G.R. No. 200942, June 16, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JORIE WAHIMAN y RAYOS, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

This is a Concurring Opinion by Justice Leonen addressing the evidentiary standard for proving loss of earning capacity in civil actions arising from criminal cases. The opinion reviews the jurisprudence on the type of evidence required to prove the deceased’s income for such an award. It notes that while criminal and civil actions can be litigated together, they require different quanta of evidence: proof beyond reasonable doubt for criminal liability, and preponderance of evidence for civil liability. The opinion categorizes Supreme Court rulings into four sets: the first requiring unbiased documentary evidence like income tax returns or pay slips (e.g., People v. Villanueva); the second relaxing the requirement to include unbiased proof like employer certifications (e.g., Heirs of Ochoa v. G & S Transport Corp.); the third allowing testimonial evidence only as an exception for minimum wage earners or those in lines of work where no documentary evidence is available (e.g., People v. Dizon); and the fourth more consistently allowing testimonial evidence if it enables a fair and reasonable estimate of damages, without strict documentary requirements (e.g., People v. Gutierrez). The opinion argues that the fourth approach is more consistent with the preponderance of evidence standard for civil actions.

ISSUE

What is the appropriate standard and type of evidence required to prove loss of earning capacity for the award of actual damages in the civil aspect of a criminal case?

RULING

The Concurring Opinion states that to prove loss of earning capacity, the quantum of evidence required is preponderance of evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. It concludes that testimonial evidence is sufficient to prove the deceased’s income for an award of loss of earning capacity, as long as it satisfies the preponderance of evidence standard. This approach is consistent with the nature of civil actions and the Rules of Court, which do not require that only documentary evidence be allowed. The opinion advocates for the rule established in the fourth set of cases (e.g., People v. Gutierrez), which allows courts to make a fair and reasonable estimate of damages based on testimonial evidence, considering factors such as the nature of the victim’s occupation, educational attainment, and state of health.