Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53013:gr-177753-2009&catid=1522&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 12:21:30+00:00

Document:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. BENJAMIN OCAMPO, Appellant.
At around 4:30 p.m. of October 9, 2003, while the victim and his wife were buying garlic chips from Mary Ann's store at 439 Old Market Building, Baguio City, appellant suddenly surfaced, pushed himself between the spouses, stabbed the victim at the right side of his neck with a kitchen knife, and walked away.
Fairly developed, fairly nourished, previously embalmed male cadaver. Needle puncture noted at the left arm, left cubital region and left wrist.
1. Incised wound, neck, measuring 10 x 4 cm, 6 cm right of the anterior midline with stitches applied.
2. Incised wound, neck, measuring 2 x .02 cm, just along the anterior midline with 4 stitches applied.
3. Incised wound, neck, measuring 13.5 x 3 cm, 6 cm left of the anterior midline.
- The right sterno-cleido-mastoid muscle are noted to be hemorrhagic.
- Incised wound noted at the trachea and esophagus.
- Hemorrhages noted on areas of external and internal jugular veins, bilateral.
- Incised wound noted at the bifurcation of the left carotid artery.
He was drinking with friends from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. of October 9, 2003, after which he repaired to the Everlasting Memorial Park where his parents are buried and where he continued drinking as he was depressed over the death on October 5, 2003 of his brother. He stayed in the park until 6:30 p.m.
From the park, he went to the house of his friend Manny Guanzon (Guanzon) at Brawer Road where he slept and washed his face. He then went to a beerhouse along Magsaysay Avenue where he continued drinking until 9:00 p.m. when he checked in at the Leisure Lodge where he spent the night.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Benjamin Ocampo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Murder, defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as charged in the Information and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua; to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Ruben Ngo the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for his death; P235,682.78 as actual damages incurred in connection with his death, P671,760.00 as unearned income; and P300,000.00 as moral damages for the mental anguish and pain suffered by his heirs as a result of his death; all indemnifications being without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
The accused Benjamin Ocampo, being a detention prisoner, is entitled to be credited 4/5 of his preventive imprisonment in the service of his sentence in accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.
x x x IN FINDING [THAT] THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED BY THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES AS THE ASSAILANT.
We reduce the award of actual damages from P235,682.78 to P69,681.70. x x x [O]nly substantiated and proven expenses or those that appear to have been genuinely incurred in connection with the death, wake or burial of the victim will be recognized. Based on the record, We cannot consider some of the receipts submitted by the prosecution for it was not shown that they were expended in relation to the death or funeral of the victim. The list submitted by Rosemarie Ngo with respect to the expenses incurred in the transfer of the body of the victim and the food served during the wake and burial is self-serving and cannot be considered competent proof. The court can only award actual damages if supported by receipts. However, current jurisprudence grants the award of P25,000.00 as temperate damages when it appears that the heirs of the victim had suffered pecuniary losses but the amount thereof cannot be proved with certainty.
Likewise, the award of moral damages should be reduced from P300,000.00 to P50,000.00 in line with the prevailing jurisprudence. Moral damages are not intended to enrich the victim's heirs but rather they are awarded to allow them to obtain means for diversion that could serve to alleviate their moral and psychological sufferings.
With respect to the award of P671,760.00 by way of loss of earning capacity, We hereby increase it to P671,999.97. As testified to by Rosemarie Ngo, the victim was receiving a net monthly income of P6,000.00 as a dried fish dealer. His annual income, computed at the rate of P6,000.00 per month multiplied by twelve (12) months is P72,000.00. From this amount will be deducted his necessary and incidental expenses estimated at fifty percent (50%) thereof, leaving a balance of P36,000.00. As the victim was fifty-two (52) years old at the time of his death, his life expectancy of eighteen point sixty seven (18.67) years is derived using this formula: 2/3 x [80 - (age of victim at the time of death)]. Multiplying the balance of P36,000.00 by his life expectancy of 18.67 years, We arrive at P671.999.97 as his loss of earning capacity.
Appellant has not, however, refuted the foregoing observation of the appellate court.
Mary Ann's answer to the question of the trial court when it was eliciting from her the basis of her identification of appellant as the culprit should put the issue to rest.
Court: Just one question from the court because the counsel keeps on repeating that the picture was the basis for your identifying the accused. What is actually your basis for identifying the accused as the assailant? Was it the fact that you saw the stabbing or was it the picture shown to you?
A: He is the one I saw when he stabbed the victim.
x x x [T]he accused appellant only presented the Psychiatric Evaluation Report conducted on him stating that he was psychotic during, before and after the incident but admitted that the doctors who examined him were not presented in court. In failing to present Gwendolyn C. Cayad, the medical officer who prepared the questioned report as a witness, the report is considered hearsay evidence. And even if We admit this report as an exception to the hearsay rule, this report cannot be given evidentiary weight for it involves an opinion of one who must first be established as an expert witness. Without presenting the doctor who prepared the psychiatric report to show her qualifications as an expert witness, the report could not be given weight or credit. The report has very little probative value due to the absence of the examining physician.
During the lifetime of the victim, he was a self-employed dried fish dealer from Camarines Norte. For an award of indemnity for loss of earning capacity to be proper based solely on his wife's testimony, it has to be shown that during his lifetime, he earned less than minimum wage under current labor laws and no documentary evidence is available.
Again, the amount of P200 per day is within the minimum wage range for non-agricultural workers in Region V, which is P196 - P239 per day.
The amount is still within the minimum wage range for non-agricultural workers in Region V.
P6,000 net monthly income / 16 days per month = P375 per day.
The amount this time is above the minimum wage range for non-agricultural workers in Region V, which is P196 - P239 per day.
Again, the amount is above the minimum wage range for non-agricultural workers in Region V, which is P196 - P239 per day.
Based on the above computations, as the victim's daily wage was either within or above but never below the minimum wage range, no indemnity for loss of earning capacity can be awarded based on his wife's testimony alone.
But even if the victim were earning below minimum wage, a third requirement has to be satisfied for testimonial evidence to suffice as basis for an award of indemnity for loss of earning capacity: that in the victim's line of work no documentary evidence is available.
It is of common knowledge that a fish dealer keeps records of his transactions. In fact, the victim's wife was able to testify as to his gross and net earnings - - gross earnings being understood by her to be sold as the total amount of fish sold from which expenses are deducted33 - - which would only be possible if records were being kept.34 The wife did not, however, present documentary proof showing how she arrived at her estimate of gross and net earnings.
In fine, no indemnity for loss of earning capacity may be awarded based on the victim's wife's testimony alone.
The Court takes exception, too, to the award by the appellate court of temperate damages in the amount of P25,000, such kind of damage being recoverable only when some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty.35 In the case at bar, actual damages had been proven and awarded.
Finally, the Court, following current jurisprudence,36 increases the civil indemnity to P75,000.
WHEREFORE, the February 13, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the award of civil indemnity is increased to P75,000 and the awards of P671,999.97 for loss of earning capacity and of P25,000 as temperate damages are DELETED.
The Court thus finds the accused-appellant, Benjamin Ocampo, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Murder and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; to pay the heirs of Ruben Ngo P75,000 as civil indemnity, P235,682.78 as actual damages, and P25,000 exemplary damages; and to pay the costs.
2 Vide TSN, February 10, 2004, pp. 2-30; TSN, February 12, 2004, pp. 2-40; TSN, February 17, 2004, pp. 2-38; records, pp. 62-76; Exhibit "A," records, p. 9; Exhibits "B" - "J," Exhibits, pp. 1-22.
3 Exhibit "G," Exhibits, p. 16.
5 Vide TSN, February 17, 2004, pp. 12-13.
8 Vide TSN, March 16, 2004, pp. 2-14.
9 Id. at 7. Appellant, who was unemployed, gave no details on how he was "exposing a Chinese syndicate."
11 CA rollo, pp. 44-45.
12 Penned by Court of Appeals Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. and Rosmari D. Carandang. CA rollo, pp. 106-125.
13 CA rollo, pp. 122-124.
17 CA rollo, pp. 46-47.
18 People v. Punsalan, 421 Phil. 1058, 1068 (2001).
20 CA rollo, pp. 117-118.
21 TSN, February 10, 2004, pp. 28-29.
22 Vide TSN, February 12, 2004, pp. 8-9.
24 Vide CA rollo, pp. 51-52.
25 CA rollo, pp. 120-121.
26 Vide records, pp. 83, 84.
27 Vide TSN, February 12, 2004, p. 16.
28 Licyayo v. People, G.R. No. 169425, March 4, 2008, 547 SCRA 598.
30 TSN, February 12, 2004, p. 16.
31 www.nwpc.dole.gov.ph/pages/statistics/stat_current_regional.html, downloaded September 14, 2009.
32 TSN, February 12, 2004, p. 32.
33 TSN, February 12, 2004, p. 16.
34 Vide TSN, February 12, 2004, p. 16.
35 Art. 2224, Civil Code; People v. Dizon, G.R. No. 177775, Oct. 10, 2008, 568 SCRA 395, 400-401.
36 People v. de Guzman, G.R. No. 173477, February 4, 2009.

References: v. 
 V.

In fine
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 2224
 v. 
 v.