SICAD, MARK ANTHONY J.
II-A
Kinds Concept
Those awarded in order to compensate a
Actual party for an injury or loss he suffered. (Art.
2199)
Include physical suffering, mental anguish,
fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,
Moral
wounded feelings, moral shock, social
humiliation, and similar injury. (Art. 2217)
Adjudicated in order that a right of the
plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded
by the defendant, may be vindicated or
Nominal
recognized, and not for the purpose of
indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered
by him. (Art. 2221)
May be recovered when the court finds that
some pecuniary loss has been suffered but
Temperate
its amount cannot, from the nature of the
case, be provided with certainty. (Art. 2224)
Those agreed upon by the parties to a
Liquidated contract, to be paid in case of breach thereof.
(Art. 2226)
Imposed by way of example or correction for
the public good, in addition to the moral,
Exemplary
temperate, liquidated, or compensatory
damages. (Art. 2229)
When Recoverable
Proof Required
Crimes Quasi-delicts Contracts Quasi-contracts
Defendants are liable for all damages that are the The damages for which the obligor who acted in good
natural and probable consequences of the act or faith is liable shall be those that are the natural and
omission complained of, without the necessity of having probable consequences of the breach of the obligation,
reasonably foreseen the future. and which the parties have foreseen or could have
Best evidence of loss which has been reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was
actually suffered. constituted.
In case of fraud, bad faith, malice, or wanton attitude,
When death has resulted. the obligor shall be responsible for all damages which
may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of
the obligation. (Art. 2201)
When the defendant acted in bad
N o p r o o f o f p e c u n i a r y l o s s i s Recoverable when the accused faith or was guilty of gross
necessary. The assessment is left to is found guilty of physical When a quasi-delict negligence amounting to bad faith,
the discretion of the court according to i n j u r i e s , l a s c i v i o u s a c t s , causes physical or in wanton disregard of his
the circumstances of each case. adultery or concubinage, illegal injurie or where the contractual obligations and,
However, there must be proof that the or arbitrary detention, illegal defendant is guilty of exceptionally, when the act of the
defendant caused physical suffering, a r r e s t , i l l e g a l s e a r c h , o r intentional tort. breach of contract itself is
etc. defamation. constitutive of a tort resulting in
physical injuries.
No proof of pecuniary loss is
necessary. Proof that a legal right has Recoverable when there is a breach of an obligation arising from any source enumerated in Art. 1157.
been violated is what is only required.
No proof of pecuniary loss is
When the court finds some pecuniary loss has been suffered, but its amount cannot from the nature of the case
necessary. The assessment is left to
be proven with certainty.
the discretion of the court.
Only the existence of the breach of the When there is a breach of a
contract, and not its value or extent. contract.
The plaintiff must show that he is If the crime was committed with If the defendant
If the defendant acted wantonly, fraudulently, recklessly,
entitled to moral, temperate, or actual one or more aggravating acted with gross
oppressively, or malevolently.
damages. circumstances. negligence.
SICAD, MARK ANTHONY J. II-A

2. In the 2016 case of People v. Oandasan (G.R. No. 194605, June 4, 2016), the Court had occasion to trace the roots of civil indemnity in case of death. There, the Court discussed that although the New Civil Code
has fixed the death indemnity to be at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have been mitigating circumstances,” the granting of death indemnity has already been introduced and granted long prior to
the effectivity of the New Civil Code. In fact, in 1905, death indemnity was awarded in the amount of P500.00 in the murder case of US v. Bastas. In 1908, P1,000.00 was awarded to the heirs of the deceased in the
case of US v. Indon.

Through the years, the amount has been increased from P2,000.00 up to P100,000.00 in consideration of prevailing economic conditions. In the 1948 case of People v. Amansec, P6,000.00 was awarded as death
indemnity, raising the minimum allowable award by the trial court at that time which was P2,000.00. The Court justified the increase by adverting to the “difference between the value of the present currency and that at
the time when the law fixing a minimum indemnity of P2,000.00 was enacted.

In the 1968 case of People v. Pantoja, the Court saw a significant need to further increase the death indemnity to P12,000.00. The Court then made a review of the more recent history of civil indemnity for death in the
Philippines to justify the increase.

Increases were made from time to time until it eventually reached the P50,000.00 threshold, where it remained for a long time. But even then, the Court occasionally granted P75,000.00 as death indemnity. The Court
retained the P75,000.00 death indemnity in the 2007 case of People v. Dela Cruz. In the 2009 case of People v. Anod, the Court clarified that the award of P75,000.00 was appropriate only if the imposable penalty
was death but reduced to reclusion perpetua by virtue of the enactment of R.A. 9346. Hence, the death indemnity remained at P50,000.00 where the proper imposable penalty was reclusion perpetua.

In the 2009 case of People v. Soriano and the 2010 case of People v. Sanchez, death indemnity of P75,000.00 became the standard in murder where the penalty was reclusion perpetua. However, this was short-lived
as in the case of People v. Gutierrez, also decided in 2010, the Court deviated from the standard and reverted to the P50,000.00 death indemnity. This was followed by People v. Apacible, also a 2010 case, which
affirmed the amount of death indemnity awarded in People v. Gutierrrez.

In People v. Escleto, decided in 2012, the Court imposed P75,000.00 as death indemnity where the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua and there is no finding of any attendant aggravating circumstance. But in
2013, the Court once again changed its mind and awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for murder. The civil indemnity for homicide remained pegged at P50,000.00 for almost two decades.

In 2016, the Court promulgated its decision in People v. Jugueta, adopting guidelines on fixing civil liabilities in crimes resulting in death, taking into proper consideration the stages of execution and gravity of the
offenses, as well as the number of victims in composite crimes.

According to the present rule, as held in People v. Jugueta, the death indemnity where the imposable penalty is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because of R.A. 9346 is P100,000.00 and where the imposable
penalty is reclusion perpetua, the civil indemnity for death is P75,000.00.
SICAD, MARK ANTHONY J. II-A

3. No. As discussed in the previous item, the prevailing jurisprudence pegs the civil liability for death arising from a crime at P100,000.00 where the imposable penalty is death but reduced to reclusion perptetua
because of R.A. 9346 and P75,000.00 where the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua.

With regards to the civil indemnity for death arising from a quasi-delict, the Court declared in the 2010 case of Philippine Hawk Corp. v. Vivian Tan Lee that the civil indemnity for death arising out of a quasi-delict has
been fixed by the current jurisprudence at P50,000. In that case, the bus owned by Philippine Hawk collided with the motorcycle of the Vivian Tan Lee and Silverio Tan which resulted in the death of Silverio. The wife
filed an action for damages. The trial court ruled in favour of Vivian but did not grant an award for death indemnity. On appeal, the Court of Appeals granted Vivian P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for death. Philippine
Hawk questioned the award of damages granted by the appellate court. The Supreme Court resolved the issue by saying that the Court of Appeals correctly awarded Vivian “civil indemnity for the death of her
husband, which has been fixed by current jurisprudence at P50,000.00.