dabate on damages

Isang araw sa torts and damages class ko may interesanteng diskusyon na naganap. I would like to share these with everyone and anyone kasi gray area daw sya ng batas. And in the hopes na ma-share ninyo ang opinion ninyo.

======

We were discussing moral damages. Moral damages are damages for pain and suffering -- kasama dun ang physical suffering, mental anguish, serious anxiety, etc (Art 2217 New Civil Code). Under Art 2219, they may be recovered in several cases, one of which is when a person is a victim of seduction, abduction, rape or other lascivious acts (SARA). Further, "the parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused xxx may also recover moral damages."

Rape, simply put, may only be committed by a man against a woman. That was the law's definition before. Since then, na-amend na ito by way of R.A. 8353 (The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 na i believe eh si Atty Kiko Pangilinan ang author, correct me if i'm wrong). One important feature of that law is the expansion of the definition from being "committed by a man" to "any person may commit". Ibig sabihin ang lalaki, sa ilalim ng kasulukuyang batas, ay pwede na raw maging biktima ng rape. No problem there. My classmate's contention is this: since na-amend na daw yung batas to include males as victims of rape, the phrase "the parents of the female" should now be deemed to be interpreted as to include parents of the male victims. Apparently, sabi yun ng author ng librong ginagamit nya (i think Pineda yun) and she subscribes to that opinion. My professor said there's no conflict between the laws. But she contends otherwise.

For my part, i believe that there is no conflict. RA 8353 contemplates the definition of a crime, the purpose of which is to punish those who commit it. Art 2219 contemplates a civil aspect of the crime, nagbibigay daan para maka-recover ang mga biktima ng damyos. It substantially provides that any victim of SARA may recover moral damages AND the "parents of the female". Hindi naman sinabi ng batas na yung female victims lang ang pwedeng maka-recover by way of moral damages; the male victim may also recover. However, since the law has specifically mentioned the rights of the parents of the female victims to recover, we must not include what has not been included. I am not insensitive to the plight of the male victims and their families. I believe that they too should be afforded the same right. BUT still, dura lex sed lex -- the law may be harsh but it is still the law. Yun ang nakasaad sa batas. Art 2219, i believe, is not in any way inconsistent nor contrary to RA 8353 so there is no need to amend, modify, or even repeal it. That is this person's humble opinion lang naman po.

Pinagdebatihan yan sa class. Some were confused, others had the same opinion as hers. I share the opinion of some of my classmates and my professor. But that does not mean we are automatically right -- remember she shares her opinion with the author who is also a lawyer. Well, ganyan talaga ang batas. Open to sound interpretation. Pagalingan na lang ng pagkumbinsi sa judge or justice na mas may sense yung sinasabi mo haha!

As for my classmate, well tumagal yung discussion until it was time for us to leave. Since almost 30 mins overtime na kami, in the interest of speeding things up, she told our professor, "Sir, i rest my case na po" and sat down.


__________________
started Jul 27, 9:07p
ended Jul 28, 6:40p