cases crim- extinction and civil liability

8/9/2019 Cases Crim- Extinction and Civil Liability

1/67

[G.R. No. 136843. September 28, 2000]PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. PERO !"#NG!N $%&$' (Pe)r&*+,(

R!N P!S-#! $*) ERNESTO R!GONTON r., accused/PERO !"#NG!N $%&$' (Pe)r&*+,( appellant.

R E S O L # T I O N

P!NG!NI"!N, J.The death of the appellant pending appeal and prior to the finality of convictionextinguished his criminal and civil liabilities arising from the delict or crime. Hence, thecriminal case against him, not the appeal, should be dismissed.

Te -$'e $*) te F$t'

Before us is an appeal filed by Pedro Abungan assailing the Decision [!of the"egional Trial #ourt of $illasis, Pangasinan, Branch %&, ['!in #riminal #ase (o. $)&**+,in hich he as convicted of murder, sentenced to reclusion perpetua,and ordered topay P%&,&&& as indemnity to the heirs of the deceased.

-n an -nformation[!dated /arch 0, 00, Prosecutor - Ben1amin ". Bautista chargedappellant, together ith "andy Pascua and 2rnesto "agonton 3r. 4both at large5, ith

murder committed as follos6"That on or about the 4th day of August 1992, at Barangay Capulaan, Municipality of Villasis,ro!ince of angasinan, hilippines, and ithin the #urisdiction of this $onorable Court, theabo!e%na&ed accused conspiring, confederating and &utually helping one another, ar&ed ith

long firear&s, ith intent to 'ill, ith treachery, e!ident pre&editation and superior strength, did

then and there ilfully, unlafully and feloniously attac', assault and shoot Ca&ilo (irilo, )*r+y a#arito, inflicting upon hi& ounds on the different parts of his body - - - in#uries )hich

directly caused his death, to the da&age and pre#udice of his heirs+

"Contrary to Art+ 24. of the /e!ised enal Code+")4

7ith the assistance of Atty. 8implicio 8eville1a, appellant pleaded not guilty upon hisarraignment on April &, 00.[%!After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered the

assailed August '*, 009 Decision, the dispositive portion of hich reads as follos6"0$/3/, his guilt ha!ing been established beyond reasonable doubt, the )Appellantedro Abungan is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of /C5*637 /T5A and such

penalties accessory thereto as &ay be pro!ided for by la+

The - - - )appellant is hereby further ordered to inde&nify the heirs of Ca&ilo (irilo *r+ in thea&ount of 6T8 T$35*A7( *3* :;,;;;+;;< and to pay the costs+")=

Appellant, through counsel, filed the (otice of Appeal on 8eptember *, 009. :n3anuary 0, 000, he as committed to the (e Bilibid Prison 4(BP5 in /untinlupa. :n:ctober ';, 000, he filed the Appellant


2/67

The death of appellant on 3uly 0, '&&& during the pendency of his appealextinguished his criminal as ell as his civil liability, based solely on delict 4civilliability ex delicto5.

5$&* I''e Effect of Appellant's Death During Appeal

The conse?uences of appellant

1+ By the death of the con!ict, as to the personal penalties? and as to pecuniary penalties, liabilitytherefor is e-tinguished only hen the death of the offender occurs before final #udg&ent?

x x x x x x x x x@Applying this provision, the #ourt in People v. Bayotas[&!made the folloing

pronouncements6"1+ (eath of the accused pending appeal of his con!iction e-tinguishes his cri&inal liability as

ell as the ci!il liability based solely thereon+ As opined by @ustice /egalado, in this regard, the

death of the accused prior to final #udg&ent ter&inates his cri&inal liability and only the ci!il

liability directly arising fro& and based solely on the offense co&&itted, i+e+, ci!il liability e-delicto in senso strictiore+"

"2+ Corollarily, the clai& for ci!il liability sur!i!es notithstanding the death of the< accused, ifthe sa&e &ay also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict+ Article 11: of the

Ci!il Code enu&erates these other sources of obligation fro& hich the ci!il liability &ay arise

as a result of the sa&e act or o&ission>a< a

b< Contracts

c< uasi%contracts

d< - - - - - - - - -e< uasi%delicts

"D+ 0here the ci!il liability sur!i!es, as e-plained in 7u&ber 2 abo!e, an action for reco!ery

therefor &ay be pursued but only by ay of filing a separate ci!il action and sub#ect to *ection 1,/ule 111 of the 19.: /ules on Cri&inal rocedure as a&ended+ This separate ci!il action &ay be

enforced either against the e-ecutorEad&inistrator or the estate of the accused, depending on the

source of obligation upon hich the sa&e is based as e-plained abo!e+"4+ inally, the pri!ate offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this separate

ci!il action by prescription, in cases here during the prosecution of the cri&inal action and

prior to its e-tinction, the pri!ate offended party instituted together thereith the ci!il action+ 6n

such case, the statute of li&itations on the ci!il liability is dee&ed interrupted during thependency of the cri&inal case, confor&ably ith the pro!isions of Article 11:: of the Ci!il

Code, that should thereby a!oid any apprehension on a possible pri!ation of right by

prescription+"

-n the present case, it is clear that, folloing the above dis?uisition in Bayotas, thedeath of appellant extinguished his criminal liability. /oreover, because he died duringthe pendency of the appeal and before the finality of the 1udgment against him, his civilliability arising from the crime or delict 4civil liability ex delicto5 as also extinguished. -tmust be added, though, that his civil liability may be based on sources of obligationother than delict. >or this reason, the victims may file a separate civil action against hisestate, as may be arranted by la and procedural rules.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/136843.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/136843.htm#_edn10


3/67

/oreover, e hold that the death of Appellant Abungan ould result in the dismissalof the criminal case against him. [!(ecessarily, the loer court


4/67


5/67

(eedless to state, the civil liability attendant to the crime hich includes therestitution of personal or real property [!is also extinguished. A substitution of heirs inpetitionerEs stead is no longer necessary.

HEREFORE, the petition for revie is D2(-2D. -n vie of the death of thepetitioner, the appealed decision is 82T A8-D2. #osts de oficio.

SO ORERE.Bellosillo, (Cair!an", -uisu!in$, Austria'Martine&, andTin$a, ))., concur.

[G.R. No'. 942;3. No! ?

SEN!RLO, "ERN!RO P!-!>!, =IRGILIO P!-!>! $*) =I-TORI!NOP!-!>!, accused-appellants.

E - I S I O NN!RES;S!NTI!GO, J.

>or the death and near death of "aul eyson and >eliCardo del 8olo, respectively,accused)appellants ere charged ith murder and frustrated murder, based on thefolloing facts6

At around %6& p.m. on 3anuary '9, 0+0, after playing basetball, 2din 8ormillonpassed by a store along $. "ama Avenue, #ebu #ity. Accused)appellant $icentePacaFa as at the store drining ith friends. He invited 2din for a drin but the latterbegged off as he had to go home to tae a bath. 7hen he got home, 2din as told byhis sister that $icente maligned her and challenged their father to a fight. 2dinimmediately ent out to tal to $icente. Their confrontation led to a fistfight.

ater, a friend of 2din, >eliCardo del 8olo, accompanied by his cousin, "auleyson, tried to tal to $icente to settle his dispute ith 2din. $icente brought

>eliCardo and "aul upstairs to accused)appellant $ictoriano PacaFaEs house. At thebalcony, >eliCardo as met by $ictoriano, $irgilio and Bernardo PacaFa. >eliCardoased $icente hat as the cause of his ?uarrel ith 2din. $icente suddenly hit>eliCardo in the face. >eliCardo hit him bac. 7hile the to ere fighting, Bernardostabbed >eliCardo but he as able to parry it, and as in1ured on the right rist.Bernardo again tried to stab >eliCardo, this time hitting him on the chest. /eanhile,"aul tried to stop the fight and as struc at the bac of the nec ith a lead pipe by$ictoriano. This caused "aul to stagger forard. Bernardo, $icente and $irgilio gangedup on him and stabbed him. He then fell bacards, and $ictoriano also stabbed him atthe bac. 8uddenly, the lights ent off. >eliCardo sloly ent donstairs and met2din 8ormillon at the yard. Together, they boarded a 1eepney to the #ebu #ity/edical #enter. He as later transferred to another hospital here he as treated forseveral days and later released.

"aul as rushed to the hospital, here he as pronounced dead on arrival.:n 8eptember &, 0+0, accused)appellant $icente as charged ith homicide for

the illing of "aul eyson. The -nformation as later amended, herein the three otheraccused)appellants ere included and the crime charged as elevated to murder. The

Amended -nformation, doceted as #riminal #ase (o. #G)*+&, reads6
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/154579.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/oct2003/154579.htm#_ftn11


6/67

That on or about the '9 thday of 3anuary, 0+0, at about ;6& oEcloc in the afternoon inthe #ity of #ebu, Philippines, and ithin the 1urisdiction of this Honorable #ourt, the saidaccused armed ith nives, conniving and confederating together and mutually helpingone another, ith deliberate intent, ith intent to ill, ith treachery and evidentpremeditation, did then and there suddenly attac, assault and use personal violence

upon one "aul eyson by stabbing said "aul eyson hitting him on the different parts ofhis body, thereby inflicting upon him the folloing in1uries6 x x x and as a conse?uenceof hich said "aul eyson died a fe hours later.That the crime as committed ith the attendance of the aggravating circumstances ofthe accused taing advantage of superior strength the deceased unarmed at the time. [!

Another -nformation as filed on the same date against the four accused)appellantsfor the frustrated murder of >eliCardo Del 8olo. The -nformation, doceted as #riminal#ase (o. #G)*0&9, reads6That on or about the '9 thday of 3anuary, 0+0, at about ;6& oEcloc in the afternoon inthe #ity of #ebu, Philippines, and ithin the 1urisdiction of this Honorable #ourt, the saidaccused armed ith nives, conniving and confederating together and mutually helping

one another, ith deliberate intent, ith intent to ill, ith treachery and evidentpremeditation, did then and there suddenly attac, assault and use personal violenceupon one >eliCardo del 8olo, by stabbing him on different parts of his body, therebyinflicting upon him the folloing in1uries6 x x x hich in1uries under ordinarycircumstances ould cause the death of the victim, thus performing all the acts ofexecution hich ould have produced the crime of murder as a conse?uence, buthich, nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes independent of the ill of theherein accused, that is, by the timely and able medical assistance rendered to said>eliCardo del 8olo, hich prevented his death. ['!

Accused)appellant $icente appeared at the arraignment and pleaded notguilty. The other accused had not yet been apprehended. -nvoing his right to speedytrial, $icente moved for a separate trial, hich the trial court granted. ater, accused)appellants Bernardo and $irgilio ere arrested. They pleaded not guilty at theirarraignment. $ictoriano posted bail and as granted provisional liberty.[!He, too,pleaded not guilty.

After trial, the "egional Trial #ourt of #ebu, Branch , rendered 1udgment asfollos67H2"2>:"2, in vie of all the foregoing, the accused $-#2(T2 PA#AIA,B2"(A"D: PA#AIA, $-#T:"-A(: PA#AIA A(D $-"=--: PA#AIA are all found=G-TJ beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of /G"D2" and >"G8T"AT2D/G"D2" and hereby sentences each to a penalty of imprisonment of "2#G8-:(P2"P2TGA for the murder and to indemnify, 1ointly and severally, the heirs of "auleyson, the sum of P&,&&&.&&. -n the case of the >rustrated /urder, and applying the-ndeterminate 8entence a, each of the accused is hereby sentenced to suffer apenalty of imprisonment of & years of prision mayor as minimum and + years ofreclusion temporal as maximum, and to indemnify, 1ointly and severally, >eliCardo del8olo the sum of P&,&&&.&& in the form of damages.(o pronouncement as to costs.K[*!

All the accused appealed.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/97472_73.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/97472_73.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/97472_73.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/97472_73.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/97472_73.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/97472_73.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/97472_73.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/97472_73.htm#_edn4


7/67

During the pendency of their appeal, appellants $icente, Bernardo and $irgilio, hoare confined at the (ational Bilibid Prison, filed a motion to ithdra their appeal. -n a"esolution dated August &, 000, the #ourt, after confirming the voluntariness of theirithdraal of appeal, granted the motion insofar as $icente and $irgilio ereconcerned.[%!Accused)appellant Bernardo, on the other hand, as re?uired to confirm

the voluntariness of his motion to ithdra appeal. Hoever, a return from the Bureauof #orrections shos that he died on April %, 000.[;!

The death of an accused extinguishes his criminal liability even if his death shouldoccur during the pendency of his appeal. [+!Accused)appellant BernardoEs death not onlyextinguished his criminal liability concerning the personal penalties but also hateverpecuniary penalties have been imposed on him, considering that he died before final

1udgment, as provided in Article 90 45 of the "evised Penal #ode6Art. 90. /o0 cri!inal liaility is totally extin$uised. ))) #riminal liability is totallyextinguished6. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties and as to pecuniarypenalties, liability therefor is extinguished only hen the death of the offender occurs

before final 1udgmentx x x x x x x x x.Both BernardoEs civil and criminal liability ere extinguished by his death. [9!

7here a person is charged ith homicide, for instance, the civil liability for indemnity isbased solely on the finding of guilt. -f he is ac?uitted because of self)defense, the heirsof the deceased have no right to indemnity. 8hould the offender die eforefinal

1udgment, their right to indemnity is lieise extinguished as there is no basis for thecivil liability. #ivil liability exists only hen the accused is convicted by final 1udgment.[0!

Therefore, the appeal of accused)appellant Bernardo PacaFa should bedismissed. :nly the appeal of $ictoriano PacaFa is left for ad1udication.

At the outset, the #ourt has noted that this case contains no record of $ictorianoPacaFaEs commitment in the (ational Penitentiary. -t appears that said accused)appellant is not confined therein.[&!The records reveal that accused)appellant$ictoriano posted bail before the trial court. Hoever, it does not appear that after hisand his co)appellantsE conviction, his bail as cancelled. The "ules prevailing at thetime of appellantsE conviction in 00& provides that, an accused ho is charged ith acapital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetuashall no longer beentitled to bail as a matter of right even if he appeals the case to this #ourt since hisconviction clearly imports that the evidence of his guilt of the offense charged isstrong.K[!-n consonance thereith, this #ourt issued Administrative #ircular (o. ')0'dated 3anuary '&, 00', hich explicitly states6

x x x x x x x x x5 7hen an accused charged ith a capital offense or an offense hich under the laat the time of its commission and at the time of application for bail is punishableby reclusion perpetuaand is out on bail, and after trial iso*


8/67


9/67


10/67

inherently ea, can easily be fabricated and, to arrant ac?uittal, must be proved byclear and convincing evidence. The trial court has a valuable advantage of observingthe itnessE deportment and manner of testifying, their furtive glance, blush ofconscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant orfull realiCation of an oath,K all of hich are useful aids for an accurate determination of a

itnessE honesty and sincerity.['*!

At the time of the commission of these crimes in 0+0, murder carried a penaltyof reclusion te!poralin its maximum period to death for frustrated murder, the penaltyone degree loer should be imposed, hich isprision !ayormaximum to reclusionte!poralmedium.['%! -n such complex penalty comprising of three distinct penalties,each of these penalties shall form a period in accordance ith Article ++ of the "evisedPenal #ode. There being neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances attending,the penalty shall be imposed in its medium period pursuant to Article ;*45, hich in thiscase is reclusion perpetua. The -ndeterminate 8entence a is not applicable hen thepenalty actually imposed is reclusion perpetua.[';!

The trial court erred in imposing the penalty for frustrated murder. There being

neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, the medium period of the penalty shallbe imposed, namely,reclusion te!poral minimum. The maximum term of seventeenyears fixed by the trial court is ithin reclusion te!poralmedium. Gnder the-ndeterminate 8entence a, the maximum term of the penalty should be that hich, invie of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposedK and the minimum termhich shall be ithin the range of the penalty next loer to that prescribed by the #odefor the offense.K Thus, the indeterminate penalty imposed on accused)appellant forfrustrated murder should be from six years and one day ofprision !ayor,as minimum totelve years and one day of reclusion te!poral,as maximum.

An appeal taen by one or more of several accused shall not affect those ho didnot appeal, except insofar as the 1udgment of the appellate court is favorable andapplicable to the latter.['+!Hence the reduction of the indeterminate penalty for thefrustrated murder case shall affect not only the remaining appellant but also the othersho ithdre their appeal.

7ith respect to the civil liability, the trial court held accused)appellants solidarilyliable for civil indemnity of P&,&&&.&& to the heirs of "aul eyson, and P&,&&&.&&, to>eliCardo del 8olo. The civil indemnity for the deceased victim should be increased toP%&,&&&.&& in line ith latest 1urisprudence. ['9!As for the civil indemnity in the frustratedmurder case, the same is increased to P&,&&&.&&. Both aards are given ithout needof proof other than the commission of the crime and the culpritsE liability therefor.

Although, the higher indemnities granted herein appears not favorable to those hoithdre their appeal, they shall all be held solidarily liable for the higher amounts sincethey are not in the form of penalty. The medical and hospital expenses in the amount ofP*,&&&.&& incurred by >eliCardo del 8olo as duly established by evidence on record.Hoever, lost earnings cannot be aarded for lac of factual basis.

HEREFORE, the trial courtEs decision convicting accused)appellant $ictorianoPacaFa is A>>-"/2D ith the folloing /:D->-#AT-:(8. Accused $ictoriano PacaFa,$icente PacaFa and $irgilio PacaFa are found guilty of the murder of "aul eyson in#riminal #ase (o. #$)*+&, and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion

perpetua. ieise, said accused are found guilty of the frustrated murder of >eliCardo
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/97472_73.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/97472_73.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/97472_73.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/97472_73.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/97472_73.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/97472_73.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/97472_73.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/97472_73.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/97472_73.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/97472_73.htm#_edn28


11/67

del 8olo in #riminal #ase (o. #$)*0&9, and sentenced to suffer an indeterminatepenalty of six years and one day ofprision !ayor, as minimum, to telve years and oneday of reclusion te!poral,as maximum. They are also ordered, 1ointly and severally, topay the heirs of "aul eyson, civil indemnity in the amount of fifty thousand pesos4P%&,&&&.&&5, and to pay >eliCardo del 8olo civil indemnity in the amount of thirty

thousand pesos 4P&,&&&.&&5, and actual damages in the amount of four thousandpesos 4P*,&&&.&&5.Pursuant to Administrative #ircular (o. ')0', let a 7arrant of Arrest be issued

against $ictoriano PacaFa. His bail is ordered >:">2-T2D.The appeal ith respect to the deceased appellant Bernardo PacaFa is

D-8/-882D, his liabilities having been extinguished by his death.SO ORERE.Davide, )r., C.)., (Cair!an", Puno, 3apunan, and Pardo, ))., concur.

PEOPLE V. PACANA

G.R. No.97472-73 Nov.20, 2000

A case of murder and frustrated murder.Held:If the accused was positively identied by the victim himself who harboredno ill motive against the former, the defense of alibi must fail. In any eventhe proof of motive is not indispensable for conviction when there is positiveidentication. Motive assumes signicance only when there is no showing ofwho the perpetrator of the crime might be. An appeal taken by one or moreof several accused shall not eect those who did not appeal, except insofaras the udgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to thelatter. !ence, the reduction of the indeterminate penalty for the frustratedmurder case shall aect not only the appellant but also those who withdrew

their appeal.

[G.R. No. 141931. eember 4, 2000]!NI-ETO RE-E"IO,petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

R E S O L # T I O NA!P#N!N, J.

This is a petition for revie on certiorari assailing the Decision of the #ourt ofAppeals in #.A.)=.". #" (o. '*+ entitled People of the Philippines versus Aniceto"ecebido,K dated 8eptember 0, 000 hich found petitioner guilty beyond reasonabledoubt of >alsification of Public Document and its "esolution dated >ebruary %, '&&&

denying petitionerEs motion for reconsideration.The antecedent facts are the folloing, to it6:n 8eptember 0, 00&, private complainant #aridad Dorol ent to the house of hercousin, petitioner Aniceto "ecebido, at 8an -sidro, Bacon, 8orsogon to redeem herproperty, an agricultural land ith an area of ,%'& s?uare meters located at 8an -sidro,Bacon, 8orsogon, hich #aridad Dorol mortgaged to petitioner sometime in April of09%. Petitioner and #aridad Dorol did not execute a document on the mortgage but


12/67


13/67

Accused is ordered to pay P%,&&&.&& damages and to vacate the land in ?uestiononed by the offended party.8: :"D2"2D.[*!

:n appeal, the #ourt of Appeals affirmed ith modification the decision of the trialcourt, the dispositive portion of hich reads6

7H2"2>:"2, ith the modification that the aard for damages is D22T2D, theassailed 1udgment is A>>-"/2D in all other respects.8: :"D2"2D.[%!

The petitioner raises his case before this #ourt seeing the reversal of the assaileddecision and resolution of the #ourt of Appeals. Based on his petition, the folloingissues are before this #ourt6

. 7hether or not the crime charged had already prescribed at the time theinformation as filedQ

'. 7hether or not the #ourt of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion insustaining the conviction of the petitionerQ

. 7hether or not the #ourt of Appeals committed grievous error in affirming the

decision of the trial court for the petitioner to vacate the land in ?uestiononed by the offended partyQ7e rule in the negative on the three issues.:n the first issue6 7hile the defense of prescription of the crime as raised only

during the motion for reconsideration of the decision of the #ourt of Appeals, there asno aiver of the defense. Gnder the "ules of #ourt, the failure of the accused to assertthe ground of extinction of the offense, inter alia, in a motion to ?uash shall not bedeemed a aiver of such ground. [;!The reason is that by prescription, the 8tate or thePeople loses the right to prosecute the crime or to demand the service of the penaltyimposed.[+!Accordingly, prescription, although not invoed in the trial, may, as in thiscase, be invoed on appeal.[9!Hence, the failure to raise this defense in the motion to?uash the information does not give rise to the aiver of the petitioner)accused to raisethe same anytime thereafter including during appeal.

(onetheless, e hold that the crime charged has not prescribed. The petitioner iscorrect in stating that hether or not the offense charged has already prescribed henthe information as filed ould depend on the penalty imposable therefor, hich in thiscase is prision correccionalin its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not morethan %,&&&.&& pesos.K[0!Gnder the "evised Penal #ode, [&!said penalty is a correctionalpenalty in the same ay that the fine imposed is categoriCed as correctional. Both thepenalty and fine being correctional, the offense shall prescribe in ten years. [!The issuethat the petitioner has missed, hoever, is the reconing point of the prescriptiveperiod. The petitioner is of the impression that the ten)year prescriptive periodnecessarily started at the time the crime as committed. This is inaccurate. Gnder

Article 0 of the "evised Penal #ode, the period of prescription shall commence to runfrom the day on hich the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, ortheir agents, x x x.K -n People v. eyes,['!this #ourt has declared that registration inpublic registry is a notice to the hole orld. The record is constructive notice of itscontents as ell as all interests, legal and e?uitable, included therein. All persons arecharged ith noledge of hat it contains.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/141931.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/141931.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/141931.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/141931.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/141931.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/141931.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/141931.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/141931.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/141931.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/141931.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/141931.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/141931.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/141931.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/141931.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/141931.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/141931.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/141931.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/141931.htm#_edn12


14/67

The prosecution has established that private complainant Dorol did not sell thesub1ect land to the petitioner)accused at anytime and that sometime in 09 the privatecomplainant mortgaged the agricultural land to petitioner "ecebido. -t as only on8eptember 0, 00&, hen she ent to petitioner to redeem the land that she came tono of the falsification committed by the petitioner. :n the other hand, petitioner

contends that the land in ?uestion as mortgaged to him by 3uan Dorol, the father ofprivate complainant, and as subse?uently sold to him on August , 09. This #ourtnotes that the private offended party had no actual noledge of the falsification prior to8eptember 0, 00&. /eanhile, assuming ar$uendothat the version of the petitioner isbelievable, the alleged sale could not have been registered before 09, the year thealleged deed of sale as executed by the private complainant. #onsidering theforegoing, it is logical and in consonance ith human experience to infer that the crimecommitted as not discovered, nor could have been discovered, by the offended partybefore 09. (either could constructive notice by registration of the forged deed ofsale, hich is favorable to the petitioner since the running of the prescriptive period ofthe crime shall have to be reconed earlier, have been done before 09 as it is

impossible for the petitioner to have registered the deed of sale prior thereto. 2vengranting ar$uendo that the deed of sale as executed by the private complainant,delivered to the petitioner)accused in August , 09 and registered on the same day,the ten)year prescriptive period of the crime had not yet elapsed at the time theinformation as filed in 00. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that the crime hadnot prescribed at the time of the filing of the information.

:n the second issue6 7e hold that the #ourt of Appeals did not commit any graveabuse of discretion hen it affirmed petitionerEs conviction by the trial court. Thepetitioner admits that the deed of sale that as in his possession is a forged documentas found by the trial and appellate court.[!Petitioner, nonetheless, argues thatnotithstanding this admission, the fact remains that there is no proof that the petitionerauthored such falsification or that the forgery as done under his direction. Thisargument is ithout merit. Gnder the circumstance, there as no need of any directproof that the petitioner as the author of the forgery. As eenly observed by the8olicitor =eneral, the ?uestioned document as submitted by petitioner himself henthe same as re?uested by the (B- for examination. #learly in possession of thefalsified deed of sale as petitioner and not #aridad Dorol ho merely verified the?uestioned sale ith the Provincial AssessorEs :ffice of 8orsogon.K [*!-n other ords,the petitioner as in possession of the forged deed of sale hich purports to sell thesub1ect land from the private complainant to him. =iven this factual bacdrop, thepetitioner is presumed to be the author of the forged deed of sale, despite the absenceof any direct evidence of his authorship of the forgery. 8ince the petitioner is the onlyperson ho stood to benefit by the falsification of the document found in his possession,it is presumed that he is the material author of the falsification. [%!As it stands, therefore,e are unable to discern any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the #ourt of

Appeals.:n the third issue6 Petitioner submits that the trial court is ithout 1urisdiction to

order petitioner to vacate the land in ?uestion considering that the crime for hich he ischarged is falsification.[;!The petitioner insists that the civil aspect involved in thecriminal case at bar refer to the civil damages recoverable ex delito or arising from the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/141931.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/141931.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/141931.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/141931.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/141931.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/141931.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/141931.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/141931.htm#_edn16


15/67

causative act or omission.[+!-n addition, petitioner argues that he is entitled topossession as mortgagee since the private complainant has not properly redeemed theproperty in ?uestion.

These are specious arguments. The petitioner based his claim of possessionalternatively by virtue of to alternative titles6 one, based on the forged deed of sale

and, to, as mortgagee of the land. As already discussed, the deed of sale as forgedand, hence, could not be a valid basis of possession. (either could his status asmortgagee be the basis of possession since it is the mortgagor in a contract ofmortgage ho is entitled to the possession of the property. 7e have taen note of thepractice in the provinces that in giving a realty for a collateral, possession usually goesith it.[9!Besides, even assuming that petitioner had a right to possess the sub1ect land,his possession became unlaful hen the private complainant offered to redeem theproperty and petitioner un1ustly refused. Petitioner cannot profit from the effects of hiscrime. The trial court, therefore, did not commit any error in ordering petitioner to vacatethe sub1ect property.

-n vie of the foregoing, this #ourt finds that the #ourt of Appeals did not commit

any reversible error in its Decision dated 8eptember 0, 000 and its "esolution dated>ebruary %, '&&&.!--ORINGL, the instant petition is D2(-2D for lac of merit.SO ORERE.Davide, )r., C.)., (Cair!an", Puno, Pardo, and 2nares'Santia$o, ))., concur.

[G.R. No'. 1187 B 12171. Otober 19, 2004]RO"ERTO "RILL!NTE,petitioner, vs. -O#RT OF !PPE!LS $*) THE PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

E - I S I O NTING!, J.Food na&e in &an and o&an, dear &y ord,6s the i&&ediate #eel of their souls>

0ho steals &y purse steals trash? Ktis

*o&ething, nothing?J

But he that filches fro& &e &y good na&e/obs &e of that hich not enriches hi&,

And &a'es &e poor indeed+

% *ha'espeare> Othello, 666, iii, 1::+2very man has a right to build, eep and be favored ith a good name. This right is

protected by la ith the recognition of slander and libel as actionable rongs, hetheras criminal offenses or tortious conduct.

-n these consolidated petitions for revie on certiorari, [!petitioner "oberto Brillante4Brillante5, also non as Bobby Brillante, ?uestions his convictions for libel for ritingand causing to be published in 099 an open letter addressed to then President of the"epublic of the Philippines #oraCon #. A?uino discussing the alleged participation of

Atty. 3e1omar Binay 4Binay5, then the :-# /ayorK ['!and a candidate for the position of/ayor in the /unicipality 4no #ity5 of /aati, and Dr. (emesio Prudente 4Prudente5,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/141931.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/141931.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/141931.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/dec2000/141931.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn2


16/67

then President of the Polytechnic Gniversity of the Philippines, in an assassination plotagainst Augusto 8y1uco 48y1uco5, another candidate for /ayor of /aati at that time.

:n 3anuary +, 099, Brillante, then a candidate for the position of #ouncilor in/aati, held a press conference at the /aati 8ports #lub hich as attended by some%& 1ournalists. -n the course of the press conference, Brillante accused Binay of plotting

the assassination of 8y1uco. He further accused Binay of terrorism, intimidation andharassment of the /aati electorate. Brillante also circulated among the 1ournalistscopies of an open letter to President A?uino hich discussed in detail his chargesagainst Binay.[!

8everal 1ournalists ho attended the press conference rote nes articles aboutthe same. Angel =onong, a riter for the People4s )ournal,rote a nes article entitledBinay Accused of Plotting 8lays of "ivals.K -t as cleared for publication by /ax Buan,3r. 4Buan5, and uis #amino 4#amino5, 2ditor)in)#hief and (es 2ditor, respectively, ofthe People4s )ournal. =loria HernandeC 4HernandeC5 rote a similar article entitledBinay 8lay Plan on 8y1ucoK hich as cleared for publication by Augusto $illanueva4$illanueva5 and $irgilio /anuel 4/anuel5, 2ditor)in)#hief and (es 2ditor, respectively,

of the 5e0s Today.[*!

The open letter as subse?uently published under the title Plea to #ory))8ave/aatiK in nespapers such as thePeople4s )ournal, Balita, Malaya and PilippineDaily In6uirer.[%!The pertinent portions of the open letter read64+ 0e ha!e recei!ed reports that Atty+ Binay and his group are plotting the assassination of Mr+

Augusto LBobby *y#uco, no frontrunner in the Ma'ati &ayoralty race+These reports are6

1+ 3n (ece&ber 14, 19., Atty+ Binay and (r+ 7e&esio rudente, president of the olytechnic

5ni!ersity of the hilippines 5xxx xxx xxx
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn5


17/67

c. 7as hired by Dr. Prudente as security officer and personal bodyguard.d. -s a notorious iller used by the PGP forces and only his employer can

control or stop him.[;!

As a result of the publication of the open letter, Binay filed ith the /aati fiscalEsoffice four complaints for libel against Brillante, as the author of the letter =onong,

Buan and #amino for riting and publishing the nes article on BrillanteEs accusationsagainst him in the People4s )ournal7[+!HernandeC, $illanueva and /anuel for riting andpublishing a similar nes article in the5e0s Today[9!and for publishing the open letter,Buan and #amino of the People4s )ournal7[0!and Arcadio A. 8ison 48ison5 as Presidentof A. 8ison and Associates, an advertising agency.[&!

>rancisco Baloloy 4Baloloy5, ho as identified in the open letter as among thepersons ho attended the meeting organiCed by Binay and Prudente to plan theassassination of 8y1uco, lieise filed a criminal complaint for libel against Brillante,Domingo uimlat4uimlat5, Publisher and 2ditor)in)#hief of Balita, and 8ison asPresident of A. 8ison and Associates. [!

8ubse?uently, five Infor!ationsfor libel against Brillante ere filed ith the

"egional Trial #ourt 4"T#5 of /aati.8imilarly, on 3anuary %, 099, Prudente filed four complaints for libel againstBrillante and the editors and publishers of the nespapers here the open letter aspublished. :n 3anuary ;, 090, four Infor!ationsfor libel ere filed against Brillanteand several co)accused ith the "T# of /anila. BrillanteEs co)accused in these casesere6 4i5 Buan, 2ditor)in)#hief of the People4s )ournal7['!4ii5 Amado P. /acasaet4/acasaet5, Publisher, and (oel Albano 4Albano5, 2ditor, of the Malaya7[!4iii5 8ison,Public "elations :fficer and >ederico D. Pascual 4Pascual5, Publisher and 2xecutive2ditor of the Pilippine Daily In6uirer[*! and 4iv5 8ison, Public "elations :fficer anduimlat, Publisher and 2ditor)in)#hief of Balita.[%!

Buan as not included in the trial of the cases in the "T#)/anila because heeluded arrest and as not arraigned. The charges against Pascual and uimlat eredropped upon motion of the Assistant Prosecutor. The charges against /acasaet and

Albano ere also eventually dismissed upon motion of the prosecution. :nly Brillanteand 8ison remained as accused.[;!Both pleaded not guilty to the charges against them.

:n 3anuary '%, 00, the "T#)/anila ac?uitted 8ison but found Brillante guilty oflibel on four counts. The dispositive portion of the trial courtEs Decision in theconsolidated cases reads60$/3/, #udg&ent is rendered pronouncing accused Bobby Brillante, also 'non as

/oberto Brillante, guilty beyond reasonable doubt on four 4< counts, as author or riter, of6B defined under Article D:D of the /e!ised enal Code and penaliNed under Article D:: of

the sa&e code, and sentencing hi& in each count to the indeter&inate penalty of 35/ 4

1+ 6n Cri&inal Cases 7os+ ..%141;, ..%1411, ..%1412, ..%D;=; and .9%21, finding accused

Bobby Brillante, also 'non as /oberto Brillante, F56T8 beyond reasonable doubt of theoffense of libel charged in each of these fi!e :< cases, and sentencing hi& in each of the cases to

suffer i&prison&ent of 35/ 4< M37T$* of arresto &ayor, as &ini&u&, to T03 2To the riters &ind, these reasons logically call ith eOual force, for the e-press o!erruling also

of the doctrine in eople !s+ Tayco, D hil+ :;9, 1941< that the filing of a co&plaint ordenuncia by the offended party ith the City iscals 3ffice hich is reOuired by la to conductthe preli&inary in!estigation does not interrupt the period of prescription+ 6n chartered cities,

cri&inal prosecution is generally initiated by the filing of the co&plaint or denuncia ith the city

fiscal for preli&inary in!estigation+ 6n the case of pro!incial fiscals, besides being e&poered

li'e &unicipal #udges to conduct preli&inary in!estigations, they &ay e!en re!erse actions of&unicipal #udges ith respect to charges triable by Courts of irst instance + + ++[;!

There is no conflict in the pronouncements of the #ourt in 9larteand :ranciscoasBrillante erroneously suggests. 9larte laid don the doctrine that a complaint filed forpurposes of preliminary investigation tolls the running of the prescriptive period of acriminal offense. The criminal complaint for libel in that case as filed, for the purpose of

preliminary investigation, ith the 3ustice of the Peace #ourt in PoCorrubio,Pangasinan. Hence, in setting the doctrine, the #ourt referred to the filing of thecomplaint in the /unicipal #ourt.K [;'!The ?uestion of hether the doctrine laid donin 9lartealso applies to criminal complaints filed ith the prosecutorEs office as settledin :rancisco. 8pecifically, the #ourt in :ranciscoamplified the 9lartedoctrine hen itcategorically ruled that the filing of a complaint ith the fiscalEs office suspends therunning of the prescriptive period of a criminal offense.

Thus, the #ourt of Appeals committed no reversible error in ruling that the offense oflibel had not yet prescribed hen the informations against Brillante and his co)accusedere filed in the "T#)/anila and "T#)/aati.

(either did the appellate court err in sustaining BrillanteEs conviction for libel.ibel is defined under Article % of the "evised Penal #ode as a public and

malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act,omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit orcontempt of a natural or 1uridical person, or to blacen the memory of one ho is dead.K

To be liable for libel, the folloing elements must be shon to exist6 4a5 theallegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another 4b5 publication of thecharge 4c5 identity of the person defamed and 4d5 existence of malice. [;!
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn59http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn59http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn60http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn61http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn62http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn62http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn63http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn59http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn60http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn61http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn62http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn63


25/67

There could be no dispute as to the existence of the first three elements of libel inthe cases at bar.

An allegation made by a person against another is considered defamatory if itascribes to the latter the commission of a crime the possession of a vice or defect,hether real or imaginary or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance hich

tends to dishonor or discredit or put him in contempt, or hich tends to blacen thememory of one ho is dead. [;*!BrillanteEs statements during the 3anuary +, 099 pressconference and in the open letter explicitly referred to reprehensible acts allegedlycommitted by Binay, Prudente and their associates, such as the use of goons tothreaten BinayEs opponents in the election and the plotting of 8y1ucoEs assassination.

The element of publication as lieise established. There is publication if thedefamatory material is communicated to a third person, i.e., a person other than theperson to hom the defamatory statement refers. [;%!-n the cases at bar, it as proventhat Brillante uttered defamatory statements during the press conference attended bysome fifty 1ournalists and caused the open letter to be published in several nespapers,namely, 5e0s Today, People4s )ournal, Balita, Malaya and Pilippine Daily In6uirer.

>urther, Brillante himself admitted that he named Binay, Prudente and theirassociates as the persons ho participated in the planning of the election)relatedterrorism and the assassination of 8y1uco not only in his open letter but also during thepress conference.

Thus, the determination of BrillanteEs culpability for libel hinges on the ?uestion ofhether his statements ere made ith malice.

/alice is a term used to indicate the fact that the offender is prompted by personalill)ill or spite and speas not in response to duty, but merely to in1ure the reputation ofthe person defamed it implies an intention to do ulterior and un1ustifiable harm. [;;!-t ispresent hen it is shon that the author of the libelous remars made such remarsith noledge that it as false or ith recless disregard as to the truth or falsitythereof.[;+!

Article %* of the "evised Penal #ode states, as a general rule, that everydefamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if true, if no good intentionand 1ustifiable motive is shon. [;9!

As an exception to the rule, the presumption of malice is done aay ith hen thedefamatory imputation ?ualifies as privileged communication. [;0!

Privileged communication may either be absolutely privileged or conditionallyprivileged. The #ourt in 9rfanel v. People of te Pilippines [+&!differentiated absolutelyprivileged communication from conditionally privileged communication in this manner6JA co&&unication is said to be absolutely privilegedhen it is not actionable, e!en if its

author acted in bad faith+ This class includes state&ents &ade by &e&bers of Congress in the

discharge of their functions as such, official co&&unications &ade by public officers in theperfor&ance of their duties, and allegations or state&ents &ade by the parties or their counsel in

their pleadings or &otions or during the hearing of #udicial proceedings, as ell as the ansers

gi!en by itnesses in reply to Ouestions propounded to the&, in the course of said proceedings,pro!ided that said allegations or state&ents are rele!ant to the issues, and the ansers are

responsi!e or pertinent to the Ouestions propounded to said itnesses+ 5pon the other

hand, conditionally or qualifiedly privileged communicationsare those hich, although
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn64http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn65http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn66http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn67http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn68http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn69http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn70http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn64http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn65http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn66http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn67http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn68http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn69http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/oct2004/118757.htm#_ftn70


26/67

containing defa&atory i&putations, ould not be actionable unless &ade ith &alice or bad

faith+[+!&phasis supplied+ive Hundred Thousand Pesos4P%&&,&&&.&&5 in #riminal #ases (o. 90);0;*, 90);0;%, 90);0;; and 90);0;+and the aard of moral damages to private complainant Binay is reduced to >iveHundred Thousand Pesos 4P%&&,&&&.&&5 in #riminal #ases (o. 99)*&, 99)*, 99)*' and 90)+'. The aard of moral damages to private complainant Baloloy in#riminal #ase (o. 99)&;& is lieise reduced to Tenty >ive Thousand Pesos4P'%,&&&.&&5.

HEREFORE, in vie of the foregoing, the petitions are ="A(T2D in part.The Decision of the #ourt of Appeals in #A)=.". #" (o. **+% is A>>-"/2D ith

the /:D->-#AT-:( that the aard of moral damages to private complainant Dr.

(emesio Prudente in #riminal #ases (o. 90);0;*, 90);0;%, 90);0;; is reduced to>ive Hundred Thousand Pesos 4P%&&,&&&.&&5. The Decisionof the #ourt of Appeals in#A =.". #" (o. %+* is lieise A>>-"/2D ith the /:D->-#AT-:( that the aardof moral damages to private complainants Atty. 3e1omar Binay and >rancisco Baloloy isreduced to >ive Hundred Thousand Pesos 4P%&&,&&&.&&5 in #riminal #ases (o. 99)*&, 99)*, 99)*' and 90)+', and Tenty >ive Thousand Pesos 4P'%,&&&.&&5 in#riminal #ase (o. 99)&;&, respectively.

SO ORERE.Puno, (Cair!an", Austria'Martine&, andCalle1o, Sr., ))., concur.Cico'5a&ario, )., on leave.

"#$%" $"I''A(&% vs. )#*"& #+ A%A'- and &!% %#'% #+ &!%!I'II(%- .". (os. //0121 3 /4/21/ #ctober /5, 4667 &I(A,+acts8 "oberto $rillante, then a candidate for the position of councillor inMakati )ity held a pres conference where he accused 9eomar $inay, acandidate for mayoralty in Makati, and (emesio rudente of plotting anassassination plot against Augusto -yuco, another mayoral candidate inMakati. -everal ournalists wrote articles regarding the same and an openletter was published as well. 'ater, $inay and rudente both led libelcharges against $rillante. &he trial court found $rillante guilty of four countsof libel, which decision the )A a:rmed.Issue ;hether or not the act of libel charged against petitioner has

prescribed when the Information was led before the trial court"uling (o. Article 56 of the "evised enal )ode provides that the crime oflibel shall prescribe within one year. In determining when the one yearprescriptive period should be reckoned, reference must be made to Article 5/of the same code which sets forth the rule on the computation ofprescriptive periods of oenses which states that period of prescription shallbe interrupted by the ling of the complaint or information. In the case, a


31/67

proceeding in the +iscal)**+ before Branch , "egional Trial#ourt, #amarines 8ur. The -nformation alleged6

That on May 1, 19.2, Barangay lection (ay1: +M+ in Barangay 3&bao,Municipality of Bula, ro!ince of Ca&arines *ur, hilippines, and ithin the #urisdiction of this

$onorable Court, the abo!e%na&ed accused did, then and there unlafully conducted hi&self ina disorderly &anner, by stri'ing the electric bulb and to 2< 'erosene petro&a- la&ps lighting

the roo& here !oting center no+ 24 is located, during the counting of the !otes in said !oting

center plunging the roo& in co&plete dar'ness, thereby interrupting and disrupting the

proceedings of the Board of lection Tellers+)D

:n arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.:n 3anuary *, 09%, the trial court rendered 1udgment and declared petitioner

guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating 8ection +9 4nn5 of PD '0;, otherisenon as the 0+9 2lection #ode, as amended, and sentenced petitioner to suffer the

indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of year as minimum to years as maximum.Aggrieved, petitioner appealed his conviction to the #ourt of Appeals hicheventually affirmed the decision of the trial court in toto. 8aid decision became final andexecutory. Thus, the execution of 1udgment as scheduled on :ctober *, 09+.

:n :ctober ', 09+, an urgent motion to reset the execution of 1udgment assubmitted by petitioner through his counsel. But it as denied for lac of merit.

During the execution of 1udgment, petitioner failed to appear hich prompted thepresiding 1udge to issue an order of arrest of petitioner and the confiscation of hisbond. Hoever, petitioner as never apprehended. He remained at large.

Ten years later, on :ctober '*, 00+, petitioner filed before the trial court a motionto ?uash the arrant issued for his arrest on the ground of prescription of the penalty

imposed upon him. Hoever, it as denied. His motion for reconsideration thereof aslieise denied.Dissatisfied, petitioner filed ith the #ourt of Appeals a Petition for #ertiorari

assailing the orders of the trial court denying both his motion to ?uash the arrant ofarrest and motion for reconsideration.

:n (ovember '&, 009, the #ourt of Appeals rendered its no assailed decisiondismissing the petition for lac of merit.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/139033.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/139033.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/139033.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/139033.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/139033.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/139033.htm#_ftn3


32/67

>olloing the denial of his motion for reconsideration, the instant petition as filedbefore us.

Petitioner asserts that the #ourt of Appeals gravely erred in holding that the penaltyimposed upon petitioner has not prescribed. Petitioner maintains that Article 0 of the"evised Penal #ode provides that the period of prescription shall commence to run

from the date hen the culprit should evade the service of his sentence. The #ourt ofAppeals, in its interpretation of the said provision, engaged in 1udicial legislation hen itadded the phrase by escaping during the term of the sentenceK thereto, so petitionerclaims.

=oing over the merits of the petition, the #ourt finds that the #ourt of Appeals didnot err in dismissing the petition for certiorari.

The threshold issue in the instant case is the interpretation of Article 0 of the"evised Penal #ode in relation to Article %+ of the same #ode.

-n dismissing the petition, the #ourt of Appeals ruled6LArticle 92 of the /e!ised enal Code pro!ides as follos>

K0hen and ho penalties prescribe Q The penalties i&posed by the final sentence prescribed as

follos> . Death and reclusion perpetua, in tenty years'. :ther afflictive penalties, in fifteen years. #orrectional penalties, in ten years ith the exception of the penalty

of arresto !ayor, hich prescribes in five years*. ight penalties, in one year.E

LAnd Article 9D of the /e!ised enal Code, pro!ides as follos>

KCo&putation of the prescription of penalties Q The period of prescription of penalties shall

co&&ence to run fro& the date hen the culprit should e!ade the ser!ice of his sentence, and it

shall be interrupted if the defendant should gi!e hi&self up, be captured, should go to so&eforeign country ith hich his Fo!ern&ent has no e-tradition treaty, or should co&&it another

cri&e before the e-piration of the period of prescription+I

LThe penalty i&posed upon the petitioner is one 1< year of i&prison&ent as &ini&u& to threeD< years of i&prison&ent as &a-i&u&+

LThe la under hich the petitioner as con!icted is a special la, the 19. lection Code+ This

la does not pro!ide for the prescription of penalties+ This being the case, 0e ha!e to apply thepro!ision of the /e!ised enal Code hich allos the application of said code in suppletory

character hen it pro!ides that>

K3ffenses hich are or in the future &ay be punishable under special las are not sub#ect to the

pro!ision of this code+ This code shall be supple&entary to such las, unless the latter shouldspecially pro!ide the contrary+I

LThe penalty i&posed upon the petitioner is a correctional penalty under Article 2: in relation to

Article 2 of the /e!ised enal Code+ Being a correctional penalty it prescribed in ten 1;< years+LThe petitioner as con!icted by a final #udg&ent on @une 14, 19.=+ *uch #udg&ent ould ha!e

been e-ecuted on 3ctober 14, 19.= but the accused did not appear for such proceeding+ And he

has ne!er been apprehended+LThe contention of the petitioner is that said #udg&ent prescribed on 3ctober 24, 199=+

LThe issue here is hether or not the penalty i&posed upon the petitioner has prescribed+

LThe ele&ents in order that the penalty i&posed has prescribed are as follos>S. That the penalty is imposed by final sentence.


33/67

2+ That the con!ict e!aded the ser!ice of the sentence by escaping during the ter& of his

sentence+

D+ That the con!ict ho escaped fro& prison has not gi!en hi&self up, or been captured,or gone to a foreign country ith hich e ha!e no e-tradition treaty or co&&itted

another cri&e+

4+ That the penalty has prescribed, because of the lapse of ti&e for& the date of thee!asion of the ser!ice of the sentence by the con!ict+I

p+ 9D, /e!ised enal Code by + /eyes 9D ed+ayan, et. al.,[4]here e declared that, for prescription ofpenalty imposed by final sentence to commence to run, the culprit should escape duringthe term of such imprisonment.

The #ourt is unable to find and, in fact, does not perceive any compelling reason todeviate from our earlier pronouncement clearly exemplified in the Tane$acase.Article 0 of the "evised Penal #ode provides hen the prescription of penalties

shall commence to run. Gnder said provision, it shall commence to run from the date thefelon evades the service of his sentence. Pursuant to Article %+ of the same #ode,evasion of service of sentence can be committed only by those ho have beenconvicted by final 1udgment by escaping during the term of his sentence.

As correctly pointed out by the 8olicitor =eneral, escapeK in legal parlance and forpurposes of Articles 0 and %+ of the "P# means unlaful departure of prisoner fromthe limits of his custody. #learly, one ho has not been committed to prison cannot besaid to have escaped therefrom.

-n the instant case, petitioner as never brought to prison. -n fact, even before theexecution of the 1udgment for his conviction, he as already in hiding. (o petitionerbegs for the compassion of the #ourt because he has ceased to live a life of peace andtran?uility after he failed to appear in court for the execution of his sentence. But it aspetitioner ho chose to become a fugitive. The #ourt accords compassion only tothose ho are deserving. PetitionerEs guilt as proven beyond reasonable doubt but herefused to anser for the rong he committed. He is therefore not to be reardedtherefor.

The assailed decision of the #ourt of Appeals is based on settled 1urisprudence andapplicable las. -t did not engage in 1udicial legislation but correctly interpreted thepertinent las. Because petitioner as never placed in confinement, prescription never

started to run in his favor.HEREFORE, for lac of merit, the petition is hereby D2(-2D.SO ORERE.Puno, (Cair!an", Pan$anian, Sandoval'%utierre&, and Morales, ))., concur.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/139033.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/139033.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/dec2002/139033.htm#_ftn4


34/67

"epublic of the PhilippinesS#PRE5E -O#RT

/anila2( BA(#

G.R. No. 10200 September 2, 1994PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff)appellee,vs.ROGELIO "!OT!S ? -ORO=!, accused)appellant.Te Solicitor %eneral for plaintiff'appellee.Pulic Attorney?s 9ffice for accused'appellant.RO5ERO, J.:-n #riminal #ase (o. #)'+ filed before Branch ;, "T# "oxas #ity, "ogelio Bayotasy #ordova as charged ith "ape and eventually convicted thereof on 3une 0, 00 ina decision penned by 3udge /anuel 2. Auta1ay. Pending appeal of his conviction,

Bayotas died on >ebruary *, 00' atthe (ational Bilibid Hospital due to cardio respiratory arrest secondary to hepaticencephalopathy secondary to hipato carcinoma gastric malingering. #onse?uently, the8upreme #ourt in its "esolution of /ay '&, 00' dismissed the criminal aspect of theappeal. Hoever, it re?uired the 8olicitor =eneral to file its comment ith regard toBayotas< civil liability arising from his commission of the offense charged.-n his comment, the 8olicitor =eneral expressed his vie that the death of accused)appellant did not extinguish his civil liability as a result of his commission of the offensecharged. The 8olicitor =eneral, relying on the case ofPeople v.Sendaydie$o 1insiststhat the appeal should still be resolved for the purpose of revieing his conviction by theloer court on hich the civil liability is based.#ounsel for the accused)appellant, on the other hand, opposed the vie of the 8olicitor=eneral arguing that the death of the accused hile 1udgment of conviction is pendingappeal extinguishes both his criminal and civil penalties. -n support of his position, saidcounsel invoed the ruling of the #ourt of Appeals in People v.Castillo and9cfe!ia 2hich held that the civil obligation in a criminal case taes root in the criminalliability and, therefore, civil liability is extinguished if accused should die before final

1udgment is rendered.7e are thus confronted ith a single issue6 Does death of the accused pending appealof his conviction extinguish his civil liabilityQ-n the aforementioned case of People v.Castillo, this issue as settled in theaffirmative. This same issue posed therein as phrased thus6 Does the death of Alfredo#astillo affect both his criminal responsibility and his civil liability as a conse?uence ofthe alleged crimeQ-t resolved this issue thru the folloing dis?uisition6

Article 90 of the "evised Penal #ode is the controlling statute. -t reads, inpart6

Art. 90. /o0 cri!inal liaility is totally extin$uised. #riminal liability is totally extinguished6


35/67


36/67

for perfecting an appeal or hen the sentence has been partially or totallysatisfied or served, or the defendant has expressly aived in riting hisright to appeal.@By fair intendment, the legal precepts and opinions here collected funneldon to one positive conclusion6 The term final 1udgment employed in the

"evised Penal #ode means 1udgment beyond recall. "eally, as long as a1udgment has not become executory, it cannot be truthfully said thatdefendant is definitely guilty of the felony charged against him.(ot that the meaning thus given to final 1udgment is ithout reason. >orhere, as in this case, the right to institute a separate civil action is notreserved, the decision to be rendered must, of necessity, cover @both thecriminal and the civil aspects of the case.@ People vs.2usico4(ovember0, 0*'5, ' :.=., (o. &&, p. 0;*. 8ee also6 People vs.Moll, ;9 Phil., ;';,;* :rancisco, #riminal Procedure, 0%9 ed., $ol. -, pp. '*, ';.#orrectly, 3udge Mapunan observed that as @the civil action is based solelyon the felony committed and of hich the offender might be found guilty,

the death of the offender extinguishes the civil liability.@ - Mapunan,"evised Penal #ode, Annotated, supra.Here is the situation obtaining in the present case6 #astilloernando in theAlisoncase6The death of accused)appellant Bonifacio Alison having been established,and considering that there is as yet no final 1udgment in vie of thependency of the appeal, the criminal and civil liability of the said accused)appellant Alison as extinguished by his death 4Art. 90, "evised Penal#ode "eyes< #riminal a, 0+ "ev. 2d., p. ++, citing People v. #astilloand :femia #.A., %; :.=. *&*%5 conse?uently, the case against himshould be dismissed.

:n the other hand, this #ourt in the subse?uent cases of Buenaventura Bela!alav. Marcelino Polinar and=a!erto Torri1os v. Te /onorale Court of Appeals 8ruleddifferently. -n the former, the issue decided by this court as6 7hether the civil liability ofone accused of physical in1uries ho died before final 1udgment is extinguished by hisdemise to the extent of barring any claim therefore against his estate. -t as thecontention of the administrator)appellant therein that the death of the accused prior to


37/67

final 1udgment extinguished all criminal and civil liabilities resulting from the offense, invie of Article 90, paragraph of the "evised Penal #ode. Hoever, this court ruledtherein6

7e see no merit in the plea that the civil liability has been extinguished, invie of the provisions of the #ivil #ode of the Philippines of 0%& 4"ep.

Act (o. 9;5 that became operative eighteen years after the revised Penal#ode. As pointed out by the #ourt belo, Article of the #ivil #odeestablishes a civil action for damages on account of physical in1uries,entirely separate and distinct fro! te cri!inal action.

Art. . -n cases of defamation, fraud, and physical in1uries,a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct fromthe criminal action, may be brought by the in1ured party.8uch civil action shall proceed independently of the criminalprosecution, and shall re?uire only a preponderance ofevidence.

Assuming that for lac of express reservation, Belamala


38/67

recovery of money may continue to be heard on appeal, hen the death of thedefendant supervenes after the #>- had rendered its 1udgment. -n such case, explainedthis tribunal, @the name of the offended party shall be included in the title of the case asplaintiff)appellee and the legal representative or the heirs of the deceased)accusedshould be substituted as defendants)appellants.@

-t is, thus, evident that as 1urisprudence evolved from #astillo to Torri1os, the ruleestablished as that the survival of the civil liability depends on hether the same canbe predicated on sources of obligations other than delict. 8tated differently, the claim forcivil liability is also extinguished together ith the criminal action if it ere solely basedthereon, i.e., civil liability ex delicto.Hoever, the 8upreme #ourt in People v. Sendaydie$o, et al. 10departed from thislong)established principle of la. -n this case, accused 8endaydiego as charged ithand convicted by the loer court of malversation thru falsification of public documents.8endaydiegoirst -nstance, it shall be dismissed tobe prosecuted in the manner especially provided in "ule 9+ of the "ulesof #ourt 48ec. ', "ule of the "ules of #ourt5.The implication is that, if the defendant dies after a money 1udgment hadbeen rendered against him by the #ourt of >irst -nstance, the actionsurvives him. -t may be continued on appeal 4Torri1os vs. #ourt of Appeals,)*&;, :ctober '*, 0+% ;+ 8#"A 0*5.The accountable public officer may still be civilly liable for the fundsimproperly disbursed although he has no criminal liability 4G.8. vs. 2lvina,'* Phil. '& Philippine (ational Ban vs. Tugab, ;; Phil. %95.-n vie of the foregoing, notithstanding the dismissal of the appeal of thedeceased 8endaydiego insofar as his criminal liability is concerned, the


39/67

#ourt "esolved to continue exercising appellate 1urisdiction over hispossible civil liability for the money claims of the Province of Pangasinanarising from the alleged criminal acts complained of, as if no criminal casehad been instituted against him, thus maing applicable, in determining hiscivil liability, Article & of the #ivil #ode . . . and, for that purpose, his

counsel is directed to inform this #ourt ithin ten 4&5 days of the namesand addresses of the decedent


40/67

. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties and as topecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only hen the deathof the offender occurs before final 1udgment

xxx xxx xxxHoever, the ruling in Sendaydie$o deviated from the expressed intent of Article 90. -t

alloed claims for civil liability ex delicto to survive by ipso facto treating the civil actionimpliedly instituted ith the criminal, as one filed under Article &, as though no criminalproceedings had been filed but merely a separate civil action. This had the effect ofconverting such claims from one hich is dependent on the outcome of the criminalaction to an entirely ne and separate one, the prosecution of hich does not evennecessitate the filing of criminal proceedings. 12:ne ould be hard put to pinpoint thestatutory authority for such a transformation. -t is to be borne in mind that in recoveringcivil liability ex delicto, the same has perforce to be determined in the criminal action,rooted as it is in the court


41/67


42/67

restitution of personal or real property.@ 178ection %, "ule 9; provides an exclusiveenumeration of hat claims may be filed against the estate. These are6 funeralexpenses, expenses for the last illness, 1udgments for money and claim arising fromcontracts, expressed or implied. -t is clear that money claims arising from delict do notform part of this exclusive enumeration. Hence, there could be no legal basis in 45

treating a civil action ex delicto as an ordinary contractual money claim referred to in8ection ', "ule of the "ules of #ourt and 4'5 alloing it to survive by filing a claimtherefor before the estate of the deceased accused. "ather, it should be extinguishedupon extinction of the criminal action engendered by the death of the accused pendingfinality of his conviction.

Accordingly, e rule6 if the private offended party, upon extinction of the civil liability exdelictodesires to recover damages from the sa!e act or o!ission co!plained of, hemust sub1ect to 8ection , "ule 16409% "ules on #riminal Procedure as amended5file a separate civil action, this time predicated not on the felony previously charged buton other sources of obligation. The source of obligation upon hich the separate civilaction is premised determines against hom the same shall be enforced.

-f the same act or omission complained of also arises from 6uasi'delict or may, byprovision of la, result in an in1ury to person or property 4real or personal5, the separatecivil action must be filed against the executor or administrator 1of the estate of theaccused pursuant to 8ec. , "ule 9+ of the "ules of #ourt6

8ec. .Actions 0ic !ay and 0ic !ay not e rou$t a$ainstexecutor or ad!inistrator. (o action upon a claim for the recovery ofmoney or debt or interest thereon shall be commenced against theexecutor or administrator but actions to recover real or personal property,or an interest therein, from the estate, or to enforce a lien thereon,and actions to recover da!a$es for an in1ury to person or property, real or

personal, may be commenced against him.This is in consonance ith our ruling in Belamala 18here e held that, in recoveringdamages for in1ury to persons thru an independent civil action based on Article of the#ivil #ode, the same must be filed against the executor or administrator of the estate ofdeceased accused and not against the estate under 8ec. %, "ule 9; because this ruleexplicitly limits the claim to those for funeral expenses, expenses for the last sicness ofthe decedent, 1udgment for money and claims arising from contract, express or implied.#ontractual money claims, e stressed, refers only topurely personal oli$ations otherthan those hich have their source in delict or tort.#onversely, if the same act or omission complained of also arises from contract, theseparate civil action must be filed against the estate of the accused, pursuant to 8ec. %,"ule 9; of the "ules of #ourt.>rom this lengthy dis?uisition, e summariCe our ruling herein6. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminalliability as ell as the civil liability based solely thereon. As opined by 3ustice "egalado,in this regard, @the death of the accused prior to final 1udgment terminates his criminalliability and only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offensecommitted, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore.@'. #orollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notithstanding the death of accused, ifthe same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. 19Article


43/67

%+ of the #ivil #ode enumerates these other sources of obligation from hich the civilliability may arise as a result of the same act or omission6

a5 a 20b5 #ontractsc5 uasi)contracts

d5 . . .e5 uasi)delicts. 7here the civil liability survives, as explained in (umber ' above, an action forrecovery therefor may be pursued but only by ay of filing a separate civil action andsub1ect to 8ection , "ule of the 09% "ules on #riminal Procedure as amended.This separate civil action may be enforced either against the executorLadministrator orthe estate of the accused, depending on the source of obligation upon hich the sameis based as explained above.*. >inally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file thisseparate civil action by prescription, in cases here during the prosecution of thecriminal action and prior to its extinction, the private)offended party instituted together

thereith the civil action. -n such case, the statute of limitations on the civil liability isdeemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case, conformably ithprovisions of Article %%21of the #ivil #ode, that should thereby avoid anyapprehension on a possible privation of right by prescription. 22

Applying this set of rules to the case at bench, e hold that the death of appellantBayotas extinguished his criminal liability and the civil liability based solely on the actcomplained of, i.e., rape. #onse?uently, the appeal is hereby dismissed ithout?ualification.7H2"2>:"2, the appeal of the late "ogelio Bayotas is D-8/-882D ith costs deoficio.8: :"D2"2D.

5arvasa, C.)., :eliciano, Padilla, Bidin, e$alado, Davide, )r., Bellosillo, Melo,-uiason, Puno, #itu$, 3apunan and Mendo&a, ))., concur.Cru&, )., is on leave.

Rogelio Bayotas y Cordova was charged with Rape and eventuallyconvicted thereof. Pending appeal of his conviction, Bayotas died.

Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the criminal aspect of theappeal. However, it required the Solicitor General to file its comment with

regard to the civil liaility of Bayotas arising from his commission of theoffense charged.

!SS"#$

%hether or not the death of the accused pending appeal of hisconviction e&tinguish his civil liaility.H#'($

)rticle *+ of the Revised Penal Code provides that y death of theconvict personal liailities are e&tinguished, as to pecuniary penalties liaility

therefore is e&tinguished only when the death of the offender occurs eforefinal udgment.


44/67

-hus the court made a ruling as follows$

. (eath of the accused pending appeal of his conviction e&tinguishes his

criminal liaility as well as the civil liaility ased solely thereon/

0. Corollarily, the claim for civil liaility survives notwithstanding the death ofthe accused, if the same may also e predicated on a source of oligation

other than delict. )ricle 12 of the Civil Code enumerates these othersources of oligation from which the civil liaility may arise as a result of the

same act or omission$ 'aw, Contracts, 3uasi4contracts, (elicts5,3uasi4delicts/

6. %here the civil liaility survives, an action for recovery therefore may epursued ut only y way of separate civil action and may e enforced either

against the e&ecutor7administrator of the estate of the accused, depending

on the source of oligation aside from delicts/8.

9inally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to

file this separate civil action y prescription, in cases where during theprosecution of the criminal action and prior to its e&tinction, the private

offended party instituted together therewith the civil action. !n such case,the statute of limitations on the civil liaility is deemed interrupted during

the pendency of the criminal case, conformaly with provisions of )rticle

11 of the Civil Code, that should therey avoid any apprehension on apossile privation of right y prescription.

!n the case at ar, the death of Bayotas e&tinguished his criminal and civil

liaility ased solely on the act of rape. Hence, his civil liaility also

e&tinguished together with his criminal liaility upon his death.

&opic8 )riminal rocedure, "ule ///

+A)&-8 In )riminal )ase led before "&) "oxas )ity, "ogelio $ayotas y)ordova was charged with "ape and eventually convicted. ending appeal ofhis conviction, $ayotas died at the (ational $ilibid !ospital due to cardiorespiratory arrest secondary to hepatic encephalopathy secondary to hipatocarcinoma gastric malingering. )onse=uently, the -upreme )ourt in its"esolution, dismissed the criminal aspect of the appeal. !owever, it re=uiredthe -olicitor eneral to le its comment with regard to $ayotas> civil liability

arising from his commission of the oense charged. In his comment, the-olicitor eneral expressed his view that the death of accused?appellant didnot extinguish his civil liability as a result of his commission of the oensecharged. &he -olicitor eneral, relying on the case of eople v. -endaydiegoinsists that the appeal should still be resolved for the purpose of reviewinghis conviction by the lower court on which the civil liability is based.


45/67

)ounsel for the accused?appellant, on the other hand, opposed the view ofthe -olicitor eneral arguing that the death of the accused while udgment ofconviction is pending appeal extinguishes both his criminal and civilpenalties. In support of his position, said counsel invoked the ruling of the)ourt of Appeals in eople v. )astillo and #cfemia which held that the civil

obligation in a criminal case takes root in the criminal liability and, therefore,civil liability is extinguished if accused should die before nal udgment isrendered.

I--*%@!%'8 ;#( death of the accused pending appeal of his convictionextinguishes his civil liabilityB A++I"MA&IC%

"A&I# I)I%(I8

DA"&. 05. !ow criminal liability is totally extinguished. E )riminal liability is

totally extinguished8

/. $y the death of the convict, as to the personal penaltiesF and as to thepecuniary penalties liability therefor is extinguished only when the death ofthe oender occurs before nal udgmentF

Article G6 of the )ivil )ode provides8

H;hen a separate civil action is brought to demand civil liability arising froma criminal oense, and no criminal proceedings are instituted during thependency of the civil case, a preponderance of evidence shall likewise be

su:cient to prove the act complained of.

;hat Article G6 recogniJes is an alternative and separate civil action whichmay be brought to demand civil liability arising from a criminal oenseindependently of any criminal action. In the event that no criminalproceedings are instituted during the pendency of said civil case, the=uantum of evidence needed to prove the criminal act will have to be thatwhich is compatible with civil liability and that is, preponderance of evidenceand not proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. )iting or invoking Article G6to ustify the survival of the civil action despite extinction of the criminalwould in eect merely beg the =uestion of whether civil liability ex delicto

survives upon extinction of the criminal action due to death of the accusedduring appeal of his conviction. &his is because whether asserted in thecriminal action or in a separate civil action, civil liability ex delicto isextinguished by the death of the accused while his conviction is on appeal.Article 05 of the "evised enal )ode is clear on this matter.


46/67


47/67

)ICI' 'IA$I'I&K )A-%-

5EL"! C#INTO,petitioner, vs.!NTE !NRES $*) R!N=ERP!-HE-O, respondents.

E - I S I O N-!LLEO, SR., J.

At around +6& a.m. on (ovember , 00%, eleven)year)old 2dison =arcia, a=rade * elementary school pupil, and his playmate, 7ilson uinto, ho as also abouteleven years old, ere at Barangay 8an "afael, Tarlac, Tarlac. They sa respondentsDante Andres and "andyver Pacheco by the mouth of a drainage culvert. Andres andPacheco invited 7ilson to go fishing ith them inside the drainage culvert. [!7ilsonassented. 7hen =arcia sa that it as dar inside, he opted to remain seated in a

grassy area about to meters from the entrance of the drainage system.['!

"espondent Pacheco had a flashlight. He, along ith respondent Andres and7ilson, entered the drainage system hich as covered by concrete culvert about ameter high and a meter ide, ith ater about a foot deep. [!After a hile, respondentPacheco, ho as holding a fish, came out of the drainage system and left [*!ithoutsaying a ord. "espondent Andres also came out, ent bac inside, and emergedagain, this time, carrying 7ilson ho as already dead. "espondent Andres laid theboyEs lifeless body don in the grassy area. [%!8hoced at the sudden turn of events,=arcia fled from the scene.[;!>or his part, respondent Andres ent to the house ofpetitioner /elba uinto, 7ilsonEs mother, and informed her that her son had died./elba uinto rushed to the drainage culvert hile respondent Andres folloed her.[+!

The cadaver of 7ilson as buried ithout any autopsy thereon having beenconducted. The police authorities of Tarlac, Tarlac, did not file any criminal complaintagainst the respondents for 7ilsonEs death.

To ees thereafter, or on (ovember '9, 00%, (ational Bureau of -nvestigation4(B-5 investigators too the sorn statements of respondent Pacheco, =arcia andpetitioner uinto.[9!"espondent Pacheco alleged that he had never been to the drainagesystem catching fish ith respondent Andres and 7ilson. He also declared that he sa7ilson already dead hen he passed by the drainage system hile riding on hiscarabao.

:n >ebruary '0, 00;, the cadaver of 7ilson as exhumed. Dr. Dominic Aguda ofthe (B- performed an autopsy thereon at the cemetery and submitted his autopsy report

containing the folloingpost!orte!findings63*TM3/TM 67(67F*Body in pre!iously e&bal&ed, early stage of deco&position, attired ith hite long slee!es and

dar' pants and placed inside a ooden coffin in a niche%apart&ent style+$e&ato&a, 14+; - +; c&s+, scalp, occipital region+

Abrasion, 4+; - D+; c&s+, right face, :+; - D+; c&s+, left forear&+

aryngo Q tracheal lu&ina Q congested and ede&atous containing &uddy particles ithbloody path+
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/155791.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/155791.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/155791.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/155791.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/155791.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/155791.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/155791.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/155791.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/155791.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/155791.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/155791.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/155791.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/155791.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/155791.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/155791.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/155791.htm#_ftn8


48/67

ungs Q hyperinflated, hea!y and readily pits on pressure? section contains bloody froth+

Brain Q autolyNed and liOuefied+

*to&ach Q partly autolyNed+

CA5* 3 (AT$> Asphy-ia by droning? trau&atic head in#uries, contributory+[0!

The (B- filed a criminal complaint for homicide against respondents Andres and

Pacheco in the :ffice of the Provincial Prosecutor, hich found probable cause forhomicide by doloagainst the to.An -nformation as later filed ith the "egional Trial #ourt 4"T#5 of Tarlac

cases crim- extinction and civil liability

Documents