THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 229085. November 29, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. BUENAVENTURA MAHUSAY, accused appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 29, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 229085 (People of the Philippines vs. Buenaventura Mahusay). — This is an appeal from the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated September 28, 2016 in CA G.R. CR-HC No. 06917, entitled "People of the Philippines v. Buenaventura Mahusay." The CA affirmed with modification the Decision dated May 2, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 225, in Criminal Case Nos. Q-06-141141-43.
The Antecedent Facts
On May 11, 2006, separate Informations 2 for murder and for two (2) counts of attempted murder were filed against accused-appellant Buenaventura Mahusay (Mahusay). The accusatory portions there of read:
Criminal Case No. Q-06-141141
That on or about the 31st day of December, (sic) 2005, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, with intent to kill, taking advantage of superior strength, with evident premeditation and treachery, attack[ed], assault[ed] and employ[ed] personal violence upon the person of ROLANDO DE GUZMAN Y ADRALES by then and there shooting him with a gun thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds, which were the direct and immediate cause of his death to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said ROLANDO DE GUZMAN Y ADRALES.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. Q-06-141142
That on or about the 31st day of December 2005, in Quezon City Philippines, the said accused, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commence the commission of the crime of murder directly by overt acts, by then and there shooting one MARIA EVA MARILYN ARGANA-DE GUZMAN on the right buttocks, but said accused was not able to perform all acts of execution which would [have] produce[d] the crime of murder, by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance, to the damage and prejudice of the said MARIA EVA MARILYN ARGANA-DE GUZMAN.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. Q-06-141143
That on or about the 31st day of December 2005, in Quezon City Philippines, the said accused, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commence the commission of the crime of murder directly by overt acts, by then and there shooting one CATHERINE A. MARQUEZ, 12 years old, a minor, but said accused was not able to perform all the acts of execution which would [have] produce[d] the crime of murder by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance, to the damage and prejudice of the said CATHERINE A. MARQUEZ.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
The cases were consolidated for joint proceedings.
Upon arraignment on June 7, 2006, accused pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged. Thereafter, a consolidated trial ensued.
The prosecution presented Maria Eva Marilyn De Guzman (Maria Eva) and Catherine Marquez (Catherine), P/C Insp. Benjamin VJ Lara, M.D. (P/C Insp. Lara), and PS/Insp. Jasmine Marie Balbuena (PS/Insp. Balbuena), as witnesses. The defense, on the other hand, presented accused-appellant and Carlito Ferraren as witnesses.
Version of the Prosecution
Maria Eva testified that Mahusay was their neighbor in Junjie Street, Rolling Hills, Barangay Kaligayahan, Novaliches, Quezon City. On or about December 31, 2005, around 11:00 in the evening, Mahusay, accompanied by one Eddie Ranoco, entered their house, which was left open because it was New Year's Eve. 3 Maria Eva and her husband Rolando De Guzman (Rolando) were at the living room of their house watching television when Mahusay, without any warning, approached and suddenly shot Rolando from behind, on the shoulder and abdomen. Mahusay also shot Maria Eva, who tried to dodge but got hit on her buttocks. Mahusay resumed firing at Rolando while Maria Eva ran and hid in the toilet. From her position in the toilet, Maria Eva saw Mahusay reload his gun and fire at Divina De Guzman (Divina), Maria Eva and Rolando's daughter, and her cousin Catherine. However, the bullet missed the two and hit the wall clock instead. Thereafter, Mahusay fled the house.
As a result of the incident, Rolando died before reaching the hospital while Maria Eva sustained injury on her right buttock.
For her part, Catherine testified that on December 31, 2005, she went to the house of her uncle Rolando to pick up her cousin Divina for a party. While she and her cousin were coming down the stairs and Rolando and Maria Eva were at the living room watching television, accused-appellant entered the house and shot Rolando five (5) times. Her uncle was taken by surprise because he did not see Mahusay enter the house. Mahusay also shot her Aunt Eva before reloading his gun with another round of bullets. When her cousin Divina screamed, Mahusay noticed their presence and shot at their direction, but the bullet hit the wall clock instead. Mahusay left the house after the incident. At the trial, Catherine positively identified Mahusay as the one who shot her uncle. 4
P/C Insp. Lara testified that he examined Maria Eva three (3) days after the alleged incident. He assessed that the hematoma on her right buttock was caused by a blunt object, and although non-fatal, it would take 7 to 8 days to heal. 5
PS/Insp. Balbuena, testifying on the autopsy made on Rolando, averred that Rolando sustained multiple abrasions on the head and neck, and two (2) gunshot wounds, which pierced his lungs and heart. Furthermore, there were no defensive wounds found in the victim's body. 6
Version of the Defense
Mahusay denied owning a handgun and shooting Rolando and the complainants. He averred that Rolando and Maria Eva were his neighbours who lived four (4) houses away from him. On the night of the incident, he was at his house with his wife and two grandchildren, and was having a drinking spree with Carlito Ferraren. He surmised that Maria Eva accused him probably because he won in an ejectment case that she and Rolando filed against him. 7 On cross-examination, he admitted that he was already intoxicated at around 11:00 in the evening of December 31, 2005. 8
Carlito Ferraren testified that from 4:00 in the afternoon of December 31, 2005 until the next day, January 1s, 2006, he was with Mahusay at the latter's house to celebrate the New Year with them. On cross-examination, he admitted that they were already drunk at around 11:00 in the evening. 9 He did not notice anything unusual happening on December 31, 2005. 10
RTC Ruling
In Criminal Case No. 06-141141, the RTC found Mahusay guilty of killing Rolando and shooting Maria Eva and Divina but pointed that, while the killing was attended by the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength, there was no evidence to support the allegation of evident premeditation. Mahusay shot Rolando while the latter was watching television, unaware that Mahusay entered his house. However, there was no evidence to prove that the killing was pursuant to an actual plan. 11
In Criminal Case No. Q-06-141142, the RTC held that the prosecution failed to sufficiently establish that Mahusay intended to kill Maria Eva, considering that Mahusay shot on her buttocks, a non-vital part of her body, when she was helping Rolando. However, he is liable for the gunshot wound she suffered that would require a healing period of 7 to 8 days. 12
In Criminal Case No. Q-06-141143, the RTC held that Mahusay fired his gun towards Catherine and Divina, but in the absence of proof to show intent to kill, he can only be held liable for Illegal Discharge of Firearms under Article 254 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The RTC rendered a Joint Decision dated May 2, 2014, 13 disposing the case as follows:
WHEREFORE:
1. In Criminal Case No. 06-141141, accused Buenaventura Mahusay is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder defined under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code. He is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua. His period of preventive imprisonment shall be credited to the service of his sentence. He is also ordered to pay the Heirs of Rolando de Guzman y Adrales P28,000.00 as actual damages, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, with legal interest of 6% per annum on each of these amounts reckoned from the finality of the Joint Decision and the costs of suit.
2. In Criminal Case No. 06-141142, accused Buenaventura Mahusay is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Slight Physical Injuries defined under Art. 266 of the Revised Penal Code. He is sentenced to suffer imprisonment [of] one (1) day to thirty (30) days of arresto menor.
3. In Criminal Case No. 06-141143, accused Buenaventura Mahusay is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Discharge of Firearm defined under Art. 254 of the Revised Penal Code. He is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months arresto mayor, as minimum, to two (2) years and eleven (11) months of prision correccional, as maximum.
SO ORDERED.
On appeal, Mahusay argued that the trial court erred in finding him guilty of Murder, Slight Physical Injuries and Illegal Discharge of Firearms based on the absurd testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
The Court of Appeals' Ruling
The appellate court found no merit on the arguments and rendered the assailed Decision dated September 28, 2016, the fallo of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the assailed Joint Decision dated May 2, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 225, is AFFIRMED, with the following MODIFICATIONS:
1. In Criminal Case No. Q-06-141141, accused-appellant Buenaventura Mahusay is not eligible for parole pursuant to Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346, An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines. The award of actual damages in the amount of Php28,000.00 is deleted. In lieu thereof, the award of temperate damages in the amount of Php50,000.00 is granted to the heirs of Rolando De Guzman y Adrales; and
2. In Criminal Case No. Q-06-141142, accused-appellant Buenaventura Mahusay is found GUILTY of Less Serious Physical Injuries, and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment from two (2) months and one (1) day to four (4) months.
SO ORDERED. 14
In Criminal Case No. Q-06-141142, the CA elucidated that since there was no intent to kill on the part of Mahusay and the wound sustained by Maria Eva would take only about ten (10) days to heal, the felony should be upgraded to Less Serious Physical Injuries pursuant to Article 265 of the RPC. Considering that there was neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance in the shooting of Maria Eva, the penalty should be taken from the medium period of arresto mayor, which is from two (2) months and one (1) day to four (4) months. The Indeterminate Sentence Law finds no application in the case at bar considering that the maximum term of imprisonment is less than one year. 15
Meanwhile, the award for civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages were affirmed pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence.
In People of the Philippines v. Victoriano Villar alias Boy, 16 this Court held that when the actual damages proven by receipts during trial amounted to less than P25,000.00, the award for temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 was justified in lieu of the actual damages of a lesser amount. Where the damages proven exceed P25,000.00, actual damages based on the receipts presented during trial was to be granted instead of temperate damages.
In People v. Jugueta, 17 the award for temperate damages was increased from P25,000.00 to P50,000.00. Pursuant thereto, the actual damages proven for the funeral expenses of Rolando in the amount of P28,000.00 was deleted and temperate damages in the amount of P50,000.00 was imposed in order to conform to the latest jurisprudence.
Mahusay filed a Notice of Appeal pursuant to Section 13 (c) of Rule 124, as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC.
Issue
Whether the appellate court erred in holding the accused-appellant liable for Murder, Less Serious Physical Injuries, and Illegal Discharge of Firearms based on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is unmeritorious.
In criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court's decision based on grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors. 18
Criminal Case No. Q-06-141141 for Murder
Murder is defined and penalized under Article 248 of the RPC:
Art. 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity. 19
For the charge of murder to prosper, the prosecution must prove the existence of the following elements:
1. That a person was killed.
2. That the accused killed him.
3. That the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Art. 248.
4. The killing is not parricide or infanticide. 20
In the present case, all the elements of murder had been established by the prosecution: 1) Rolando was killed on the eve of December 31, 2005; 2) witnesses Maria Eva and Catherine positively identified Mahusay as the perpetrator; 3) the killing was attended by treachery; and 4) the killing is not parricide or infanticide.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. 21
The qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated by the courts a quo given the manner by which Mahusay shot and killed Rolando. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. 22 In this case, Rolando was watching television with his wife Maria Eva, when Mahusay barged into their living room and shot him from behind three (3) times and two (2) times more in the stomach when the victim was already lying helpless on the floor. The attack was so sudden that Rolando had no opportunity to defend himself from the assault or even to identify his assailant. The autopsy report showed that the cause of death were two (2) gunshot wounds that pierced his heart and lungs. The whole incident was witnessed by Maria Eva, who was only three (3) meters away from Mahusay; and Catherine, who was standing on the stairs of the house at the time the incident occurred.
The defense of Mahusay by way of alibi and denial will not prosper against the prosecution witnesses' straightforward and positive declaration that he was the one who barged into the house of the victim on New Year's Eve and shot them and the deceased Rolando. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time the crime was committed, but that it was likewise impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the alleged crime. 23 In this case, Mahusay failed to show that it was impossible for him to be at the locus criminis on the date and time the incident happened. In fact, he admitted that in the evening of December 31, 2005, he was on Junjie Street, Rolling Hills, just four (4) houses away from the victim's abode. 24 It suffices to state that this Court is unconvinced that both the trial and appellate courts erred in finding Mahusay guilty of the murder of Rolando.
Criminal Case No. Q-06-141142 for Attempted Murder
Mahusay fired the gun not only at the deceased Rolando but also at his wife, Maria Eva, who desperately tried to dodge the bullet, but was, nevertheless, hit on her buttocks. She was only able to escape Mahusay because the latter ran out of bullets and had to reload the gun, giving her the opportunity to run for safety towards the bathroom.
Under Article 6 of the RPC, there is an attempt to commit a felony 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.
The essential elements of an attempted felony are as follows:
1. The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts;
2. He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony;
3. The offender's act be not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance;
4. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or accident other than his spontaneous desistance. 25
The first requisite of an attempted felony consists of two elements, namely:
1. That there be external acts;
2. Such external acts have direct connection with the crime intended to be committed. 26
In the present case, Mahusay commenced the commission of the murder by entering the house of the victims without any warning and then firing at them. Mahusay shot Maria Eva who dodged the bullet but was nevertheless hit on her buttocks. Mahusay had no intention of desisting from his action or avoiding hitting any vital portion of her body. Put otherwise, her hit could have been fatal had she not dodged the bullet. Neither did he voluntarily stop shooting. Records reveal that he reloaded his gun when he ran out of bullets; thus, Maria Eva seized the opportunity to escape. All things considered, the elements for attempted murder are present. The fact that he reloaded his gun signified his intention to kill the victims. 27
Under Article 248 of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 7659, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. 28
In conformity with Article 51 of the RPC, the penalty for attempted murder is two degrees lower than that prescribed for the consummated felony; therefore, it is prision mayor. 29
In the absence of any modifying circumstance in the commission of the felony, other than the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the medium period of prision mayor which has a range of from eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the indeterminate penalty of prision mayor should be lower by one degree, i.e., to prision correccional.
All things considered, Mahusay is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.
Criminal Case No. Q-06-141143 for Attempted Murder
Mahusay pointed his loaded gun and shot at Catherine but, fortunately, the bullet missed her and hit the wall clock. In a long line of cases, this Court held that where the appellant commenced the commission of murder through overt acts such as firing his firearm at the victims but did not perform all the acts of execution which should produce murder by reason of some cause other than his own spontaneous desistance, such as when appellant simply missed his target, he is guilty of attempted murder. 30
In conformity with Article 51 of the RPC, the penalty for attempted murder is prision mayor. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the indeterminate penalty of prision mayor should be lower by one degree, prision correccional, which has a range of six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. Mahusay is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.
Damages
In view of the prevailing jurisprudence, we modify the award of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to be in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. 31
Civil indemnity is the indemnity granted by law to the offended party, in the amount authorized by the prevailing judicial policy. Article 2206 32 of the Civil Code provides the minimum amount for awards of civil indemnity but does not provide for a ceiling. Thus, the award for civil indemnity can be validly modified and increased when the circumstance warrants it.
Moral damages may be awarded as a compensation for the physical suffering, mental anguish and serious anxiety that the victim suffered as a result of the injury under any of the cases expressed in Article 2219 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. 33
Exemplary damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. 34 It is granted where there is presence of an aggravating circumstance, or where the offender shows a highly reprehensible or outrageous conduct, in order to deter a similar conduct in the future.
In People v. Jugueta, 35 this Court increased the penalty for crimes punishable by death under the RPC, but which punishment could not, however, be imposed because of the provision of RA 9346. Thus, the Court held:
x x x for crimes where the imposable penalty is death in view of the attendance of an ordinary aggravating circumstance but due to the prohibition to impose the death penalty, the actual penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, the latest jurisprudence pegs the amount of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity and P100,000.00 as moral damages. For the qualifying aggravating circumstance and/or the ordinary aggravating circumstances present, the amount of P100,000.00 is awarded as exemplary damages aside from civil indemnity and moral damages. Regardless of the attendance of qualifying aggravating circumstance, the exemplary damages shall be fixed at P100,000.00.
The increase in the amount of awards for damages is befitting to show not only the Court's, but all of society's outrage over murder and other heinous crimes.
In the present case, the following damages are awarded:
1. P100,000.00 as civil indemnity;
2. P100,000.00 as moral damages which the victim is assumed to have suffered without need to show proof; and
3. P100,000.00 as exemplary damages to set as an example for the public good.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 06917 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS.
As modified, the Decision shall read as follows:
In Criminal Case No. Q-06-141141, accused-appellant Buenaventura Mahusay is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery and is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole under Republic Act No. 9346. He is ORDERED to PAY the heirs of Rolando De Guzman y Adrales the following amounts: civil indemnity in the amount of Php100,000.00; moral damages in the amount of Php100,000.00; exemplary damages in the amount of Php100,000.00; and temperate damages in the amount of Php50,000.00;
In Criminal Case No. Q-06-141142, accused-appellant is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Attempted Murder, defined under Article 248 in relation to Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum. 36
He is ORDERED to PAY Maria Eva the following amounts: civil indemnity in the amount of Php50,000.00; moral damages in the amount of Php50,000.00; and exemplary damages in the amount of Php50,000.00.
In Criminal Case No. 06-141143, accused-appellant is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Attempted Murder defined under Article 248 in relation to Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.
He is ORDERED to PAY Catherine the following amounts: civil indemnity in the amount of Php50,000.00; moral damages in the amount of Php50,000.00; and exemplary damages in the amount of Php50,000.00.
All the damages shall earn interest at six percent (6%) per annum from finality of this Resolution until fully paid. Costs against accused-appellant. (Gesmundo, J., on leave)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr., with the concurrence of Justice Manuel M. Barrios and Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy.
2. CA rollo, pp. 14-15.
3. TSN, November 15, 2006, p. 6.
4. TSN, August 26, 2009, pp. 7-8.
5. TSN, September 28, 2011, pp. 8-9.
6. TSN, August 2, 2012, pp. 7-10.
7. TSN, April 4, 2013, pp. 7, 9.
8. TSN, August 29, 2013, p. 7.
9.Id.
10. TSN, January 9, 2014, pp. 5, 7-8.
11. Records, p. 527.
12. TSN, September 28, 2011, pp. 5-6.
13. Records, pp. 522-532. Penned by Judge Cleto R. Villacorta III.
14.Rollo, p. 15.
15.Id. at 14.
16. G.R. No. 202708, April 15, 2015, citing People of the Philippines v. Alvin Villanueva, G.R. No. 139177, April 11, 2003.
17. G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016.
18.Rodel Luz y Ong v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 197788, February 29, 2012, citing People v. Saludes, 452 Phil. 719, 728 (2003).
19. L.B. Reyes, THE REVISED PENAL CODE CRIMINAL LAW 494-495 (17th ed., 2008).
20.People v. Leozar Dela Cruz y Balobal, G.R. No. 188353, February 16, 2010.
21.People v. Sibbu, G.R. No. 214757, March 29, 2017.
22.Id. See also People v. Bato, G.R. No. 127843, December 15, 2000, 348 SCRA 253.
23.People v. Agcanas, G.R. No. 174476, October 11, 2011. See also People v Tamolon, G.R. No. 180169, February 27, 2009.
24. TSN, November 15, 2006, p. 6; TSN, September 5, 2007, p. 7.
25.People v. Lizada, 444 Phil. 67 (2003), citing Reyes, Revised Penal Code, 1981, Vol. I, p. 98.
26.Id.
27.People v. Federico Genita, Jr., G.R. No. 126171, March 11, 2004.
28. Art. 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity x x x.
29. Paragraph 2 of Article 61, in relation to Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
30. People v. Sibbu, supra note 21.
31. People of the Philippines v. Ireneo Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016.
32. Art. 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime x x x 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.
33. Article 2219 Civil Code of the Philippines:
Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:
(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries x x x.
34. ART. 2229 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
35. Supra note 31, citing People v. Halil Gambao y Esmail, G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013.
36. See Esmeraldo Rivera, et al. v. People, G.R. No. 166326, January 25, 2006.