8 People v Oandasan Jr.
During the day of the murder, Oandasan was in Cavite and
G.R. No. 194605 | June. 14, 2016 | J. Bersamin
Topic: Concept of Actual or Compensatory Damages
Summary: The defendant murdered 3 people. He presented an
alibi that was overturned by positive identification of a witness. The
Court also appreciated the aggravating circumstance of treachery
which the lower court did not do. In deciding on the damages to be
imposed to the defendant, the Court outlined the jurisprudential
history of the value of death indemnity. The Court also outlines
pertinent provisions in determining the value of death indemnity.
Doctrine: The Court can change the value of death indemnity
according to the value of the currency at the time the judgement is
rendered. Also please read the Court’s spiel about death indemnity
at the lower part of the digest.
Facts:
As gathered by the Court of Appeals
1. Edgardo Tamanu, Danilo Montegrico, and Mario Paleg were
shot by Oandasan while they were having a drinking spree
with witness Ferdinand Cutaran.
2. Danilo Montegrico and Edgardo Tamanu (murder) died while
Mario Paleg survived (frustrated murder due to timely
medical intervention).
3. Two other witnesses were present during the commission of
the crime.
As alibi presented by defendant Oandasan
1.
reported to work from 7AM to 5PM. To bolster this, he
presented a time record sheet and an employment
certificate.
2. Oandasan said that he and Cutaran had a misunderstanding
when he worked in Navarro Construction, the same
company that the Cutaran worked in.
3. Oandasan said that he caught Cutaran stealing sacks of
cement and prevented them from doing so. Then, Cutaran
plotted to kill him.
4. Another alleged witness, Escobar, stated that the man who
shot the victims was shorter in stature than defendant
Oandasan.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the alibi of Oandasan overcomes the
witness’ positive identification of him?
2. Whether or not treachery was an attendant circumstance in
each murder?
3. Important: What is the amount of damages that is
proper for the indemnification of the victims and their
heirs?
Ratio:
1. No.
a. As stated by the Court of Appeals: In the case at bar,
appellant failed to prove the element of physical
impossibility for him to be at the scene of the crime
at the time it took place. His alibi that he was in
Cavite and the employment certificate and time
record sheet which he presented cannot prevail over
 the positive and categorical testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses.
b. Alibi is the weakest defense not only because it is
inherently weak and unreliable, but also because it
is easy to fabricate. It is generally rejected when
the accused is positively identified by a witness.
2. Yes.
a. The following requisites for the appreciation of the
aggravating circumstance treachery is present in the
case. These requisites are a) that the means of
execution employed gave the person attacked no
opportunity to defend themselves, and b) that such
means of execution were deliberately adopted by
the accused without danger to his person.
b. Even though it is contested that the witnesses did
not directly see the shooting of the two other victims,
it is sufficiently established by circumstantial
evidence. The court decides on the sufficientness of
the quantity of circumstances for every case1.
3. Keep reading.
In determining the value of damages with regard to
crimes of murder, the following provisions is
considered by the Court.
1) Art. 2206 of the Civil Code
2) Art. 2202 of the Civil Code preceded by Section 1 of
Commonwealth Act 284
(reproduced below)
1 Jurisprudential basis
The following amounts were determined by the court.
1) To the heirs of Danilo Montegrico, civil indemnity of
P75,000.00; moral damages of P75,000.00; exemplary
damages of P75,000.00; and temperate damages of
P50,000.00;
2) To the heirs of Edgardo Tamanu, civil indemnity of
P75,000.00; moral damages of P75,000.00; exemplary
damages of P75,000.00; and temperate damages of
P50,000.00; and
3) To Mario Paleg, civil indemnity of P50,000.00; moral
damages of P50,000.00; exemplary damages of
P50,000.00; and temperate damages of P25,000.00.
This is justified by the following arguments.
1) Historically, the threshold of death indemnity was set at
P3,000 as the least amount and P75,000 pesos as the most
amount. In recent times, the Court had set death indemnity
at P50,000 and P75,000 in different instances.
(reproduced below)
a) This is due to the consideration of the difference of
the value of currency between the time of
promulgation of the Civil Code and the modern times
as stated in People v Pantoja.
2) Temperate damages should be awarded to the heirs of the
murdered for the interment of the deceased, and to the
injured for hospitalization fees (basis: People v Jugueta).
3) Moral damages are awarded even without proof or
allegation if the victim dies as a result of the crime (basis
missing, the case says it is a “matter of law”)
 4) Art 2230 authorizes the award of exemplary damages if an
aggravating circumstance is present.
Addendum
Article 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime
or quasi-delict 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 6ve 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.
Article 2202. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be
liable for all damages which are the natural and probable
consequences of the act or omission complained of. It is not
necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could have
reasonably been foreseen by the defendant.
Court’s spiel about death indemnity (please read)
It is again timely to raise the civil indemnity for death arising
from crime or quasi-delict. We start by reminding that human life,
which is not a commodity, is priceless.The value of human life is
incalculable, for no loss of life from crime or quasi-delict canever be
justly measured. Yet, the law absolutely requires every injury,
especially loss of life, to be compensated in the form of damages.
For this purpose, damages may be defined as the pecuniary
compensation, recompense, or satisfaction for an injury
sustained, or, as otherwise expressed, the pecuniary
consequences that the law imposes for the breach of some
duty or the violation of some right. As such,damages refer to
the amount in money awarded by the court as a remedy for
the injured. 61 Although money has been accepted as the most
frequently used means of punishing, deterring, compensating and
regulating injury throughout the legal system, it has been
explained that money in the context of damages is not
awarded as are placement for other money, but as substitute
for that which is generally more important than money; it is the
best thing that a court can do. Regardless, the civil indemnity for
death, being compensatory in nature, must attune to
contemporaneous economic realities; otherwise, the desire to
justly indemnify would be thwarted or rendered meaningless.
This has been the legislative justification for pegging the
minimum, but not the maximum, of the indemnity.