Republic of the Philippines 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
Quezon City 
NINETEENTH CONGRESS 
First Regular Session 
HOUSE BILL NO. _______ 
Introduced by HON. GUSTAVO S. TAMBUNTING 
AN ACT 
ADJUSTING THE MINIMUM AMOUNT FOR DEATH INDEMNITY, MORAL AND 
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 386 OR THE CIVIL CODE OF 
THE PHILIPPINES 
EXPLANATORY NOTE 
Our penal laws are designed to provide retribution against the offender, protection to the public, and 
restitution to the victim. Restitution has the objective of placing the offended party in the same 
condition as he was before the offense was committed against him. No restitution can however be 
made when life is taken. Life once lost cannot be restored. There can be no sufficient reparation or 
indemnification for something of immeasurable value. Nonetheless, Article 100 of the Revised Penal 
Code provides that a person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. The Civil Code provides 
compensation for the wrongful death of a person whether caused by crime or quasi-delict.  
It must however be noted that even before the enactment of the Civil Code in 1949, Commonwealth 
Act No. 284 dating as far back as 1938, already states that "civil liability for the death of a person 
shall be fixed by the competent court at a reasonable sum, upon consideration of the pecuniary 
situation of the party liable and other circumstances, but it shall in no case be less than two thousand 
pesos". The Civil Code similarly sets a minimum. In both pieces of legislation, the intent of enabling 
the courts to increase the amount as warranted by circumstances is clear.  
Article 2206 of the Code which was enacted in the year 1949, sets the minimum amount at Three 
Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00). Through time, this amount has been increased in jurisprudence to 
P6,000.00, P9,000.00, P12,000.00, and in 1990, to P50,000.00 or P75,000.00 when the crime is 
punishable by the death penalty. 
The amount remained stagnant at P50,000.00 until the year 2013 when the Court, in People v. 
Gambao (G.R. No. 172707, 1 October 2013), raised the minimum amount to the current rate of 
P100,000.00. Such amount is awarded as a matter of course for wrongful death, without need for 
proof other than the fact of death resulting from crime or quasi-delict and the fact that the accused 
was responsible for such death.  
Meanwhile, Article 2216 of the Civil Code does not provide a minimum amount for moral and exemplary 
damages and leaves it entirely to the discretion of the courts. Jurisprudence similarly pegs the amount 
at P100,000.00. 
August 22, 2022
10:22 am
3857


Moral damages are awarded to compensate for manifold injuries such as physical suffering, mental 
anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, and social humiliation. The 
Supreme Court has held that although incapable of exactness, no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary 
in order that moral damages may be awarded. The award of moral damages is aimed at restoration, 
within the limits possible, of the spiritual status quo ante; and therefore, it must be proportionate to 
the suffering inflicted.  
 
Finally, Article 2229 of the Civil Code states that "exemplary or corrective damages are imposed by 
way of example or correction for the public good," where circumstances of the case show the highly 
reprehensible conduct of the offender. Exemplary damages are imposed as vindication for undue 
suffering and punishment for outrageous conduct. 
 
While it is clear from the wording of the law and the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court that 
the amount provided is only the minimum, it has become common practice for our courts to award 
death indemnity as well as moral and exemplary damages only within the minimum amount. It has 
been lamented that the gruesome nature of deaths subject to recently decided cases would have 
warranted a higher award but that courts have been hesitant to depart from the amounts fixed by 
jurisprudence. To address this, we are introducing amendments clarifying that the amounts provided 
in the law are only the minimum and that the courts are empowered to use their discretion in granting 
a higher amount, based on the rate of inflation and circumstances unique to the case. Without saying 
that human life or human suffering has an equivalent price or cost, the minimum amount is also raised 
to P300,000.00 for death indemnity and P200,000.00 for moral and exemplary damages.  
 
The words of the Court in People vs. Oandasan (G.R. No. 194605, 14 June 2016) adequately sum up 
the rationale for the measure we are proposing: "the value of human life is incalculable, for no loss of 
life from crime or quasi-delict can ever be justly measured. Yet, the law absolutely requires every 
injury, especially loss of life, to be compensated in the form of damages... Although money has been 
accepted as the most frequently used means of punishing, deterring, compensating and regulating 
injury throughout the legal system, money in the context of damages is not awarded as a replacement 
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."  
 
This measure was originally filed as Senate Bill No. 1276 by Senator Franklin M. Drilon in the 
Eighteenth Congress.  
 
On behalf of the people of Parañaque City’s Second District, and for the common good of the Filipino 
people, the approval of the said measure is earnestly sought. 
 
 
 
 
 
REP. GUSTAVO S. TAMBUNTING 
2nd District, Parañaque City 


Republic of the Philippines 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
Quezon City 
NINETEENTH CONGRESS 
First Regular Session 
HOUSE BILL NO. _______ 
Introduced by HON. GUSTAVO S. TAMBUNTING 
AN ACT 
ADJUSTING THE MINIMUM AMOUNT FOR DEATH INDEMNITY, MORAL AND EXEMPLARY 
DAMAGES UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 386 OR THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled: 
SECTION 1. Article 2206 of Republic Act No. 386, otherwise known as the "Civil Code of the 
Philippines" is hereby amended to read as follows:  
ART. 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict 
SHALL BE AT LEAST THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS, even though there 
may have been mitigating circumstances. THE COURT, IN ITS DISCRETION, MAY 
AWARD A HIGHER AMOUNT, BASED ON THE RATE OF INFLATION AND THE 
CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE. 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 five 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 because of the
death of the deceased.
Section 2. Article 2216 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows: 
Art. 2216. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary so that moral, nominal, temperate, 
liquidated, or exemplary damages may be adjudicated. The assessment of such 
3857


damages, except liquidated ones, is left to the discretion of the court, according to the 
circumstances of each case: PROVIDED, THAT THE AMOUNT OF MORAL AND 
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES SHALL BE AT LEAST TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND 
PESOS IN CASES OF DEATH RESULTING FROM A CRIME OR QUASI-DELICT. 
THE COURT, IN ITS DISCRETION, MAY AWARD A HIGHER AMOUNT BASED 
ON PREVAILING CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE RATE OF INFLATION. 
Section 3. Separability Clause. – Should any provision of this Act be declared invalid, the remaining 
provisions shall continue to be valid and subsisting.  
Section 4. Repealing Clause. – All laws, executive orders, administrative orders, rules, and 
regulations or parts thereof, which are inconsistent with this Act are hereby amended, repealed, or 
modified accordingly.  
Section 5. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following its publication in 
the Official Gazette and one (1) newspaper of general circulation.  
Approved,