1

TORTS: Digests | 091813 | Moral Damages

MORAL DAMAGES Purpose Kierulf v CA A Pantranco bus driver lost control of his bus, causing it to swerve to the left. The bus flew over the center island in the east-bound lane of EDSA. The front of the bus bumped a pick-up, causing injuries to its passengers, as well as a pedestrian. The bus continued to move forward, ramming into a Caltex gas station. The bus driver alleged that an engine differential dropped from a junk truck and hit the under chassis, thereby causing him to swerve. Both parties appeals were on the amount of damages. Petitioners alleged it was too little. Respondent alleged it was too much. LC: for petitioners. Pay the wife 200k in moral damages. Pay 25k in moral damages to the spouses driver CA: affirmed. Pay the wife 100k moral damages. Pay 10k in moral damages to the driver On negligence The SC found the driver to be grossly negligent. The bus was running at 40-50 kph in heavy traffic. The bus driver lost control of the bus and caused it to fly over the central island, thereby showing that the bus was running at a high speed. The bus actually crossed the island and crashed, which shows drivers recklessness. The driver could have stopped the moment it crossed the island but because he did not take any evasive action and failed to adopt any measure to avoid damage, he was like a juggernaut let loose in a big crowd, smashing everything in its path. On moral damages The spouses alleged that the disfigurement of the wife affected their sex life. They wanted moral damages amounting to P1M for the loss of their right to consortium, as well as for the husband who suffered psychologically. They used as basis a California case, Rodriguez v Bethlehem Steel Corporation, as authority for the claim of damages because of loss of sexual relations. But, the case cant apply here since the claim of the husband for deprivation of his right to consortium is not supported by the evidence on record. Yes, his wife might have been badly disfigured, but he had not testified that because of that, his right to marital consortium was affected. However, OK ang moral damages to the wife for her physical sufferings, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety and wounded feelings. Multiple injuries + lost all her teeth + several operations. She felt she has not yet recovered from her injuries. Awarded 400k Moral damages are in the category of an award designed to compensate for actual injury and not meant to enrich complainant at the expense of the defendant. The Court reminds the bench and the bar that in order that moral damages may be awarded, there must be pleading and proof of moral suffering, mental anguish, fright and the like. It is essential that the claimant show the existence of the factual basis of damages, and its causal connection to defendants acts. Moral damages are awarded to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversions, or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he/she has undergone, by reason of the defendants culpable actions. Its award is aimed at restoration of the spiritual status quo ante, thus it must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted. A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries Includes crimes resulting to death People v Villaver Two of the accused, Romulo Villaver and Garces, approached the victim from 2 directions. Romulo stabbed the victim with a kitchen knife, but not deep enough since the victim was able to remove it. Garces stabbed him again. The third accused, Paulino Villaver, appeared to be a mere onlooker. An American friend of the victim helped him after the accused left the scene. The victim died. Only Romulo Villaver was arrested. LC: found Romulo guilty SC: affirmed verdict. There was a witness, Real, who categorically declared having seen the events happen. Penalty: RP On moral damages SC granted moral damages. Under 2219(1), moral damages may be awarded in criminal offenses resulting in physical injuries. This is to be taken in its generic sense (parang NCC33) in that physical injuries includes death. Moral damages compensate for the mental anguish, serious anxiety, and moral shock suffered by the victim and his family as being a proximate result of the wrongful act. Need for testimony on moral suffering People v Cleopas and Pirame Two of the accused, both Cleopas, hit the victim on the forehead with an iron pipe and a piece of wood, while the victim was being held by accused Pirame. This resulted in the victims death. The accused proceeded to hide the body in a well near the house of the father of accused Cleopas. LC: Teodorico Cleopas and Florencio Piramre guilty of murder. Other Cleopas is still at large. Accused to pay 50k each to victims heirs as moral and exemplary damages. SC affirmed verdict based on an eyewitness account, Supero. However, the LC did not state its basis for qualifying the crime to murder, so the SC resolved this issue and found treachery to be present (victim was defenseless). Penalty: RP On moral damages The award of 50k from each accused is unsupported. The widow did not testify on any mental anguish or emotional distress, which she suffered as a result of her husbands death. Carlos Arcona y Moban v CA While the victims were on their way home from a birthday party, Edgardo Talanquines, a victim, heard a thud. He saw Napoleon Ong slump to the ground. Then someone hit him from behind with bamboo, causing him to fall. He only saw petitioner. Edgardo proceeded to run towards a house to ask for help. Ong died on the way to the hospital. The petitioner voluntarily surrendered, alleging that the victims were the one who attacked him. LC: Petitioner is guilty of Homicide, acquitted of Slight Physical Injuries. Benito Arcona is acquitted of Homicide, but guilty of Slight

TORTS: Digests | 091813 | Moral Damages

Physical Injuries. Petitioner to pay 10k in moral damages to victims heirs. CA: affirmed. Petitioner interposed self-defense. But the evidence on record, the presence of the unsheathed bolo, the scattered bamboo sticks, and the shout of Caloy, I will kill you! may suggest a number of scenarios. Circumstantial lang. SC affirms verdict. Penalty: RT min. On moral damages Increase to 50k. A violent death brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victims family. It is human to suffer sorrow, torment, pain, and anger when a loved one becomes a victim of a violent or brutal killing. Such death not only steals the deceased from the family, it also deprives the family of his love, affection, and support, as well as leaving them with a gnawing feeling that an injustice has been done. Moral damages must be awarded even in the absence of any allegation and proof of the heirs emotional suffering. KARLA PEOPLE v. PANADO Dec 26 2000 / Belosillo FACTS: Jun 28 1997: Hilda del Rosario was in her house together with her husband Danilo del Rosario who was drinking liquor in their kitchen with friend Elmer Sison. While going about her household chores, 4 armed persons arrived (Uldarico Panado, Placido Panado, Jessie Oquendo and Lorenzo de Pedro) o With a bolo in hand, Uldarico walked towards the front door while Ronnie Panado challenged her husband Danilo saying, Danny go out, we will fight. o Uldarico approached Danny in a threatening manner. o Danny stood up from his perch and stepped back towards a coconut plantation outside his house. As he stepped out, he was encircled by Ronie, Ronel, and John Paul Eleserio. Louie Gee identified the accused Uldarico, Ronel, Placido, Jessie, John Paul and Ronie as the persons who surrounded and killed his father. o He particularly pointed to Ronel as the one who stabbed his father, and Ronie who smashed his fathers ace with a stone. o He ran towards his grandfathers house when he saw the accused taking turns in hitting his father. Witnesses: Hilda del Rosario, 10-year-old son Louie Gee, friend Elmer Sison they all clearly and positively showed the circumstances regarding the death of Danilo del Rosario. The alibi of the accused was rejected in view of the positive identification of the accused. LC: Ronie and Ronel guilty of murder, reclusion perpetua. Others were acquitted or archived for failure of the court to acquire jurisdiction. o Actual damages: 50,000 ISSUE: WON moral damages should be awarded (YES) HELD/RATIO: On the award of moral damages: The Court is convinced that the prosecution has amply demonstrated that the heirs suffered mental anguish to justify the award. Current jurisprudence has set moral damages at Php 50,000 BUT THE COURT WANTED TO RETHINK THEIR GENERAL POLICY ON MORAL DAMAGES Whereas before, the moral suffering must be proved, the Court now thinks that even without proof, it must be considered. o Unlike the crime of rape, moral damages in murder or homicide is granted only when the heirs of the victim have alleged and proved mental suffering. o However, as borne out by human nature and experience, a violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victims family. It is inherently human to suffer sorrow, torment, pain and anger when a loved one becomes the victim of a violent or brutal killing. Such violent death or brutal killing not only steals from the family of the deceased his precious life, deprives them forever of his love, affection and support, but often leaves them with the gnawing feeling that an injustice has been done to them. o For this reason, moral damages must be awarded even in the absence of any allegation and proof of the heirs' emotional suffering. Verily, Hilda and her son Louie Gee would forever carry the emotional wounds of the vicious killing of a husband and a father. With or without proof, this fact can never be denied; since it is undisputed, it must be considered proved. Final Damages Awarded: Civil indemnity: 50,000 Moral: 50,000 Loss of earning capacity: 514,800

PEOPLE v. ANTICAMARA Jun 8 2011 / Peralta

FACTS: May 7 2002: househelper AAA and driver Abad Sulpacio were sleeping in their employers house. Their employers, the Estrellas, were out of the house at that time. Momentarily, she was jolted from sleep when she heard voices saying, We will kill her now, / We only need money, She heard the persons conversing about 4-5 meters away. Thereafter, 6 persons entered the house, whom she later identified as Dick Tanedo, Marvin Lim, Bert Tanedo, a certain Fred, and appellants Alberto Anticamara and Lando Calaguas. They decided to tie AAA. Later she was untied and led outside the house. Outside, she saw Abad, who was also tied and blindfolded, seated inside a vehicle. The group later brought AAA and Abad to the fishpond owned by their employers. The group brought Abad outside the vehicle and led him away. Later, Fred returned telling the group, Make the decision now, Abad has already four bullets in his body, and the one left is for this girl. They later proceeded to Tarlac, where Lando Calaguas resided. They stayed in Landos house and kept AAA from May 7 to 9 2002.

TORTS: Digests | 091813 | Moral Damages

Appellant Lando Calaguas told AAA that Fred and Bert Taedo would kill her. Lando then brought AAA to a hotel in Tarlac, telling AAA that he would leave her there as soon as Fred and Bert Taedo leave the place. However, once inside the hotel room, appellant Lando Calaguas sexually molested AAA. Lando told AAA to follow what he wanted, threatening her that he would turn her over to Fred and Bert Taedo. After Lando raped AAA, he brought her back to his house. AAA was brought to the residence of Fred's niece, a certain Minda, where Fred kept AAA as his wife. At nighttime, Fred would repeatedly ravish AAA, threatening her that he would give her back to appellant Lando Calaguas who, AAA knew, killed Abad Sulpacio. On May 22, Fred brought AAA to Leyte together with his wife and their children. AAA stayed in the house of Marsha's brother Sito, where she was made as a house helper. On June 4, 2002, AAA escaped from the house of Sito. She proceeded to Isabel, Leyte and sought the help of her friend Susana Ilagan. After hearing AAA's plight, Susana called AAA's brother in Cebu, who later fetched AAA in Isabel, Leyte and brought her to Mandaue City. When they arrived in Mandaue City, they immediately reported the incident to the police authorities. TC: guilty of kidnapping/serious illegal detention rape of AAA reclusion perpetua to death o Moral: 100,000 o Exemplary: 50,000 CA: affirmed TC ISSUE: WON moral damages may be awarded HELD/RATIO: On moral damages: For the murder of Abad Sulpicio: Anent moral damages, the same are mandatory in cases of murder, without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim. However, consistent with recent jurisprudence on heinous crimes where the imposable penalty is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua pursuant to R.A. No. 9346, the award of moral damages should be increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00. For the rape of AAA: AAA is entitled to moral damages pursuant to Article 2219 of the Civil Code, without the necessity of additional pleadings or proof other than the fact of rape. Moral damages is granted in recognition of the victim's injury necessarily resulting from the odious crime of rape. Such award is separate and distinct from the civil indemnity. However, the amount of P100,000.00 awarded as moral damages is reduced to P75,000.00, in line with current jurisprudence. Along that line, appellant Anticamara's liability for moral damages is limited only to the amount of P50,000.00. [79] Pursuant to Article 2219 of the Civil Code, moral damages may be recovered in cases of illegal detention. This is predicated on AAA's having suffered serious anxiety and fright when she was detained for almost one (1) month. lane being traversed by Umuyon. The truck rammed into the jeep, leaving the latter in a total wreck. o Umuyon suffered injuries, leaving his hospitalized for 19 days. In view of the injuries he sustained, Umuyon could no longer drive, reducing his daily income from 150 to 100. Spouses Lomotan instituted a separate and independent civil action for damages against petitioner BF Metal and Rivera before the RTC. o Alleged that (1) Riveras gross negligence and recklessness was the immediate and proximate cause; and (2) BF Metal failed to exercise required diligence in the selection and supervision of Rivera. o Complaint prayed for award of actual, exemplary, moral damages and attorneys fees Among the documentary evidence presented were the cost estimate of Pagawaan Motors which pegged the repair cost of the jeep at Php 96,000, and the cost estimate of Fajardo Motor Works done in 1993, which reflected an increased repair cost at Php 130,655. TC ordered defendants to pay: o Actual: 96,700 (cost of jeep) 15,000 (medical expenses) 50,000 (loss of earnings) o Moral: 100,000 o Exemplary: 100,000 o Attys fees: 25,000 CA affirmed, but modified damages: o Actual: 130,655 (jeep repairs) 10,167 (medical expenses) 2,850 (loss of earnings) o Moral: 100,000 o Exemplary: 100,000 o Attys fees: 25,000 ISSUE: WON the Spouses Lomotan are entitled to the award of moral damages (NO) HELD/RATIO: On moral damages Moral damages are not punitive in nature but are designed to compensate and alleviate the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar harm unjustly caused to a person. In order that an award of moral damages can be aptly justified, the claimant must be able to satisfactorily prove that he has suffered such damages and that the injury causing it has sprung from any of the cases listed in Articles 2219 and 2220 of the Civil Code. Requisites for an award of moral damages: o Evidence of besmirched reputation or physical, mental or psychological suffering sustained by the claimant o A culpable act or omission factually established o Proof that the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the damages sustained by the claimant o That the case is predicated on any of the instances expressed or envisioned by Art 2219 and 2220. In culpa aquiliana, or quasi-delict, (a) when an act or omission causes physical injuries, or (b) where the defendant is guilty of intentional tort, moral damages may aptly be recovered.

BF METAL v. LOMOTAN Apr 16 2008 / Tinga FACTS: Rico Umuyon was driving the owner-type jeep owned by Spouses Lomotan when at the opposite lane, the speeding tenwheeler truck driven by Onofre Rivera overtook a car by invading the

TORTS: Digests | 091813 | Moral Damages

In culpa criminal, moral damages could be lawfully due when the accused is found guilty of physical injuries, lascivious acts, adultery or concubinage, illegal or arbitrary detention, illegal arrest, illegal search, or defamation. BF Metal is liable for the moral damages suffered by Umuyon. However, there is no legal basis in awarding moral damages to Spouses Lomotan whether arising from the criminal negligence committed by Rivera or based on the negligence of petitioner under Art 2180. o Article 2219 speaks of recovery of moral damages in case of a criminal offense resulting in physical injuries or quasi-delicts causing physical injuries, the two instances where Rivera and petitioner are liable for moral damages to respondent Umuyon. Article 2220 does speak of awarding moral damages where there is injury to property, but the injury must be willful and the circumstances show that such damages are justly due. There being no proof that the accident was willful, Article 2220 does not apply. Final Damages Awarded: Actual (for cost of repair of jeep): 72,000 Moral (solely to Umuyon): 30,000 Exemplary: 100,000 Attys fees: 25,000 the crime because it is assumed that a rape victim had actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award. Final Damages Awarded: Civil indemnity: 50,000 Moral damages: 50,000 People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, v. Danilo Tayag y Luciano, accused-appellant 1. Facts Danilo Tayag was accused of forcible abduction with rape in an information. The prosecution presented that, at around 9pm, the victim, Lazel Tan, a minor, was watching a dance when the accused seized her hands from behind, gagged her with a towel, and pushed her toward his house. He drew her to a nearby coconut tree and bound her to the said trunk. After doing so, he pressed the bolo against her legs and kissed and bit her lips. He hit her to knock her out, repeating it when she woke the 1st time. The 2nd time she woke, the accused sliced her left leg with his bolo. At this point, Lazel realized that her panties had been taken off and that her genitals ached. When Tayag left for a moment, Lazel managed to escape, and circumstances later led to her telling her mother about the incident, the two reporting it to the police later on In Lazels medical examination, Dr. Cenido found a superficial laceration on her tongue and abrasions at the lower labial region of her lower lip, both the left and right sides of her neck, her upper middle third left anterior thigh, and her lower third left anterior thigh. Her hymen, although still intact, bore a slight reddening. Tayag was later arrested when his common-law wife, Amelia Yumang, revealed his location to the police, stating that Tayag had also raped his daughter. Tayag denied the charges against him. He claimed that he is not Mang Boy, whom Lazel referred to in her statement. Lazel knew him as Mang Danny. He alleged that at the time of the incident, he was with his children, waiting for his common-law wife. They spent the night there on cardboard boxes. He alleged that the charges originated from Amelia's hatred against him (they had separated earlier on, with Tayag getting a 2nd live-in partner: Mercy Anza). This is because Tayag had taken Mercys side in an earlier argument between the 2 women, also refusing Amelia when she wanted him to move back in with her (or she would put him in jail). Tayags son, Dennis Tayag, corroborated his defense. Dennis declared that the 2 of them were selling coconuts at Ermita at the time of the incident. He was also with the accused when the latter was arrested. When Dennis read the news reports about his father's arrest and the alleged rape of his sister, he asked his sister and mother about them. His sister cried and denounced them as lies, while his mother answered that somebody induced her to cause the arrest of the accused. Nonetheless, his mother and uncle prevented him from making statements in favor of his father. The trial court convicted Tayag of forcible abduction with rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the private complainant with P50,000 in moral damages. Hence, this appeal. 2. Issue: WoN Tayag is liable for moral damages 3. Held: Tayag is liable for P50,000 in moral damages. 4. Ratio The SC held that the evidence presented was not enough to convict Tayag of forcible abduction with rape. However, it also ruled that the prosecution had proved the crime of forcible abduction. It established that the accusedappellant took Lazel against her will and with lewd designs.

PEOPLE v. LIZANO Apr 27 2007 / Tinga FACTS: AAA was staying at her grandmothers house where accused Lizano and his wife (BBB, who was AAAs aunt) was staying. While AAA (who was 11 at that time) was sleeping inside the house, Lizano lay down beside her and began undressing her while threatening to kill her, her grandmother, and her aunt should she reveal his acts to anbody. Afterwards, appellant took off his clothes, went on top of AAA and inserted his penis into her vagina. A year later, appellant raped AAA again. The next day, appellant raped her for the third time. AAA was only forced to disclose the incident to an uncle (brother of her mother) upon the prodding of BBB, who chanced upon AAA while inside the room of appellant. TC found the first incident of rape as credible and found him guilty; he was acquitted in the other two criminal cases for insufficiency of evidence. CA affirmed in toto the TC decision. ISSUE: WON moral damages should be awarded (YES) HELD/RATIO: The trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua for the rape of AAA, who was then under 12 years old, as proven by the prosecution through the testimony of her mother and the presentation of AAA's birth certificate. We affirm the trial court's award of civil indemnity and moral damages each in the amounts of P50,000.00 in line with current jurisprudence. Civil indemnity is automatically imposed upon the accused without need of proof other than the fact of the commission of rape. Moral damages is also automatically granted in rape cases without need of further proof other than the commission of

TORTS: Digests | 091813 | Moral Damages

The word "lewd" is defined as obscene, lustful, indecent, lascivious, lecherous. It signifies that form of immorality which has relation to moral impurity; or that which is carried on in a wanton manner. The medico-legal finding and Lazel's testimony, although insufficient to prove rape, buttress the conclusion that accused-appellant had lewd designs when he abducted Lazel. Thus, Tayag was also made liable for moral damages worth P30,000. Aside from the physical sufferings of Lazel, her studies were affected, and she sometimes spends the night awake, thinking about her misfortune. As such, moral damages may be recovered in cases of abduction. People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, v. Reynaldo Sahor Baago, accused-appellant 1. Facts Accused-appellant Reynaldo Sahor Baago was charged before the RTC of Bulacan with the crime of rape. The 13 year old victim, Dolores Jaurigue, testified that one night, when her sister was gone and after Dolores had gone to sleep, she was woken by accused, who poked a gun at her and started undressing her. When she tried to shout, accused-appellant slapped her twice. Then, he raped her and admonished her not to tell anybody about the incident. Thereafter, accusedappellant left the room. The following day, Dolores told her sister that accused-appellant raped her, but afraid of what accused-appellant might do to them, the 2 sisters kept the incident to themselves. The next year, Dolores told her aunt, about the incident, and when the aunt tried to talk to accused-appellant, nothing happened. The aunt later told Dolores mother. Later that year, Dolores, assisted by her mother, filed a criminal complaint for rape against accusedappellant. The accused-appellant denied the charges and a witness provided an alibi for him. The trial court found accused-appellant guilty of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to indemnify the victim with as moral damages. 2. Issue: WoN Baago is liable for moral damages 3. Held: Baago is liable for P50,000 in moral damages. 4. Ratio The SC affirmed the conviction of rape. In rape cases, the court may, in its discretion, award moral damages to the victim without need for pleading or proof of the basis thereof. The SC has held that "the conventional requirement of allegata et probata in civil procedure and for essentially civil cases should be dispensed with in criminal prosecutions for rape with the civil aspect included therein, since no appropriate pleadings are filed wherein such allegations can be made." As the fact of rape has been sufficiently proved in this case, the award of moral damages was proper and correct. People of the Philippines, appellee, v. Rustico Bartolini y Ampis, appellant 1. Facts Appellant Bartolini was charged with 3 counts of rape before the RTC, Branch 29, of Bislig City, Surigao del Sur. The victims were 2 of his daughters, AAA and BBB.

At around 3pm, while BBB was weeding the grass on their vegetable garden with her father, the latter suddenly pulled her to the ground and raped her. As BBB struggled, appellant punched her and hit her at her back. Afterwards, appellant left. When BBB went inside their house, appellant, warned her not to tell her mother about the incident. Despite this, BBB reported the incident to her mother, but the latter told her to just keep quiet. After the said incident, appellant repeatedly raped BBB, the last of which happened at about 8am one day inside their house, while her mother was away selling fish and while all her siblings were attending school. That morning, appellant ordered BBB to get his clothes for him. Appellant then followed BBB into the room, undressed her, and raped her. At about 6:30am, while having breakfast, appellant instructed his AAA to burn the dried leaves in their garden. When AAA went to the garden at around 7am, she saw her father there, who then pulled her and brought her near a big fallen tree, while threatening to kill her and all the members of their family if she would not acquiesce to his demands. Appellant then raped her. After having done so, appellant went to the barangay hall to report for duty as a barangay kagawad. AAA also told the incident to their mother, but the latter told her to keep silent for fear that appellant would fulfill his threats. Consequently, AAA was repeatedly raped by appellant until 1 month before she gave birth to appellants child. When the mother discovered that AAA was pregnant, she confided the matter to her sister-in-law, who, in turn, reported the incident to the barangay captain and to a representative of the DSWD. The accused denied the incident and gave an alibi for himself, but the defense witness who was to corroborate his alibi never appeared in court. The RTC convicted appellant of 3 counts of qualified rape, sentencing him to death and to pay P75,000 as civil indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages for each count of qualified rape. On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence to reclusion perpetua, due to the abolition of the death penalty, and modified the monetary awards as such: In 2 of the cases, P75,000 as civil indemnity and P75,000 as moral damages, and P25,000 as exemplary damages for each count was given, while in the last case, P50,000 as civil indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages, and P25,000 as exemplary damages was given. 2. Issue: WoN Bartolini is liable for moral damages 3. Held: Bartolini is liable for moral damages, but the amounts of such damages are modified. In 2 of the cases, accused is to pay each of his 2 victims, AAA and BBB, P75,000 as civil indemnity, P75,000 as moral damages, and P30,000 as exemplary damages. In the last case, accused is to pay the victim, BBB, P75,000 as civil indemnity, P75,000 as moral damages, and P30,000 as exemplary damages. 4. Ratio The conviction was affirmed, except that in 1 case, the conviction was lowered to simple rape because the special qualifying circumstance of minority was not specifically alleged in the information. The SC increased the award of civil indemnity and moral damages in Criminal Case No. 99-1-2084-H from P50,000 each to P75,000 each. In People v. Catubig, the SC explained that the commission of an offense has a 2-pronged effect: One on the public, as it breaches the social order; and the other upon the private victim, as it causes personal suffering. Each effect is respectively addressed by 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

TORTS: Digests | 091813 | Moral Damages

attendance of aggravating circumstances, whether ordinary or qualifying, in its commission. However, unlike the criminal liability, which is basically the States concern, the award of damages is, in general, intended for the offended party who suffers thereby. Hence, although it is essential to observe the requirements imposed by Secs. 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, the requirements should affect only the criminal liability of the accused, which is the States concern, and should not affect the civil liability of the accused, which is for the benefit of the injured party. Where the special qualifying circumstances of age and relationship, although not alleged in the information, are nonetheless established during the trial, the award of civil indemnity and moral damages in a conviction for simple rape should equal the award of civil indemnity and moral damages in convictions for qualified rape. The daughters moral suffering is just as great when her father, who raped her, is convicted for qualified rape as when he is convicted only for simple rape due to a technicality. People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, v. Jose Abadies y Claveria, accused-appellant 1. Facts Abadies was charged with a violation of RA 7610 in 5 separate Informations, which, despite being on different dates, accused Abadies of performing acts of lasciviousness upon his 17-year old daughter, Rosalie. Abadies has been living for the past 20 years with his common-law wife, Catalina Manunghaya, at Bgy. Pulo, Landayan, San Pedro, Laguna, together with their 2 children, Jonathan and complainant Rosalie. The family sleeps together in one room and usually Catalina wakes up early in the morning to buy bread. For the 1st 3 incidents, Rosalie was woken up by Jose Abadies grabbing her breast. He only stopped when Catalina returned from the store. During the 4th incident, Jose grabbed Rosalies breast and touched her genitals, and he stopped when he thought that Jonathan, Rosalies brother, might wake up. He then warned complainant not to tell her mother about the incident. Later, complainant was brought by accused-appellant to the house of her stepsister in Las Pias. Nobody was in the house, and, strangely, accused-appellant started to sharpen his sickle. He ordered complainant to write a letter to her mother and revealed that he was planning to kill himself and complainant. When complainant refused, accused-appellant the told threatened complainant to choose whether he would kill her or rape her. The complainant managed to leave the stepsisters house, thus returning to their house and her mother. Crying and looking very pale, she narrated to her mother her ordeal. She likewise disclosed the past abuses of accused-appellant. Complainant and her mother then proceeded to the barangay office where they made a report. On the strength of their complaint, accused-appellant was arrested. Accused-appellant proffered the defense of denial and alibi. He denies having committed acts of lasiviousness against complainant. He testified that on the dates of the alleged incidents, he woke up between 7am to 7:30 am.; that complainant and her mother were already preparing breakfast; and after eating breakfast, he would leave for work. He also testified on the reason why the charges at bar were filed against him: After asking complainant what was happening to their lives, as his children were aloof with him. Complainant threatened to end her life because she felt she was to be blamed for their problems. Accused-appellant also declared he was too strict with his children, and he even sometimes resorts to physical harm on them when they disobey him. The RTC found Jose Abadies guilty beyond reasonable doubt of 4 counts of violation of RA 7610 or the "Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act," penalized under Sec. 5 (b), Article III and Sec. 31, Article XII thereof, and sentencing him for each count to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P30,000. 2. Issue: WoN Jose Abadies is liable for moral damages 3. Held: Yes, he is liable. The moral damages were increased from P30,000 to P50,000. 4. Ratio The SC affirmed the conviction of Jose Abadies for violation of RA 7610. It will be noted that Sec. 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 7610 provides for the penalty of imprisonment. Nevertheless, Sec. 31 (f), Article XII (Common Penal Provisions) thereof allows the imposition of a fine subject, to the discretion of the court, provided that the same is to be administered as a cash fund by the DSWD and disbursed for the rehabilitation of each child victim, or any immediate member of his family, if the latter is the perpetrator of the offense. This provision is in accord with Art. 39 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which stresses the duty of state parties to ensure the physical and psychological recovery and the social reintegration of abused and exploited children in an environment which fosters their self-respect and human dignity. In the case of People vs. Jaime Cadag Jimenez, where a minor victim was sexually molested by her own father, the accused was ordered to pay a fine of P20,000 as a cash fund for the rehabilitation of the victim, and moral damages in the amount of P50,000 for each count of lascivious act committed by the accused. Hence, in the cases at bar, the RTC correctly imposed a fine of P30,000 for each count of lascivious conduct committed by accused-appellant. In addition, moral damages should be awarded in the amount of P50,000.00 for each count. People vs. Madsali Facts: Rape and serious illegal detention Information for serious illegal detention reads: willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take and detain AAA, an unmarried woman under 15 years of age in the house of Egap Madsali thereby depriving said AAA of her liberty all against her will and as a result of that illegal detention, said AAA was not able to go home to her mother for a period of more than five (5) months AAA was fetching water w/ grandma, accused came, told her to go w/ him or else she will be killed Pointed gun at grandma Raped AAA Brought to a house in a faraway place Married by an Imam 9 days after abduction, got pregnant Defense: free will, previously engaged, only reason for case is no dowry was paid RTC: guilty CA: affirmed RTC Held: Guilty: guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape and guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of serious illegal detention In the case at bar, Sajiron and Maron, who are private individuals, forcibly took and dragged AAA, a minor, to the forest and held her

TORTS: Digests | 091813 | Moral Damages

captive against her will. The crime of serious illegal detention consists not only of placing a person in an enclosure, but also of detaining him or depriving him in any manner of his liberty.36 For there to be kidnapping, it is enough that the victim is restrained from going home. 37 Its essence is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty, coupled with indubitable proof of the intent of the accused to effect such deprivation.38 In the present case, although AAA was not actually confined in an enclosed place, she was clearly restrained and deprived of her liberty, because she was tied up and her mouth stuffed with a piece of cloth, thus, making it very easy to physically drag her to the forest away from her home Anent Criminal Case No. 12309, the prescribed penalty for serious illegal detention under Art. 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act (R. A.) No. 7659, is reclusion perpetua to death. There being no aggravating or modifying circumstance in the commission of the offense, the proper penalty to be imposed is reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Art. 63 of the Revised Penal Code As to Criminal Case No. 12281, the penalty for the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention and rape is death. However, R.A. No. 9346, entitled "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines," which was approved on June 24, 2006, prohibits the imposition of the death penalty. Thus, the penalty of death is reduced to reclusion perpetua,52 without eligibility for parole We also find that AAA is entitled to moral damages pursuant to Art. 2219 of the Civil Code, which provides that moral damages may be recovered in cases of illegal detention.63 This is predicated on AAA's having suffered serious anxiety and fright when she was detained for more than five months. Thus, the Court awards the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages People vs. Anticamara Facts: Murder Kidnapping w/ Serious Illegal Detention Information for Serious Illegal Detention reads: willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap Sulpacio Abad and AAA,[1][2] both employees of the Estrellas, thereby depriving them of their liberty, all against their will for a period of twenty-seven (27) days Driver and maid of Estrellas Robbers killed driver Stayed in houses of accused, sexually molested and raped Was able to escape RTC: guilty, death, murder and serious illegal detention (for illegal detention, moral damages: 100k) CA: affirmed TC dec, but penalty reclusion perpetua Held: appellant Lando is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape As to appellant Al (the lookout): appellant Al's liability for moral damages is limited only to the amount of P50,000.00.[2][79] Pursuant to Article 2219 of the Civil Code, moral damages may be recovered in cases of illegal detention. This is predicated on AAA's having suffered serious anxiety and fright when she was detained for almost one (1) month People vs. Bernardo Facts: Kidnapping and failure to return minor Information reads: accused being then a private individual and without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap and carry away one ROSELYNN TOLIBAS y AGUADA, a Facts: Marijuana flowering tops RTC: 100k moral damages CA: affirmed with modification the trial courts decision. It found herein petitioners et al. civilly liable for damages for violation of individual respondents constitutional right against illegal search, not for malicious prosecution, set aside the award of actual damages to respondent union, and reduced the award of actual damages to individual respondents to P50,000 Held: That a violation of ones constitutional right against illegal search and seizure can be the basis for the recovery of damages under Article 32 in relation to Article 2219(6) and (10) of the New Civil Code, there is no doubt. Since the complaint29 filed before the trial court was for damages due to malicious prosecution and violation of constitutional right against illegal search and seizure, the award by the trial court of actual damages to respondent union was correctly set aside by the appellate court. Article 32 speaks of an officer or employee or person "directly or indirectly" responsible for the violation of the constitutional rights and liberties of another. Hence, it is not the actor alone who must answer for damages under Article 32; the person indirectly responsible has also to answer for the damages or injury caused to the aggrieved party.30 Such being the case, petitioners, together with Maniego and Villanueva, the ones who orchestrated the illegal search, are jointly and severally liable for actual, moral and exemplary damages to herein individual respondents in accordance with the earlier-quoted pertinent provision of Article 32, in relation to Article 2219(6) and (10) of the Civil Code which provides: Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: (6) Illegal search; and (10) minor, 15 day old baby girl, represented by her mother, ROSITA TOLIBAS y AGUADA, thereby depriving the said ROSELYNN TOLIBAS y AGUADA of her liberty against her will and consent Roselle (12 yr old sister), Roselynn (15 days old), mother Rosita were in Fabella Hospital tooth extraction and check-up 2 daughters waiting in lobby while mom having check-up. Accused approached them. Accused asked Roselle to buy iced water, but R could not find any. When she came back, saw accused running away w/ baby sister. Ran after accused. Clung to her skirt. Kagawad saw her, helped. Accused claimed that she was just trying to find mother. Back in hospital, mother confirmed shes mother of the baby. Defense: she was there for check-up, asked her to hold the baby, after 30 minutes, not yet returned. Just looking for mom. TC: guilty, moral damages P300k Held: appellant is guilty of the crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor 2219 (5) applicable Since the crime committed in this case is kidnapping and failure to return a minor under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code, the same is clearly analogous to illegal and arbitrary detention or arrest, thereby justifying the award of moral damages. However, taking into consideration the fact that appellant had custody of the child only for a few minutes before being apprehended, we find the amount of P300,000.00 awarded by the trial court to be exorbitant. We therefore reduce such amount to P10,000.00. Silahis vs. Soluta

TORTS: Digests | 091813 | Moral Damages

The issue in the present civil case, however, is whether respondent individual can recover damages for violation of constitutional rights. As reflected above, Article 32, in relation to Article 2219(6) and (10) of the Civil Code, allows so. is the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and (4) fourth, the award of damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219. In breach of contract, MD recoverable when in BF or guilty of gross negligence amounting BF or in wanton disregard of his contractual obligation and, exceptionally, when the act of breach of contract itself is constitutive of tort resulting in physical injuries. By special rule NCC1764, MD recoverable in death of passenger resulting from breach of carriage. In culpa aquiliana, or quasi-delict, (a) when an act or omission causes physical injuries, or (b) where the defendant is guilty of intentional tort, moral damages may aptly be recovered. This rule also applies, as aforestated, to contracts when breached by tort. In culpa criminal, moral damages could be lawfully due when the accused is found guilty of physical injuries, lascivious acts, adultery or concubinage, illegal or arbitrary detention, illegal arrest, illegal search, or defamation. MP can give rise to MD claim. The term "analogous cases," referred to in Article 2219, following the ejusdem generis rule, must be held similar to those expressly enumerated by the law. Although the institution of a clearly unfounded civil suit can at times be a legal justification for an award of attorney's fees, such filing, however, has almost invariably been held not to be a ground for an award of moral damages. The rationale for the rule is that the law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate. The anguish suffered by a person for having been made a defendant in a civil suit would be no different from the usual worry and anxiety suffered by anyone who is haled to court, a situation that cannot by itself be a cogent reason for the award of moral damages. If the rule were otherwise, then moral damages must every time be awarded in favor of the prevailing defendant against an unsuccessful plaintiff. No MD. [Malicious prosecution] Deogracias Malonzo v. Gregoria Galang G.R. No. L-13851, July 27, 1960 Ponente: Justice JBL Reyes Facts: R received P5K loan from P. The Rehabilitation Finance Corporation then loaned to R P15K, and R endorsed the check to P who cashed it. P10K applied to payment of a share and to Rs participation in a fishing venture w/ P. P5K for loan, but P said he returned the amount. Claiming P5K remained unpaid, P sued R spouses for payment, interests, and AF. TC R, saying check delivered by P to R had nothing to do with said loan and was in payment of another loan which she extended to Malonzo just a few days before the check was issued. TC found complaint clearly unfounded, dismissed, and sentenced Malonzo to pay the Galang spouses under their counterclaim P500.00 compensatory and moral damages, and P1,000.00 attorney's fees. Issue: Whether or not claim unfounded. Held: AF award proper since Ps action against R clearly unfounded. NCC2208 applies equally in favor of a defendant under a counterclaim for attorney's fees (as in this case), considering that a counterclaim is a complaint by the defendant against the original plaintiff, wherein the defendant is the plaintiff and the original plaintiff the defendant. MD not recoverable notwithstanding TC CA saying complaint clearly unfounded/unreasonable. Unlike CD, NCC has specific grounds for recovering MD. NCC2208 enumeration like NCC2219, but two enumerations differ in the case of a clearly unfounded suit, which is expressly mentioned in Art. 2208 (par. 4), as justifying for award of attorney's fees, but is not included in the enumeration of Art. 2219 in respect to moral damages. It is true that Art. 2219 also provides that moral damages may be awarded in

[Libel, slander, or any other form of defamation] Eulogio Occena v. RTC Judge Pedro Icamina G.R. No. 82146, January 22, 1990 Ponente: Chief Justice Fernan Facts: P instituted crim case against PR for grave oral defamation for allegedly publicly maliciously uttering insulting words "You are a foolish Barangay Captain, ignoramus, traitor, tyrant, Judas" causing irreparable damage and injury to person and honor. P did not reserve right to file sep civ and actively intervened through private prosecutor. PR convicted of slight oral defamation, P50fine. No damages due to facts and circumstances not warranting. Went up to SC saying RPC100, every person criminally liable also civilly liable, and NCC2219 MD for libel, slander, or any other form of defamation. Issue: Whether or not TC ruling okay. Held: Civ obligations from crim offenses governed RPC100 in rel NCC2177. Person crim liable also civ liable, since crime dual character, public and private. What gives rise to civ is obligation to repair damage caused, whether intentionally/negligently, w/n punishable by law. There must be damages awarded here, as guilty of slight oral defamation. Offense PR guilty of not of those felonies where no civ results. There is an offended party, praying for P10K MD P10K ED. MD can be awarded as per NCC2219(7), for injury to his feelings and reputation. Offended likewise allowed to recover punitive or exemplary damages. Every defamatory imputation presumed malicious, even if true, if no good intention/justifiable motive for saying. Malice may be inferred from style, tone, subject certain exceptions. P testified to shame anguish. MD ED reduced to P5K each. [Malicious prosecution] Expert Travel & Tours, Inc. v. CA and Ricardo Lo G.R. No. 130030, June 25, 1999 Ponente: Justice Vitug Facts: P domestic travel agency business issued to PR 4round-trip plane tickets for HK, w/ hotel accomodations and transfers, for P39K. Alleging PR failed to pay amt due, P demanded, ignored, so P filed to recover +damages. R said his account fully paid, remitted to Ps then Chairperson. TC CA held payment valid, and even assuming Chairperson not specifically authorized by P, amt delivered remained in Ps possession up to present, redounding to its benefit pursuant NCC1241. Issue: Whether or not MD can be recovered in a clearly unfounded suit. Held: To be recoverable, must be prox result. MD award requires: (1) First, there must be an injury, whether physical, mental or psychological, clearly sustained by the claimant; (2) second, there must be a culpable act or omission factually established; (3) third, the wrongful act or omission of the defendant

TORTS: Digests | 091813 | Moral Damages

"analogous cases" to those enumerated, but we do not think the Code intended "a clearly unfounded civil action or proceedings" to be one of these analogous cases wherein moral damages may be recovered, or it would have expressly mentioned it in Art. 2219, as it did in Art. 2208; or else incorporated in Art. 2208 by reference in Art. 2219. Besides, Art. 2219 specifically mentions "quasi-delicts causing physical injuries", as an instance when moral damages may be allowed, thereby implying that all other quasi-delicts not resulting in physical injuries are excluded, excepting, of course, the special torts referred to in Art. 309 (par. 9, Art. 2219) and in Arts. 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34 and 35 on the chapter on human relations (par. 10, Art. 2219). MD amount left to the discretion of the court (Art. 2216), it is, nevertheless, essential that the claimant satisfactorily prove the existence of the factual basis of the damage (Art. 2217) and its causal relation to defendant's acts. The trial court and the Court of Appeals both seem to be of the opinion that the mere fact that respondent were sued without any legal foundation entitled them to an award of moral damages, hence they made no definite finding as to what the supposed moral damages suffered consist of. Such a conclusion would make of moral damages a penalty, MD, not corrective or exemplary damages. [Malicious prosecution] Industrial Insurance Company v. Pablo Bondad G.R. No. 136722, April 12, 2000 Ponente: Justice Panganiban Doctrine: No person should be penalized for the exercise of the right to litigate. This right, however, must be exercised in good faith. Absence of good faith in the present case is shown by the fact that petitioner clearly has no cause of action against respondents but it recklessly filed suit anyway and wantonly pursued pointless appeals, thereby causing the latter to spend valuable time, money and effort in unnecessarily defending themselves, incurring damages in the process. Facts: TC ordered P to pay defendants-counterclaimants R P75K MD for having recklessly impleaded them inspite of clear language of the Traffic Investigation Report of the police. Case stems from 3way accident bet a car (driven by Grace Morales), jeep (driven by R bro), and bus (driven by Eduardo Mendoza). The traffic investigation report said bus hit the jeep then at a stop position since flat tire, and jeep hit moving car which hit concrete wall. P and GM filed for damages against bus corp, R and R bro. Rs denied responsibility saying they were on full stop. CA reduced damages award to R, saying P failed to make formal demand against R, and P did not verify facts before impleading R, so P50K MD, P10K ED. Issue: Whether or not damages award proper. Held: Bus negligent. R were compelled to litigate unfounded suit bec of Ps negligence in not verifying facts before filing action. In affirming the award of moral damages, it accepted the trial courts justification that respondents had "been recklessly and without basis x x x impleaded by the plaintiff in spite of the clear language in the Traffic Investigation Report x x x submitted by Pfc. Agapito Domingo." In first place, the contact between the vehicles of respondents and of Morales was completely due to the impact of the onrushing bus. This fact is manifest in the police investigation report and, significantly, in the findings of facts of both lower courts. Moreover, even a cursory examination of the events would show that respondents were not even remotely the cause of the accident. Their vehicle was on the shoulder of the road because of a flat tire. In view of their emergency situation, they could not have done anything to avoid getting hit by the bus. Verily, an ordinary person has no reason to think that respondents could have caused the accident. It is difficult to imagine how petitioner could have thought so. P knew R not cause of accident. Had a formal demand been made by the plaintiffs on the Bondads, the latters role could have been clarified. As it is, they had to face a lawsuit and were constrained to come all the way to Makati from Alaminos for not to do so could place them in a situation where judgment may be rendered against them. MD award: not enough that claimant alleges mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings, social humiliation, and the like as a result of the acts of the other party. It is necessary that such acts be shown to have been tainted with bad faith or ill motive. Here, BF. PB became sick and even suffered a mild stroke. Indeed, respondents anxiety is not difficult to understand. They were innocently attending to a flat tire on the shoulder of the road; the next thing they knew, they were already being blamed for an accident. Worse, they were forced to commute all the way from Laguna to Makati in order to attend the hearings. Under the circumstances of this case, the award of moral damages is justified.