SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 213380. August 7, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ROMAN ESPIA, JESSIE MORANA, REX ALFARO, RODRIGO AZUCENA, JR. AND RENANTE ABISADO,accused, ROMAN ESPIA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated August 7, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 213380 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Roman Espia, Jessie Morana, Rex Alfaro, Rodrigo Azucena, Jr. and Renante Abisado, accused; Roman Espia, accused-appellant.) — Before this Court is a Motion for Reconsideration 1 (Motion) filed by accused-appellant Roman Espia (Espia), seeking reconsideration of the Court's Decision dated August 10, 2016 (Decision). 2 The Decision affirmed the Decision dated December 13, 2013 3 of the Court of Appeals with modification as to the award of damages, finding Espia and his co-accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide under Article 294, paragraph (1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
In his Motion for Reconsideration, Espia faults this Court solely in the increase of the award of damages in accordance with its ruling in People v. Jugueta. 4 Citing Spouses Benzonan v. Court of Appeals, 5 Espia argues that the Jugueta ruling was not yet prevailing at the time of the commission of the offense, thus, increasing the award of damages violates Article 4 6 in relation to Article 8 7 of the Civil Code.
The Court disagrees. While it is true that judicial decisions applying or interpreting laws form part of the law of the land, this does not preclude their retroactive effect insofar as the aspect of civil indemnity and damages are concerned. In fact, the Court in Jugueta clarified that while the minimum amounts of civil indemnity and damages could not be changed, they may be validly modified and increased when warranted by the circumstances, since the law did not provide for any ceiling, thus:
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 [P]3,000.00. 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 indemnitycan be validly modified and increased when the present circumstance warrants it. 8
In fact, in the subsequent case of People v. Magbitang, 9where the offense was committed four (4) years before the events that transpired in Jugueta, 10 the Court held that it promulgated the Jugueta ruling in order to lay to rest the inconsistencies in the fixing of damages as part of the civil liabilities in crimes, as follows:
Conformably with the ruling in People v. Jugueta, which the Court recently promulgated in order to lay to rest the inconsistencies in the fixing of damages as part of the civil liabilities in crimes, we modify the awards by imposing civil indemnity of [P]100,000.00; moral damages of [P]100,000.00; and exemplary damages of [P]100,000.00 because the penalty of death, although proper, had to be reduced to reclusion perpetua in deference to the application of Republic Act No. 9346. In addition, although we delete the actual damages for failure to prove them, the heirs of AAA were entitled to temperate damages of [P]50,000.00. 11
In consonance with Jugueta and Magbitang, the Court, in its Decision, deemed it proper to increase the amount of civil indemnity to P100,000.00, moral damages to P100,000.00, and exemplary damages to P100,000.00 to be paid to the heirs of Spouses Melberto Ganzon and Estela Ganzon with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.
Thus, for Espia's failure to raise any substantial argument that would warrant a reversal or modification of the Court's Decision, the Motion should be, as it is hereby, denied. AIDSTE
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the subject Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED WITH FINALITY. No further pleadings or motions shall be entertained in this case. Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
(Jardeleza, J., no part, due to his prior action as Solicitor General; Caguioa, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated August 1, 2016.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 55-59.
2.Id. at 44-54. Penned by Associate Justice Jose Portugal Perez (Retired), with Associate Justices Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Diosdado M. Peralta, Bienvenido L. Reyes and Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa concurring.
3.Id. at 4-14. Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla, with Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando and Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan concurring.
4. G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331.
5. 282 Phil. 530 (1992).
6. ART. 4. Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided.
7. ART. 8. Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines.
8.Supra note 4, at 358-359; emphasis supplied.
9. G.R. No. 175592, June 14, 2016, 793 SCRA 266.
10. The offense in Magbitang was committed in 1998, while that in Jugueta was committed in 2002.
11.Supra note 9, at 276; citations omitted; emphasis supplied.