ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 128900.November 19, 2001]

PEOPLE vs. ANTONIO et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 19 2001.

G.R. No. 128900(People v. Alberto S. Antonio, et al.)

Private complainant Maria Odyssa T. Tuadles, surviving spouse of the victim, Arnulfo Tuadles, filed this Motion for Reconsideration of our Decision dated July 14, 2000, praying that this case be referred to Court En Banc; that accused-appellant Alberto S. Antonio be convicted of the crime of Murder instead of Homicide, and that the award of moral damages be increased from P500,000.00 to P4,500,000.00.

Movant argues that since the Decision was rendered by a divided vote of 3-2 of the First Division of this Court, the same should be reviewed by the Court En Banc which will have a fresh look at the same. However, this case does not fall under any of the instances which are properly cognizable by the Banc, as enumerated in our Resolution dated November 18, 1993. Besides, movant has no ground to assail the fairness and objectivity of the members of the First Division in resolving this motion for reconsideration. In fact, Justice would be better served if procedural laws are not trifled with, even as this Court ensures that the conclusions drawn are supported by substantive law and jurisprudence.

Notably, the Office of the Solicitor General did not file a motion for reconsideration of our Decision. According to private complainant, it was this inaction on the part of the OSG that prompted her to question this Court's s decision on her own, with the assistance of private counsel.

To be sure, it is the Solicitor General that represents the Government in all criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. ¹ Revised Adminstrative Code, Section 35. par. (1); People v. Montesa, 248 SCRA 641, 644 (1995). Thus, the rule is that the offended party or private complainant may not appeal or intervene personally before the Supreme Court of Court Appeals insofar as the criminal aspect of the case is concerned in the event that the OSG deems it proper not to file an appeal or seek a reconsideration of the decision. ² People vs. Santiago, 174 SCRA 143, 152 (1989). In fact, this Court has held that actions filed in the name of the Republic of the Philippines before these courts, if not intiated by the Solicitor General, will be summarily dismissed. ³ Republic v. Partisala., 118 SCRA 370, 373 (1982).

Neither can the movant complain that the OSG's refusal to seek a reconsideration of this Court's decision amounted to a deprivation of due process of law. The criminal case was well prosecuted before the trial court and, in fact, all the accused therein were convicted as charged. That the conviction was, on appeal, downgraded from Murder to Homicide and the penalty accordingly reduced cannot be attributed alone to the Solicitor General's recommendation, for indeed, the evidence, the law and jurisprudence lead to no other conclusion.

The movant herself, through private counsel, admits that her request for this Court to allow her to intervene and pursue a reversal of our ruling in the criminal aspect of the case " may be unprocedural and contrary to law." ⁴ Omnibus Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration and to Admit Attached Motion for Reconsideration, p. 4, Rollo, p. 565. She nevertheless urges this Court to exercise utmost liberality and consider her contrary views.However, the arguments submitted in the instant motion for reconsideration are not only legally untenable, they are hardly persuasive.We are not about to disregard the well-established principles, both in procedure and of substance, in the absence of any compelling justification.

Movant further claims that the award of moral damages is unusually low.While we recognize that the heirs of the victim have lost a husband and a father, the law does not provide that each and every heir of the victim must be awarded separate moral damages of their own.For this reason, the courts award moral damages in a sum to all the compulsory heirs of the victim without specifically assigning how much each individual heir is to receive. Thus, in the case of People v. Bahenting, ⁵ 303 SCRA 558, 569 (1999). this Court ruled that the moral damages awarded by the trial court should "also be given to the victim's nine (9) children who, like their mother, are compulsory heirs of the victim." The rule is that regardless of the amount awarded, all the compulsory heirs share as a group, not as individual claimants.

Moreover, we have uniformly held that "with respect to moral damages, care must attend its award in order to avoid any excessive expression of sympathy on the victims lest we forget that the real purpose of moral damages is essentially indemnity or separation, not punishment or correction." ⁶ People v. Lumiwan, 295 SCRA 215, 229 (1998). It is awarded to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversions or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he or she has undergone due to the culpable acts of the accused. ⁷ Kierulf v. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 433, 452 (1997). Hence, the prayer for an increase in the amount of moral damages should be denied.

ACCORDINGLY, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED WITH FINALITY.

The motion of accused-appellant SPO4 Juanito Nieto to resolve motion dated November 21, 2000 and to terminate preventive suspension is GRANTED. (C.J. Davide, Jr. and J. Puno, dissenting).

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE