Nature of act or omission determines whether damages automatic

Finally, this Court agrees in the amount of civil indemnity and moral damages which the court a quo and the appellate court awarded to the victim. Civil indemnity, which is actually in the nature of actual or compensatory damages, is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape. Case law also requires automatic award of moral damages to a rape victim without need of proof because from the nature of the crime, it can be assumed that she has suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award. Such award is separate and distinct from civil indemnity.

As regards exemplary damages, the Supreme Court held in People v. Catubig that the presence of an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, entitles the offended party to an award of exemplary damages. The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which took effect on 1 December 2000 now provides that aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the information to be validly appreciated by the court. In the case at bar, the crime of rape and the filing of the information against the appellant occurred before the effectivity of the said Rules. In People v. Catubig, the Supreme Court held that the retroactive application of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure cannot adversely affect the rights of a private offended party that have become vested prior to the effectivity of the said Rules. Thus, aggravating circumstances which were not alleged in the information but proved during the trial may be appreciated for the limited purpose of determining the appellants liability for exemplary damages.

In the present case, the information filed against the appellant improperly alleged that AAA was his stepdaughter because what was proven during trial was the fact that the appellant was merely a common-law husband of the mother of the victim. This being the case, AAA cannot be the stepdaughter of the appellant. Although the relationship alleged in the information was different from that proven during trial, this Court is not precluded from awarding exemplary damages to the private complainant because the aggravating circumstance of common-law spouse was duly proven. In conformity with our ruling in People v. Catubig that aggravating circumstances which were not alleged in the information but proved during the trial may be appreciated for the limited purpose of determining the appellants liability for exemplary damages, this Court likewise agrees in the court a quo and in the appellate court in awarding exemplary damages to the victim. (G.R. No. 177749; December 17, 2007)