THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 185711 – PEOPLE OF THE
Promulgated:
August 24, 2009
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
I
concur in the Decision, except with respect to the deletion of the award of
exemplary damages. I am of the view that
the minority of the victim alone warrants such award.
The
majority insists on a strict construction of Article 2230 of the Civil Code
providing that in criminal offenses, exemplary damages as part of the civil
liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more
aggravating circumstances. I am not
unaware of jurisprudence either applying this rule strictissimi juris or requiring the concurrence of minority and
relationship in rape cases in order to warrant the award of exemplary damages.
Paying
particular attention to rape cases, however, I consider to be the better
view that espoused by the Court in its very recent Decisions awarding exemplary
damages to minor victims of rape without requiring any other circumstance to
concur with minority.
In People v. Sia,[1]
the Court en banc even increased the exemplary damages awarded
by the appellate court on account of the victim’s minority from P25,000
to P30,000. The Court sustained
the appellate court’s ratiocination that the purpose of the award is to deter
individuals with perverse tendencies from sexually abusing young children. People
v. Wasit[2] and People
v. Cruz[3] echoed
the Sia holding. All these cases were unanimously decided by
the participating members of the Court.
The
underlying public policy behind the award of exemplary damages is to set a
public example or correction for the public good. This is effectively defeated by the strict
application of Article 2230 of the Civil Code in rape cases wherein the victim
is a minor.
I,
therefore, vote to AFFIRM in toto the
challenged Decision of the Court of Appeals.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice