G.R. No.

203041 June 5, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MOISES CAOILE

The accused-appellant challenges in this appeal the 2012 Decision 1, which affirmed with modification
the judgment2 of conviction for two counts of Rape.

Evidence for the Prosecution

Sometime in April 2005, [AAA] heard her friend, [BBB], complaining to Lucio Bafalar, a Barangay Tanod,
that the accused mashed her breast. Upon hearing the story of [BBB], [AAA] blurted out that she, too, was
abused by the accused.
After examining [AAA] on June 21, 2005, Dr. Claire Maramat found out that [AAA]’s genitalia suffered a
multiple hymenal laceration which, at the time of the examination, was already healed, thus, possibly, it was
inflicted a week or months prior to the examination. According to Dr. Maramat, a multiple hymenal laceration
may be caused by several factors, such as trauma to the perineal area or penetration of a penis.
Claire Baliaga, a psychologist, testified that she conducted a psychological evaluation on [AAA] ; that
[AAA] obtained an overall score performance of 55, which is classified within the mental retardation range; and
that [AAA] has the mental age of a seven-year, nine-month old child who is inadequate of sustaining mental
processes and in solving novel problems employing adoptive strategies.
Dr. Roderico V. Ramos, a psychiatrist of the ITRMC, testified that he evaluated the mental condition of
[AAA], that after psychiatric evaluation, [AAA] was given a diagnosis of moderate mental retardation

Evidence for the Defense

Accused Moises Caoile knew [AAA] because they were neighbors. [AAA] was, in fact, a playmate of his
children and a frequent visitor in their house. When accused and [AAA] became familiar with one another, the
latter would go to the former’s house even when the children were not there, and they would talk and tease each
other.
“...the accused courted [AAA]. He gave her money, chocolates or candies. As lovers, they had their intimate
moments, and their first sexual intercourse happened on April 6, 2005 on the mountain. From then on, the
accused and [AAA] repeatedly had sexual intercourse, and most of which were initiated by [AAA], especially
their sexual intimacies in Agri Motel, Pangasinan.
The accused did not know that [AAA] was a demented person since she acted like a normal individual. In fact,
she went to a regular school and she finished her elementary education.
The accused did not force himself on [AAA]. [AAA] knew that he is a married man, but she, nonetheless, loved
him without reservation.

ISSUE:
In essence, Caoile is attacking the credibility of AAA, and claims that she might not be a mental retardate
at all, having been able to give categorical and straightforward answers during her testimony. Moreover, Caoile
avers that it has not been shown that AAA underwent the proper clinical, laboratory, and psychometric tests to
arrive at the conclusion that she fell within the range of mental retardation

HELD:

Validity of the Amended Informations

Caoile was charged in the Amended Informations with rape of a demented person under paragraph 1(d).
The term demented17 refers to a person who has dementia, which is a condition of deteriorated mentality,
characterized by marked decline from the individual’s former intellectual level and often by emotional apathy,
madness, or insanity.18 On the other hand, the phrase deprived of reason under paragraph 1(b) has been
interpreted to include those suffering from mental abnormality, deficiency, or retardation. 19 Thus, AAA, who was
clinically diagnosed to be a mental retardate, can be properly classified as a person who is "deprived of reason,"
and not one who is "demented."
The mistake, however, will not exonerate Caoile.1âwphi1 In the first place, he did not even raise this as
an objection. More importantly, none of his rights, particularly that of to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation against him,20 was violated. Although the Amended Informations stated that he was being
charged with the crime of rape of a demented person under paragraph 1(d), it also stated that his victim was "a
person with a mental age of seven (7) years old." Elucidating on the foregoing, this Court, in People v.
Valdez, held:
For a complaint or information to be sufficient... What is controlling is not the title of the complaint, nor
the designation of the offense charged or the particular law or part thereof allegedly violated, these being mere
conclusions of law made by the prosecutor, but the description of the crime charged and the particular facts
therein recited. Thus, the erroneous reference to paragraph 1(d) in the Amended Informations, did not cause
material and substantial harm to Caoile. Firstly, he simply ignored the error. Secondly, particular facts stated in
the Amended Informations were averments sufficient to inform Caoile of the nature of the charges against him.

Mental Condition of AAA

Caoile’s insistence, to escape liability, that AAA is not a mental retardate, cannot be accepted by this
Court. The fact that AAA was able to answer in a straightforward manner during her testimony cannot be used
against her. The capacity of a mental retardate to stand as a witness in court has already been settled by this
Court. In People v. Castillo,22 we said:
It bears emphasis that the competence and credibility of mentally deficient rape victims as witnesses have been
upheld by this Court where it is shown that they can communicate their ordeal capably and consistently. Rather
than undermine the gravity of the complainant’s accusations, it even lends greater credence to her testimony,
that, someone as feeble-minded and guileless could speak so tenaciously and explicitly on the details of the
rape if she has not in fact suffered such crime at the hands of the accused. Moreover, it is settled that when a
woman says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that she has been raped and
her testimony alone is sufficient if it satisfies the exacting standard of credibility needed to convict the accused.
More importantly, AAA’s medical condition was verified not only by one expert, but three witnesses – a
psychologist and two psychiatrists, one of whom was even chosen by the defense and testified for the defense.
This Court further disagrees with Caoile’s claim that the experts "merely impressed that they conducted
a psychological evaluation on [AAA] in which she obtained a performance classified within the mental retardation
range."23 The experts’ findings on AAA’s mental condition were based on several tests and examinations.

Carnal Knowledge of a Mental retardate amounts to Rape

Carnal knowledge of a woman who is a mental retardate is rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(b) of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended. This is because a mentally deficient person is automatically considered
incapable of giving consent to a sexual act. Thus, what needs to be proven are the facts of sexual
intercourse between the accused and the victim, and the victim’s mental retardation. 31 Verily, the
prosecution was able to sufficiently establish that AAA is a mental retardate.

Sweetheart Defense
Unfortunately, such defense will not exculpate him from liability. Carnal knowledge of a female, even
when done without force or intimidation, is rape nonetheless, if it was done without her consent. To expound on
such concept, this Court, in People v. Butiong,32 said:
..in the rape of a woman deprived of reason or unconscious, the victim has no will. The absence of will determines
the existence of the rape. Such lack of will may exist not only when the victim is unconscious or totally deprived
of reason, but also when she is suffering some mental deficiency impairing her reason or free will. In that case,
it is not necessary that she should offer real opposition or constant resistance to the sexual intercourse. Her
failure to offer resistance to the act did not mean consent for she was incapable of giving any rational consent.The
deprivation of reason need not be complete. Mental abnormality or deficiency is enough. Cohabitation with a
feebleminded, idiotic woman is rape.
Consequently, the mere fact that Caoile had sexual intercourse with AAA, a mental retardate, makes him liable
for rape under the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

Defense of Lack of knowledge of AAA’s mental condition

Similarly, Caoile’s allegation that he did not know that AAA was mentally retarded will not suffice to
overturn his conviction.
The Revised Penal Code, as amended, punishes the rape of a mentally disabled person regardless of the
perpetrator’s awareness of his victim’s mental condition. However, the perpetrator’s knowledge of the victim’s
mental disability, at the time he committed the rape, qualifies the crime and makes it punishable by death 33 under
Article 266-B, paragraph 10, to wit:
 There is no sufficient evidence to establish the qualifying circumstance of knowledge by Caoile of AAA’s
mental disability. The trial court and the Court of Appeals which did not make any finding on the said qualifying
circumstance correctly convicted said accused of simple rape only.
This Court finds the award of damages as modified by the Court of Appeals in order.1âwphi1 Pursuant to
prevailing jurisprudence,34 however, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed on all
damages awarded from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03957 is
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant MOISES CAOILE is found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of simple rape in Family Court Case Nos. A-496 and A-497 under subparagraph
(b) of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and is sentenced to reclusion perpetua for each
count of rape. The award of civil indemnity and moral damages, both in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos
(₱50,000.00), and exemplary damages in the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (₱30,000.00), all for each count
of rape, are maintained, subject to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment.
No costs.
 QUIMVEL vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
GR 214497

FACTS:
At around 8 o'clock in the evening of [July 18,] 2007, YYY went out of the house to buy kerosene since
there was no electricity. While YYY was away, Quimvel arrived bringing a vegetable viand from AAA's
grandfather. AAA requested Quimvel to stay with them as she and her siblings were afraid. He agreed and
accompanied them. AAA and her siblings then went to sleep. However, she was awakened when she felt
Quimvel's right leg on top of her body. She likewise sensed Quimvel inserting his right hand inside her panty. In
a trice, she felt Quimvel caressing her private part. She removed his hand.
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 11 in Ligao City, Albay, on January 23, 2013, rendered its Judgment
9 finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Acts of Lasciviousness in relation to Section 5 (b), Article
III of R.A. 7610. CA affirmed.

ISSUE:
W/N he may be convicted only of acts of lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC)
and not in relation to Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610

HELD:
YES! The Information charged the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under Sec. 5 (b) of RA 7610. It is
fundamental that, in criminal prosecutions, every element constituting the offense must be alleged in the
Information before an accused can be convicted of the crime charged. This is to apprise the accused of the
nature of the accusation against him, which is part and parcel of the rights accorded to an accused enshrined in
Article III, Section 14 (2) of the 1987 Constitution.
The elements of the offense penalized under Sec. 5 (b) of RA 7610 were sufficiently alleged in the Information.
The allegations are sufficient to classify the victim as one "exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual
abuse." This is anchored on the very definition of the phrase in Sec. 5 of RA 7610, which encompasses children
who indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct (a) for money, profit, or any other consideration; or (b)
under the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group. Correlatively, Sec. 5 (a) of RA 7610 punishes
acts pertaining to or connected with child prostitution wherein the child is abused primarily for profit. On the other
hand, paragraph (b) punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct committed on a child subjected to other
sexual abuse. It covers not only a situation where a child is abused for profit but also one in which a child, through
coercion, intimidation or influence, engages in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct.
The term "coercion and influence" as appearing in the law is broad enough to cover "force and
intimidation" as used in the Information. The rule is satisfied when the crime "is described in intelligible terms
with such particularity as to apprise the accused, with reasonable certainty, of the offense charged."
There need not be a third person subjecting the exploited child to other abuse. As regards paragraph (a), a child
may engage in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct regardless of whether or not a "bugaw" is present. It is
immaterial whether or not the accused himself employed the coercion or influence to subdue the will of the child
for the latter to submit to his sexual advances for him to be convicted under paragraph (b). Sec. 5 of RA 7610
even provides that the offense can be committed by "any adult, syndicate or group," without qualification.

Article 336 of the RPC was never repealed by RA 8353

Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen (Justice Leonen) posits that Art. 336 of the RPC has allegedly
been rendered incomplete and ineffective by RA 8353, otherwise known as the Anti-Rape law. The good justice
brings our attention to Sec. 4 60 of the special law, which clause expressly repealed Art. 335 of the RPC. And
since the second element of Acts of Lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the RPC is sourced from Art. 335 of the
same code, 61 it is then Justice Leonen's theory that Acts of Lasciviousness ceased to be a crime under the
RPC following Art. 335's express repeal. We respectfully disagree. The only construction that can be given to
the phrase "preceding article" is that Art. 336 of the RPC now refers to Art. 266-A in the place of the repealed
Art. 335. It is, therefore, erroneous to claim that Acts of Lasciviousness can no longer be prosecuted under the
RPC. The decriminalization of Acts of Lasciviousness under the RPC, as per Justice Leonen's theory, would not
sufficiently be supplanted by RA 7610 and RA 9262, 65 otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women
and their Children Law (Anti-VAWC Law). Under RA 7610, only minors can be considered victims of the
enumerated forms of abuses therein. Meanwhile, the Anti-VAWC law limits the victims of sexual abuses covered
by the RA to a wife, former wife, or any women with whom the offender has had a dating or sexual relationship,
or against her child. 66 Clearly, these laws do not provide ample protection against sexual offenders who do not
discriminate in selecting their victims. One does not have to be a child before he or she can be victimized by
acts of lasciviousness. Nor does one have to be a woman with an existing or prior relationship with the offender
to fall prey. Anyone can be a victim of another's lewd design. And if the Court will subscribe to Justice Leonen's
position, it will render a large portion of our demographics (i.e., adult females who had no prior relationship to
the offender, and adult males) vulnerable to sexual abuses.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. IRENEO JUGUETA
G.R. No. 202124

FACTS
In the evening of June 6, 2002, as Norberto Divina’s entire family lay down on the floor of their one-room
nipa hut to sleep, the "sack" walling of their hut was suddenly stripped off, and only the fences remained. With
the covering of the wall gone, the three (3) men responsible for the deed came into view. Norberto clearly saw
their faces which were illuminated by the light of a gas lamp hanging in their small hut. The 3 men ordered
Norberto to come down from his house, but he refused to do so. The men then uttered, "Magdasal ka na at
katapusan mo na ngayon." Norberto pleaded with them, saying, "Maawa kayo sa amin, matanda na ako at
marami akong anak. Anong kasalanan ko sa inyo?" Despite such plea for mercy, a gunshot was fired, and
Norberto immediately threw his body over his children and wife in an attempt to protect them from being hit.
Thereafter, he heard successive gunshots being fired in the direction where his family huddled together in their
hut.7
When the volley of shots ceased and the three (3) men left, Norberto saw that his two (2) young
daughters were wounded and eventually succumbed to such wounds. In answer to questions of what could have
prompted such an attack from appellant, Norberto replied that he had a previous altercation with appellant who
was angered by the fact that he (Norberto) filed a case against Accused’s two other brothers for molesting his
daughter.
On the other hand, Accused was only able to proffer denial and alibi as his defense.
RTC: Accused was convicted of Double Murder a criminal case, and Multiple Attempted Murder in
another. CA affirmed the decision of RTC.

ISSUE: W/N Accused is liable for the crimes

HELD:
Yes. Murder is defined under Art. 248 of RPC as the unlawful killing of a person, which is not parricide
or infanticide, attended by circumstances such as treachery or evident premeditation. The presence of any one
of the circumstances enumerated in Article 248 of the Code is sufficient to qualify a killing as murder. Accused
is liable for murder because treachery attended the killing of Norberto’s two children who were 13 years old and
3 ½ years old respectively. In this case, the victims were defenseless and manifestly overpowered by armed
assailants when they were gunned down. There was clear showing that the attack was made suddenly and
unexpectedly as to render the victims helpless and unable to defend themselves. Norberto and his wife and his
children could have already been asleep at that time of the night.
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim without the
slightest provocation on his part. Minor children, who by reason of their tender years, cannot be expected to put
up a defense. When an adult person illegally attacks a child, treachery exists.
As to the charge of multiple attempted murder, the last paragraph of Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code
states that a felony is attempted 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.
If one inflicts physical injuries on another but the latter survives, the crime committed is either
consummated physical injuries, if the offender had no intention to kill the victim, or frustrated or attempted
homicide or frustrated murder or attempted murder if the offender intends to kill the victim. Intent to kill may be
proved by evidence of: (a) motive; (b) the nature or number of weapons used in the commission of the crime; (c)
the nature and number of wounds inflicted on the victim; (d) the manner the crime was committed; and (e) the
words uttered by the offender at the time the injuries are inflicted by him on the victim.
NOTES ON NOMENCLATURE:
 There is some confusion caused by the trial court's use of the terms "Double Murder" and "Multiple
Attempted Murder" in convicting appellant, and yet imposing penalties which nevertheless show that the
trial court meant to penalize appellant for two (2) separate counts of Murder and four (4) counts of
Attempted Murder.
 Accused is guilty of 2 counts of the crime of Murder and not Double Murder, as the killing of the victims
was not the result of a single act but of several acts of appellant and his cohorts.
He is also guilty of 4 counts of the crime of Attempted Murder and not Multiple Attempted Murder.
 It bears stressing that the Informations in this case failed to comply with the requirement in Section 13,
Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court that an information must charge only one offense.
 GR: A complaint or information must charge only one offense, otherwise, the same is defective.
EXC: Accused waives such defect by failing to move for quashal of information before he enters his plea
 It is also well-settled that when two or more offenses are charged in a single complaint or information
but the accused fails to object to it before trial, the court may convict him of as many offenses as are
charged and proved, and impose upon him the proper penalty for each offense.
 Accused can therefore be held liable for all the crimes alleged in the Informations i.e., 2 counts of murder
and 4 counts of attempted murder, respectively, and proven during trial.

NOTES ON COMPLEX CRIMES

 In a complex crime, two or more crimes are actually committed, however, in the eyes of the law and in
the conscience of the offender they constitute only one crime, thus, only one penalty is imposed.
 There are two kinds of complex crime. The first is known as a compound crime, or when a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies while the other is known as a complex crime proper,
or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other. The classic example of the first kind
is when a single bullet results in the death of two or more persons. A different rule governs where
separate and distinct acts result in a number killed. Deeply rooted is the doctrine that when various
victims expire from separate shot, such acts constitute separate and distinct crimes.
 When several gunmen, as in this case, indiscriminately fire a series of shots at a group of people, it
shows their intention to kill several individuals. Hence, they are committing not only one crime. What
appellant and his cohorts committed cannot be classified as a complex crime because as held in People
v. Nelmida, "each act by each gunman pulling the trigger of their respective firearms, aiming each
particular moment at different persons constitute distinct and individual acts which cannot give rise to a
complex crime."
TABLE OF CIVIL DAMAGES

I. For those crimes like, Murder, Parricide, Serious Intentional Mutilation, Infanticide, and other crimes involving
death of a victim where the penalty consists of indivisible penalties:
1.1 Where the penalty imposed is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because of RA 9346:
a. Civil indemnity – ₱100,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱100,000.00
c. Exemplary damages – ₱100,000.00
1.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated:
a. Frustrated:
i. Civil indemnity – ₱75,000.00
ii. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00
iii. Exemplary damages – ₱75,000.00
b. Attempted:
i. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00
ii. Exemplary damages – ₱50,000.00
iii. Exemplary damages – ₱50,000.00
2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, other than the above-mentioned:
a. Civil indemnity – ₱75,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00
c. Exemplary damages – ₱75,000.00
2.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated:
a. Frustrated:
i. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00
ii. Moral damages – ₱50,000.00
iii. Exemplary damages – ₱50,000.00
b. Attempted:
i. Civil indemnity – ₱25,000.00
ii. Moral damages – ₱25,000.00
iii. Exemplary damages – ₱25,000.00

II. For Simple Rape/Qualified Rape:

1.1 Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because of RA 9346:
a. Civil indemnity – ₱100,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱100,000.00
c. Exemplary damages111 – ₱100,000.00
1.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated but merely attempted:112
a. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱50,000.00
c. Exemplary damages – ₱50,000.00
2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, other than the above-mentioned:
a. Civil indemnity – ₱75,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00
c. Exemplary damages – ₱75,000.00
2.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated, but merely attempted:
a. Civil indemnity – ₱25,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱25,000.00
c. Exemplary damages – ₱25,000.00
III. For Complex crimes under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code where death, injuries, or sexual abuse
results, the civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages will depend on the penalty, extent of
violence and sexual abuse; and the number of victims where the penalty consists of indivisible penalties:
1.1 Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because of RA 9346:
a. Civil indemnity – ₱100,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱100,000.00
c. Exemplary damages – ₱100,000.00
1.2 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, other than the above-mentioned:
 a. Civil indemnity – ₱75,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00
c. Exemplary damages – ₱75,000.00

The above Rules apply to every victim who dies as a result of the crime committed. In other
complex crimes where death does not result, like in Forcible Abduction with Rape, the civil
indemnity, moral and exemplary damages depend on the prescribed penalty and the penalty
imposed, as the case may be.

IV. For Special Complex Crimes like Robbery with Homicide, Robbery with Rape, Robbery with Intentional
Mutilation, Robbery with Arson, Rape with Homicide, Kidnapping with Murder, Carnapping with Homicide or
Carnapping with Rape, Highway Robbery with Homicide, Qualified Piracy, Arson with Homicide, Hazing with
Death, Rape, Sodomy or Mutilation and other crimes with death, injuries, and sexual abuse as the composite
crimes, where the penalty consists of indivisible penalties:

1.1 Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because of RA 9346:
a. Civil indemnity – ₱100,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱100,000.00
c. Exemplary damages – ₱100,000.00
In Robbery with Intentional Mutilation, the amount of damages is the same as the above if the
penalty imposed is Death but reduced to reclusion perpetua although death did not occur.

1.2 For the victims who suffered mortal/fatal wounds 125 and could have died if not for a timely medical
intervention, the following shall be awarded:
a. Civil indemnity – ₱75,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00
c. Exemplary damages – ₱75,000.00

1.3 For the victims who suffered non-mortal/non-fatal injuries:

a. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱50,000.00
c. Exemplary damages – ₱50,000.00

2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, other than the above-mentioned:
a. Civil indemnity – ₱75,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00
c. Exemplary damages – ₱75,000.00

In Robbery with Intentional Mutilation, the amount of damages is the same as the above if the
penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua.

2.2 For the victims who suffered mortal/fatal wounds and could have died if not for a timely medical
intervention, the following shall be awarded:
a. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱50,000.00
c. Exemplary damages – ₱50,000.00

2.3 For the victims who suffered non-mortal/non-fatal injuries:

a. Civil indemnity – ₱25,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱25,000.00
c. Exemplary damages – ₱25,000.00

In Robbery with Physical Injuries,126 the amount of damages shall likewise be dependent on the
nature/severity of the wounds sustained, whether fatal or non-fatal.
 The above Rules do not apply if in the crime of Robbery with Homicide, the robber/s or
perpetrator/s are themselves killed or injured in the incident.1âwphi1

Where the component crime is rape, the above Rules shall likewise apply, and that for every
additional rape committed, whether against the same victim or other victims, the victims shall
be entitled to the same damages unless the other crimes of rape are treated as separate crimes,
in which case, the damages awarded to simple rape/qualified rape shall apply.

V. In other crimes that result in the death of a victim and the penalty consists of divisible penalties, i.e., Homicide,
Death under Tumultuous Affray, Infanticide to conceal the dishonour of the offender, 127 Reckless Imprudence
Resulting to Homicide, Duel, Intentional Abortion and Unintentional Abortion, etc.:

1.1 Where the crime was consummated:

a. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱50,000.00
1.2 Where the crime committed was not consummated, except those crimes where there are no
stages, i.e., Reckless Imprudence and Death under tumultuous affray:
a. Frustrated:
i. Civil indemnity – ₱30,000.00
ii. Moral damages – ₱30,000.00
b. Attempted:
i. Civil indemnity – ₱20,000.00
ii. Moral damages – ₱20,000.00
If an aggravating circumstance was proven during the trial, even if not alleged in the
Information, in addition to the above mentioned amounts as civil indemnity and moral
damages, the amount of ₱50,000.00 exemplary damages for consummated;
₱30,000.00 for frustrated; and ₱20,000.00 for attempted, shall be awarded.
VI. A. In the crime of Rebellion where the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua and death occurs in the course
of the rebellion, the heirs of those who died are entitled to the following:
a. Civil indemnity – ₱100,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱100,000.00
c. Exemplary damages – ₱100,000.00
B. For the victims who suffered mortal/fatal wounds in the course of the rebellion and could have died if not
for a timely medical intervention, the following shall be awarded:
a. Civil indemnity – ₱75,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱75,000.00
c. Exemplary damages – ₱75,000.00
C. For the victims who suffered non-mortal/non-fatal injuries:
a. Civil indemnity – ₱50,000.00
b. Moral damages – ₱50,000.00
c. Exemplary damages – ₱50,000.00

VII. In all of the above instances, when no documentary evidence of burial or funeral expenses is presented in
court, the amount of ₱50,000.00 as temperate damages shall be awarded.