC. RAPHAEL LOTILLA, WILFREDO BILLENA, JOSE VICTOR LOBRIGO, EVANGELITO ESTACA AND MARILYN CAGUIMBAL, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 188145, April 18, 2016 - SPOUSES PRIMO INALVEZ AND JULIANA INALVEZ, Petitioners, v. BAYANG NOOL, ALLAN NOOL AND CELESTINO NOOL, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 172593, April 20, 2016 - NAPOLEON S. RONQUILLO, JR., EDNA G. RA

  • G.R. No. 192488, April 19, 2016 - BLUE EAGLE MANAGEMENT, INC., MA. AMELIA S. BONOAN, AND CARMELITA S. DELA RAMA, Petitioners, v. JOCELYN L. NAVAL, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 194119, April 13, 2016 - SONIA F. MARIANO, Petitioner, v. MARTINEZ MEMORIAL COLLEGES, INC., AND/OR FERDINAND A. MARTINEZ/ DR. ELIZABETH M. DEL RIO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 215548, April 05, 2016 - UNDERSECRETARY AUSTERE A. PANADERO AND REGIONAL DIRECTOR RENE K. BURDEOS, BOTH OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (DILG), Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.; G.R. NO. 215726 - UNDERSECRETARY AUSTERE A. PANADERO AND REGIONAL DIRECTOR RENE K. BURDEOS, BOTH OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (DILG), Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND MOHAMMAD EXCHAN GABRIEL LIMBONA, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 216158 - MANGONDAYA ASUM TAGO, Petitioner, v. COMELEC AND MOHAMMAD EXCHAN GABRIEL LIMBONA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 208066, April 12, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHN GLEN WILE, EFREN BUENAFE, JR., MARK ROBERT LARIOSA AND JAYPEE PINEDA, Accused-Appellants.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-16-2455 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No.10-3443-RTJ), April 11, 2016 - NEMIA CASTRO, Complainant, v. JUDGE CESAR A. MANGROBANG, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 22, IMUS, CAVITE, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 7447, April 18, 2016 - RENE B. HERMANO, Complainant, v. ATTY. IGMEDIO S. PRADO JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210273, April 19, 2016 - BIBIANO C. RIVERA AND LUIS K. LOKIN, JR., Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SHERWIN N. TUGNA AND CINCHONA C. CRUZ-GONZALES, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 213069 - CITIZENS' BATTLE AGAINST CORRUPTION (CIBAC) FOUNDATION AS REPRESENTED BY JESUS EMMANUEL L. VARGAS, Petitioner, v. CIBAC NATIONAL COUNCIL AS REPRESENTED BY EMMANUEL JOEL VILLANUEVA, AND THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 11139, April 19, 2016 - PHILCOMSAT* HOLDINGS CORPORATION, DULY REPRESENTED BY ERLINDA I. BILDNER, Complainant, v. ATTY. LUIS K. LOKIN, JR. AND ATTY. SIKINI C. LABASTILLA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 194402, April 05, 2016 - NEPTALI S. FRANCO, MELINDA L. OCAMPO, ARTEMIO P. MAGABO, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY SOLEDAD MAGABO, BERNARDA C. LAVISORES, NICOMEDES B. DEYNATA, ALBERTO D. DOSAYLA, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY AILENE JOY BILLONES DOSAYLA AND MARIETTA U. LARRACAS, Petitioners, v. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, THE HON. ZENAIDA G. CRUZ-DUCUT, IN HER CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, THE SECRETARY FLORENCIO B. ABAD AND RICALINDA N. ADRIATICO, THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT BUREAU-A, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 213299, April 19, 2016 - PNCC SKYWAY CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. THE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT AND PNCC SKYWAY CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 191699, April 19, 2016 - WILLIAM GO QUE CONSTRUCTION AND/OR WILLIAM GO QUE, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS AND DANNY SINGSON, RODOLFO PASAQUI,1 LENDO LOMINIQUI,2 AND JUN ANDALES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 210540, April 19, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HOMER AND MA. SUSANA DAGONDON, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 203370, April 11, 2016 - MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. AND HELEN Y. DEE, Petitioners, v. PHILIP PICCIO, MIA GATMAYTAN, MA. ANNABELLA RELOVA SANTOS, JOHN JOSEPH GUTIERREZ, JOCELYN UPANO, JOSE DIZON, ROLANDO PAREJA, WONINA M. BONIFACIO, ELVIRA CRUZ, CORNELIO ZAFRA, VICENTE ORTUOSTE, VICTOMA GOMEZ JACINTO, JUVENCIO PERECHE, JR., RICARDO LORAYES, PETER C. SUCHIANCO, AND TRENNIE MONSOD, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 215106 - MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. PHILIP PICCIO, MIA GATMAYTAN, MA. ANNABELLA RELOVA SANTOS, JOHN JOSEPH GUTIERREZ, JOCELYN UPANO, JOSE DIZON, ROLANDO PAREJA, WONINA M. BONIFACIO, ELVIRA CRUZ, CORNELIO ZAFRA, VICENTE ORTUOSTE, VICTORIA GOMEZ JACINTO, JUVENCIO PERECHE, JR., RICARDO LORAYES, PETER C. SUCHIANCO, AND TRENNIE MONSOD, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 202618, April 12, 2016 - CONSULAR AREA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT BENJAMIN V. ZABAT, ROMEO JUGADO, JR., AND NANCY QUINO, Petitioner, v. ARNEL PACIANO D. CASANOVA, ENGR. TOMAS Y. MACROHON, LOCAL HOUSING BOARD OF TAGUIG CITY, AND THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF TAGUIG, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 214934, April 12, 2016 - PACIFIC REHOUSE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. JOVEN L. NGO, AS REPRESENTED BY OSCAR J. GARCIA, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 9018, April 20, 2016 - TERESITA P. FAJARDO, Complainant, v. ATTY. NICANOR C. ALVAREZ, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. 12-8-59-MCTC, April 12, 2016 - RE: FINDINGS ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED AT THE 7TH MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, LILOAN-COMPOSTELA, LILOAN, CEBU.

  • G.R. No. 208360, April 06, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. FELIPE BUGHO Y ROMPAL, A.K.A. "JUN THE MAGICIAN", Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 208446, April 06, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JONEL VARGAS Y RAMOS, JERIENALD VILLAMERO Y ESMAN, ARMANDO CADANO @ MANDO, JOJO ENORME @ JOJO, RUTHER GARCIA @ BENJIE/LOLOY, AND ALIAS TABOY, ACCUSED, JONEL VARGAS Y RAMOS, JERIENALD VILLAMERO Y ESMAN, Accused-Appellants.