PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appelle, vs. JORIE
WAHIMAN y RAYOS, accused-appellant
G.R. No. 200942 | June 16, 2015
FACTS:
On April 2, 2003, at around 10 OM, Jose Buensuceso, the
manager of Stanfilco-Dole, Phils. in Malaybalay City, was on his way back to
the company staff house onboard his Isuzu pickup after attending a despidada. While
he was about to enter the gate of the staff house, he was gunned down by person
riding in tandem on a black motorcycle. The guard on duty, David Azucena, who
was then opening the gate, identified one of the assailants as herein
appellant, Jorie Wahiman y Rayos.
During arraignment appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime
of murder.
Appellant was found guilty as charged in the RTC and CA.
ISSUE:
Whether damages for loss of earning capacity which is a
civil liability should be proved beyond reasonable doubt
RULING:
Concurring opinion; Leonen:
The prosecution presented testimonial evidence to prove the
income of the deceased for an award of loss of earning capacity and met the
requisite quantum of evidence, preponderance of evidence, for civil actions.
Allowing testimonial evidence to prove loss of earning capacity is more
consistent to the nature of civil actions, as opposed to the previous doctrine
that requires claims for loss of earning capacity to be proven through
documentary evidence.
Under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, “[e]very person
criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.” Institution of a
criminal case includes the civil action for the recovery of the civil liability
arising from the offense charged. The inclusion of the civil action is to avoid
multiplicity of suits.
While the criminal and civil actions can be litigated in the
same proceedings, the quanta of evidence for the two actions are not the same.
For the court to find criminal liability against the accused, there must be
proof beyond reasonable doubt:
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of
proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral
certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction
in an unprejudiced mind.
On the other hand, the finding of civil liability only
requires preponderance of evidence or “superior weight of evidence on the
issues involved.”
Despite the singularity of the proceedings of both the
criminal case and the civil case, it is possible for there to be an acquittal
on the criminal case and yet a finding of civil liability. The respective
wrights of the evidence in the criminal and civil cases are evaluated
independently.
A claim for damages, including actual damages for loss of
earning capacity, is part of the civil aspect of the case. Hence, to prove loss
of earning capacity, the quantum of evidence required is preponderance of evidence,
not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Loss of earning capacity is a form of actual or compensatory
damages under the Civil Code, which states that: Art. 2206. . . .
(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of 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.
Comments
Post a Comment