People vs. Claudio Teehankee

People vs. Claudio Teehankee, Jr. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CLAUDIO TEEHANKEE, JR., accused-appellant.) G.R. Nos. 111206-08 October 6, 1995 FACTS: Jussi Olavi Leino was taking Maureen Hultman to her home in Dasmariñas Village, Makati. Roland John Chapman went with them. A block away from her house, she wanted to walk the rest of the way as she did not want her parents to know that she was going home late. Leino offered to walk with her while Chapman stayed in the car and listened to the radio. A Mitsubishi box-type Lancer car came up from behind them and stopped on the middle of the road. Accused alighted from his car, approached them, and asked about their identities. Leino handed his ADB I.D., the accused did not bother looking at it as he just grabbed his wallet and pocketed it. Chapman, upon seeing the incident came to them and asked “Why are you bothering us?” Accused pushed Chapman, dug into his shirt, pulled out a gun and shot him. Chapman crumpled on the sidewalk. Leino knelt beside Chapman to assist him but accused ordered him to get up and leave Chapman alone. Maureen became hysterical and started screaming for help. Accused managed to make Maureen sit beside Leino on the sidewalk, the accused turned his back from the two and then faced them again and shot Leino who was hit on the upper jaw. Leino heard another shot and saw Maureen fall beside him. He lifted his head to see what was happening and saw accused return to his car and drive away. Upon investigation, it was determined that the person was Claudio Teehankee, Jr. He was charged for the murder of Hultman and Chapman, and for the frustrated murder of Leino. Accused denied he was the person as he was in his house in Pasig. While he admitted to owning a box-type Mitsubishi Lancer, he however claimed that the car ceased to be in good condition, although admitted that it could still be used. The RTC convicted the accused of murder qualified by treachery in the death of Roland Chapman and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs the sum of P50,000.00 for the death of Chapman and P500,000.00 as moderate or temperate and exemplary damages. The RTC likewise convicted the accused of murder qualified by treachery for the death of Maureen Hultman and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the deceased the sum of P50,000.00 as indemnity, P2,350,461.83 as actual damages, P13,000,000.00 for loss of earning capacity, and P1,000,000.00 as moral, moderate and exemplary damages. The RTC convicted the accused of frustrated murder qualified by treachery for the shooting of Jussi Leino and sentenced him the indeterminate penalty of 8 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum, and to pay the offended party the sum of P30,000.00; plus P118,369.84 and another sum equivalent in Philippine Pesos of U.S. $55,600.00, both as actual damages; an amount equivalent in Philippine Pesos of U.S. $40,000.00, as loss of earning capacity of said offended party; and P1,000,000.00, as moral, moderate and exemplary damages. The trial court also ordered the accused to pay the offended parties a total of P3,000,000.00 for attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation. ISSUE: 1. Whether or not the killing of Chapman constituted murder. 2. Whether the computation of damages awarded by the RTC were correct. RULING: 1. No. The killing of Chapman did not constitute murder but only homicide because there was no treachery involved, there being no premeditation on the part of the accused. It was a spur of the moment incident. However, the killing of Hultman constituted murder qualified by treachery Hultman was seated on the pavement, unarmed, and begging for mercy when she was gunned down by the accused. Clearly, the accused purposely placed his two victims in a completely defenseless position before shooting them. There was an appreciable lapse of time between the killing of Chapman and the shooting of Leino and Hultman – a period which the accused used to prepare for a mode of attack which ensured the execution of the crime without risk to himself. 2. No. The computations for damages made by the RTC were not correct. In the killing of Chapman, the Supreme Court held that the trial court should not have lumped together the awards for moderate or temperate and exemplary damages at Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00), without specifying the particular amount which corresponds to each, as they are of a different kind. The amount of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) pesos cannot be given as temperate or moderate damages for the records do not show any basis for sustaining the award. Nor can it be given as exemplary damages. The killing of Chapman was not attended by either evident premeditation or treachery. Be that as it may, the award can be considered as one for moral damages under Article 2206 (3) of the New Civil Code. Paragraph 3, Art. 2206 of the New Civil Code provides that “the spouse, legitimate or illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased.” Considering the shocking and senseless aggression committed by appellant, we increase the amount of moral damages to One Million (P1,000,000.00) pesos for the death of Chapman. With regard to the damages awarded to the heirs of Maureen Hultman, the Supreme Court ruled in this regard. The Court holds that the award of One Million (P1,000,000.00) pesos as moral and exemplary damages is amply justified by the circumstances considering all the anguish and suffering the family went through in the 97 days that Maureen was in the hospital before she died. Moreover, the Court found that the grant of exemplary damages was called for by the circumstances of the case. Under Article 2229 of the Civil Code, in addition to the award of moral damages, exemplary or corrective damages may be adjudged in order to deter the commission of similar acts in the future. The award for exemplary damages is designed to permit the courts to mold behavior that has socially deleterious consequences. Its imposition is required by public policy to suppress the wanton acts of an offender. Since the killing of Hultman was attended by treachery and pursuant to Article 2229 of the new Civil Code, the Supreme Court imposed an award of Two Million (P2,000,000.00) pesos as exemplary damages against appellant for the death of Maureen Hultman. As to the award given to Jussi Leino, the Supreme Court found that an award of One Million (P1,000,000.00) pesos to Jussi Leino as indemnity for moral damages is justified and reasonable. As in the case of Hultman, since the shooting of Leino was committed with treachery and pursuant to Article 2229 of the New Civil Code, appellant was additionally adjudged liable for the payment to Leino of Two Million (P2,000,000.00) pesos as exemplary damages. With regard to the loss of earning capacity, the Supreme Court held that to be compensated for loss of earning capacity, it is not necessary that the victim, at the time of injury or death, is gainfully employed. The Court held that the award of an amount equivalent in Philippine pesos of U.S.$40,000.00 to Jussi Leino is highly speculative and should be denied considering that Leino had only earned a high school degree at the International School, Manila, in 1989. As to the award of P13,000,000.00 given to the heirs of Maureen Hultman for loss of earning capacity, the Supreme Court finds that it is not supported by the records. In adjudging an award for Maureen's loss of earning capacity, the trial court incorrectly used the monthly salary of a secretary working in Sweden, computed at two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) a month, as per the estimate given by Anders Hultman. Nowhere in the records does it appear that, at the time of her death, Maureen had acquired the skills needed for a secretarial job or that she intended to take a secretarial course in preparation for such job in Sweden. What was proved on record is that after graduating from high school, Maureen took up a short personality development course at the John Roberts Powers. Maureen was employed at the John Roberts Powers at the time of her death. It was her first job. In fact, she had just received her first salary, for which reason she went out with her friends to celebrate on that fateful day. However, neither the nature of her work nor her salary in said company was disclosed at the trial. Thus, to compute the award for Maureen's loss of earning capacity, we are constrained to use the minimum wage prevailing as of the date of her death (October 17, 1991), i.e., one hundred eighteen pesos (P118.00). Allowing for reasonable and necessary expenses in the amount of P19,800.00, her net income per annum would amount to P26,859.17. Hence, using the formula repeatedly adopted by this Court: (2/3 x [80 - age of victim at time of death]) x a reasonable portion of the net income which would have been received by the heirs as support, we fix the award for loss of earning as capacity of deceased Maureen Hultman at Five Hundred Sixty-Four Thousand Forty-Two Pesos and FiftySeven Centavos (P564,042.57). It also bears emphasis that in the computation of the award for loss of earning capacity of the deceased, the life expectancy of the deceased's heirs is not factored in. The rule is well-settled that the award of damages for death is computed on the basis of the life expectancy of the deceased, and not the beneficiary.