SIXTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC 
OF THE PHILIPPINES 
Second Regular Session 
SEN'2513 
S.No. 
) 
) 
) 
Introduced by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago 
AN ACT 
'14 
GEe 15 P2 :44 
AMENDING ARTICLE 2206 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 386 OTHERWISE KNOWN 
AS "THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES" TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF 
DAMAGES FOR DEATH CAUSED BY A CRIME OR QUASI-DELICT 
EXPLANATORY NOTE 
In the case of People v. Combate,l the Supreme Court clarified the proper award 
of damages in criminal cases where the imposable penalty for the crime is reclusion 
perpetua or death. The first among three kinds of damages is civil indemnity ex delicto, 
which is equivalent to actual or compensatory damages in civil law. It is this kind of 
indemnity that is the focus of this Act. 
When the Civil Code of the Philippines was enacted in 1950, Article 2206 fixed 
the minimum amount of actual or compensatory damages for death caused by crime or 
quasi-delict at I'3,000. It is common knowledge however, that during that time, the 
purchasing power of the Philippine Peso was much higher, at $1.00 to P2.00, compared 
the current exchange rate that averages around $1 to I'44. Due to the decline of the 
Philippine Peso, the increase 0 f the costs of living, and many other considerations, 
current jurisprudence has fixed the indemnity for death under Article 2206 at I'SO,OOO.OO, 
subject to increase due to aggravating circumstances.2 
It has become clear, however, thatI'SO,OOO.OO may no longer be deemed just civil 
indemnification to the heirs of the deceased victim a crime or quasi-delict for the reason 
'638 SCRA 797 (2010). 
'People v. Combate, Id; Philippine Hawk Corporation v. Lee, 612 SCRA 576 (2010); Philtranco 
Service Enlel7Jrises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 273 SCRA 562 (1997). 


that one's total liability for causing death may be smaller than one's liability should he 
only cause serious physical injuries resulting in the incapacitation of the victim. Stated 
simply, it may be cheaper to kill than to injure. In situations where injury has been caused 
due to reckless imprudence, the discrepancy of the damages may incentivise one to 
ensure the death of the victim rather than attempt to save his life. 
This situation may be exemplified by comparing the case of Mercury Drug 
Corporation3 v. Sps. Huangand People v. Combate4. In the former case, a road accident 
left respondent Huang alive but permanently incapacitated. The Supreme Court affirmed 
the award of 1'2,973,000.00 as actual damages,P23,461,062.00 for the life care cost of 
Huang, 1'10,000,000.00 for loss of earning capacity, not to mention an additional 
P4,000,000.00 for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. On the other hand, 
in the case of Combate, the Court found the accused gUilty of one count of homicide and 
one count of murder, and condemned him to pay a total of PI86,319.59 by way of civil 
indemnity, reimbursement of burial expenses, moral damages and exemplary damages for 
the crime of homicide, and 1'130,000.00 by way of civil indemnity, moral damages and 
exemplary damages for the crime of murder. The discrepancy between these two cases is 
unconscionable and must be addressed by proper legislation. 
It is also worth noting the urban myth that has spread to the effect that bus drivers 
who, through reckless imprudence, have caused serious physical injuries to pedestrians, 
will return and ensure their death in order to decrease their monetary liability. 
Thus, in order to give justice to the deceased and his heirs, as well as to 
disincentivize killing, it is proper to drastically increase the minimum civil liability for 
death caused by crime or quasi-delict. 
3525 SeRA 427 (2007). 
4People v. Comba/e. Id. 
2 


SIXTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC 
OF THE PHILIPPINES 
Second Regular Session 
SENATE 
) 
) 
) 
'14 
OEC 15 P2:44 
___________________ 
S._N_O. ____ 2_5_1_3 __________ 
i __ 
.'_'_i __ ._\~, 
Introduced by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago 
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in 
Congress assembled: 
1 
AN ACT 
2 
AMENDING ARTICLE 2206 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 386 OTHERWISE KNOWN 
3 
AS "THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES" TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF 
4 
DAMAGES FOR DEATH CAUSED BY A CRIME OR QUASI-DELICT 
5 
SECTION 1. Article 2206 of Republic Act No. 386, otherwise known as the 
6 
"Civil Code of the Philippines," is hereby amended to read as follows: 
7 
Art. 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or 
8 
quasi-delict· shall 
be 
at 
least 
FIVE 
HUNDRED 
THOUSAND 
9 
PESOS(PSOO,OOO)[Three thousand pesos], even though there may have 
10 
been mitigating circumstances. In addition: 
11 
(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity 
12 
of the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter; 
13 
such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the court, 
14 
unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused 
15 
by the defendant, had no earning capacity at the time of his death; 
16 
(2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the 
17 
provisions of Article 291, the recipient who is not an heir called to the 
18 
decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or intestate succession, may 
19 
demand support from the person causing the death, for a period not 
20 
exceeding five years, the exact duration to be fixed by the court; 


1 
(3) Thc spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and 
2 
ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish 
3 
by reason of the death of the deceased. 
4 
SECTION 2. Repealing Clause. -
Any law, presidential decree or issuance, 
5 
executive order, letter of instruction, administrative order, rule or regulation contrary to 
6 
or is inconsistent with the provision of this Act is hereby repealed, modified, or amended 
7 
accordingly. 
8 
SECTION 3. Effectivity Clause. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after 
9 
its publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation. 
Approved, 
/aml 5dec20 14 
2