RRCP: December 1, 2000 -Aggravating and qualifying circumstances must be alleged People vs.

Diunsay-Jalandoni Convicted of: qualified rape (by TC) Changed: simple rape (SC) information merely states that AAA is a retardate without specifically stating that appellant knew of her mental disability at the time of the commission of the rape. Thus, appellant can only be convicted of simple rape Committed on: March 31, 2000 Circumstance not alleged: Special Qualifying, RPC Art. 266-B (10), appellant knew of AAAs mental disability at the time of commission of crime Exemplary damages awarded: P25k (by SC) See Held Basis: People vs. Catubig Facts: Information: That on or about the 31st day of March 2000 in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused with force and intimidation did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit an act of sexual assault upon the person of AAA a retardate by then and there dragging said complainant inside the guard out post located inside xxx Subdivision xxx, this city by removing her shorts and inserting his penis inside her vagina and thereafter had carnal knowledge of her against her will and consent at about 10 oclock in the morning, Wilfredo Aganon and Chris Pastor, both construction workers, were passing by x x x Subdivision in x x x, Quezon City on the way to their jobsite. When they came across a guard outpost, they noticed appellant, an ice cream vendor, pushing AAA on the floor of the outpost and in the act of unzipping his pants. From a distance of about 10 meters, Pastor said to appellant, "Hoy, bawal yan, bitay ang aabutin mo diyan." However, the two did not intervene any further and proceeded to walk towards their jobsite. Aganon and Pastor had not traveled far when they heard AAA shout, "Tama na po, tama na po, ayaw ko na." Upon hearing AAAs cry, Aganon and Pastor went back to the guard outpost. Before they could reach the outpost, they saw appellant immediately stand up and ring his ice cream bell while AAA pulled up her short pants. Aganon and Pastor then reported the incident to the subdivision guards and homeowners. They brought appellant to the Barangay Hall and thereafter turned him over to the x x x Police Station. AAAs current mental capacity was at a severe level of mental retardation with the mental age of a fouryear old although at the time of the commission of the rape, AAA was already 21 years old Defense: denied incident. Not feeling well, tired. Sat in outpost. AAA approached to buy ice cream. AAA was "makulit" and kept on hitting him ("binubunggo bunggo") while he was sitting on the floor of the outpost. AAA held him by the shoulders so he stood up and pushed her. When AAA fell on the floor of the outpost, she was shocked. He wanted to help her stand up but she shouted. He was about to leave the place when Pastor and Aganon approached him and asked, "What did you do with the girl?" to which he replied, "Wait a moment, how could I do that thing that you are accusing me at this time and place." He was Held:

then brought to the Barangay Hall and placed in the detention cell. AAA is entitled to P25,000.00 as exemplary damages 23 pursuant to our ruling in People v. Catubig. In Catubig, we held that the presence of an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, entitles the offended party to an award of exemplary damages. Further, we noted in that case that the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000, now requires that aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the information in order to be validly appreciated by the court. However, the retroactive application of these procedural rules cannot adversely affect the rights of a private offended party that have become vested where the offense was committed prior to the 24 effectivity of said rules as is the case here. Consequently, aggravating circumstances which were not alleged in the information but proved during the trial may be appreciated for the limited purpose of determining appellants liability for exemplary 25 damages. In the instant case, the presence of the qualifying circumstance of knowledge by the offender of the offended partys mental disability, although not alleged in the information, was proved during trial, which justifies the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 in consonance with current rulings

People vs. Dalisay Convicted of: qualified rape (by TC) Changed: simple rape (by CA; affirmed by SC) Committed on: July 2003 Case instituted: 2003 (information filed) Circumstances not alleged: Special Qualifying; Minority and Relationship (Dalisay common-law spouse of parent of the victim) Exemplary Damages awarded: P25k (by TC) Basis for award: 2229 (NOT 2230), cited People vs. Catubig Facts: Information: That on or about the 10th day of July 2003 in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, with lewd design[,] with force and intimidation[,] did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one [name withheld], his stepdaughter[,] 16 years old, a minor[,] against her will and without her consent, to the damage and prejudice of said offended party Common-law spouse of her mother. Happened several times. Only disclosed when victim had a quarrel w/ her sister, sister ran away. Told aunt. Sister witnessed one incident. Cited 2229 and 2230 (Art. 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages; Art. 2230. In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Such damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended party)

Held:

"!

Prior to the effectivity of the Revised Rules of Criminal 29 Procedure, courts generally awarded exemplary damages in criminal cases when an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, had been proven to have attended the commission of the crime, even if the same was not alleged in the information. This is in accordance with the aforesaid Article 2230. However, with the promulgation of the Revised Rules, courts no longer consider the aggravating circumstances not alleged and proven in the determination of the penalty and in the award of damages. Thus, even if an aggravating circumstance has been proven, but was not alleged, courts will not award exemplary damages 31 Nevertheless, People v. Catubig laid down the principle that courts may still award exemplary damages based on the aforementioned Article 2230, even if the aggravating circumstance has not been alleged, so long as it has been proven, in criminal cases instituted before the effectivity of the Revised Rules which remained pending thereafter. Catubig reasoned that the retroactive application of the Revised Rules should not adversely affect the vested rights of the private offended party (Comment in book: Not accurate. Catubig also applies to crimes COMMITTED before RRCP even though case NOT INSTITUTED before RRCP) we find, in our body of jurisprudence, criminal cases, especially those involving rape, dichotomized: one awarding exemplary damages, even if an aggravating circumstance attending the commission of the crime had not been sufficiently alleged but was consequently proven in the light of Catubig; and another awarding exemplary damages only if an aggravating circumstance has both been alleged and proven following the Revised Rules. the difference between the two sets rests on when the criminal case was instituted, either before or after the effectivity of the Revised Rules information for rape was filed in 2003 or after the effectivity of the Revised Rules. Following the doctrine in the second set of cases, the Court can very well deny the award of exemplary damages based on Article 2230 because the special qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship, as mentioned above, were not sufficiently alleged. Nevertheless, by focusing only on Article 2230 as the legal basis for the grant of exemplary damages taking into account simply the attendance of an aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime, courts have lost sight of the very reason why exemplary damages are awarded Cited Catubig: Also known as "punitive" or "vindictive" damages, exemplary or corrective damages are intended to serve as a deterrent to serious wrong doings, and as a vindication of undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured or a punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct. These terms are generally, but not always, used interchangeably. In common law, there is preference in the use of exemplary damages when the award is to account for injury to feelings and for the sense of indignity and humiliation suffered by a person as a result of an injury that has been maliciously and wantonly inflicted, the theory being that there should be compensation for the hurt caused by the highly reprehensible conduct of the defendantassociated

with such circumstances as willfulness, wantonness, malice, gross negligence or recklessness, oppression, insult or fraud or gross fraudthat intensifies the injury. The terms punitive or vindictive damages are often used to refer to those species of damages that may be awarded against a person to punish him for his outrageous conduct. In either case, these damages are intended in good measure to deter the wrongdoer and others like him from similar conduct in the future Being corrective in nature, exemplary damages, therefore, can be awarded, not only in the presence of an aggravating circumstance, but also where the circumstances of the case show the highly reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the offender. In much the same way as Article 2230 prescribes an instance when exemplary damages may be awarded, Article 2229, the main provision, lays down the very basis of the award It must be noted that, in the said cases, the Court used as basis Article 2229, rather than Article 2230, to justify the award of exemplary damages. Indeed, to borrow Justice Carpio Morales words in her separate opinion in People of the Philippines v. Dante Gragasin 50 y Par, "[t]he application of Article 2230 of the Civil Code strictissimi juris in such cases, as in the present one, defeats the underlying public policy behind the award of exemplary damagesto set a public example or correction for the public good."

People vs. Dadulla Convicted of: rape and attempted rape (by TC) Changed: simple rape and acts of lasciviousness (by CA) Committed on: Jan 1998 Case instituted: Circumstance not alleged: Relationship (father-daughter) Exemplary Damages: P30k rape; P10k acts of lasciviousness (by SC) Basis: 2230, cited People vs. Catubig Facts: Prosecution: AAA sleeping. Father woke her up, undressed her. Carnal knowledge. Happened again. Told sister. Went to uncle to confess. Case was filed. Defense: Denial. AAA was raped by other men, no longer a virgin. Failure to allege relationship precluded finding of qualified rape against accused Cited 2230 Although, as earlier mentioned, an aggravating circumstance not specifically alleged in the information (albeit established at trial) cannot be appreciated to increase the criminal liability of the accused, the established presence of one or two aggravating circumstances of any kind or nature entitles the offended party to exemplary damages under Article 2230 of the Civil Code because the requirement of specificity in the information affected only the criminal liability of the accused, not his civil liability. The Court has well explained this in People v. Catubig The term "aggravating circumstances" used by the Civil Code, the law not having specified otherwise, is to be understood in its broad or generic sense. The

Held:

#!

commission of an offense has a two-pronged effect, one on the public as it breaches the social order and the other upon the private victim as it causes personal sufferings, each of which is addressed by, respectively, 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 attendance of aggravating circumstances, whether ordinary or qualifying, in its commission. Unlike the criminal liability which is basically a State concern, the award of damages, however, is likewise, if not primarily, intended for the offended party who suffers thereby. It would make little sense for an award of exemplary damages to be due the private offended party when the aggravating circumstance is ordinary but to be withheld when it is qualifying. Withal, the ordinary or qualifying nature of an aggravating circumstance is a distinction that should only be of consequence to the criminal, rather than to the civil, liability of the offender. In fine, relative to the civil aspect of the case, an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, should entitle the offended party to an award of exemplary damages within the unbridled meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil Code That People v. Catubig was subsequent to the dates of the commission of the crimes charged did not matter. Like any other judicial interpretation of an existing law, the ruling in People v. Catubig settled the circumstances when Article 2230 of the Civil Code applied, thereby reflecting the meaning and state of that legal provision. The retroactivity of the ruling vis-vis the accused could not be challenged or be barred by virtue of its being civil, not penal, in effect

$!