FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233976. June 30, 2021.]
RIO COMIA y DUAG, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 30, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 233976 — RIO COMIA y DUAG,petitioner, versus PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,respondent.
In a Decision 1 dated December 3, 2014, the Regional Trial Court, Fourth Judicial Branch, Batangas City, Branch 7 (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 16684, found petitioner Rio Comia y Duag (Rio) and his wife Michelle Comia y Bondad (Michelle), guilty of possession of dangerous drugs as penalized under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended, and sentenced them to imprisonment for twelve years (12) and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14) years as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00. 2
The RTC held that the guilt of Rio and Michelle had been established beyond reasonable doubt as all the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs had been proven. The search of Rio and Michelle's house was conducted upon a valid search warrant. During the search, the police officers found four (4) plastic sachets in a metal case in an open shelf in the master's bedroom and five (5) plastic sachets inside a film canister tucked inside a flower vase in the living room, containing a total of 1.01 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride, more commonly known as shabu. The inventory of the seized items was done in the presence of the accused, representatives from the Department of Justice, and media, and an elected official.
The RTC did not give credence to the bare denials of Rio and Michelle. As admitted by Michelle in her testimony, the only occupants of the house were herself and her husband Rio, and their four (4) children. The RTC concluded that the possession of the dangerous drugs could be attributed to no other person than Rio and Michelle as they had the dominion and control over the premises. The RTC also held that the corpus delicti of the offense was proven beyond reasonable doubt as the prosecution was able to account for every link in chain of custody of the seized items from the time of seizure to their presentation in court. 3
The accused spouses appealed the RTC Decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). 4 Rio and Michelle, through their respective counsels, filed separate appellant's briefs before the CA. 5 In a Decision 6 dated February 27, 2017 the CA affirmed the RTC Decision. Only Rio filed a Motion for Reconsideration 7 (MR) which was denied in the CA Resolution 8 dated August 31, 2017.
Aggrieved, Rio filed the instant Petition for Review on certiorari9 (Petition) under Rule 122 (e) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure 10 in relation to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court on December 4, 2017. The Office of the Solicitor General filed its Comment 11 on September 12, 2018.
On June 25, 2019, the Public Attorney's Office (PAO), representing Rio, filed a Manifestation with Motion 12 informing the Court that Rio had already died on September 17, 2018 and requesting the Court to direct the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) to issue a certified true copy (CTC) of the death certificate to the PAO. Thus, the Court ordered the PSA to issue the said document to the PAO in a Resolution 13 dated July 8, 2019, which was reiterated in a Resolution 14 dated February 19, 2020.
Meanwhile, Michelle, who had not filed an MR of the CA Decision and a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, submitted a Letter 15 dated February 28, 2020 stating that Rio had died and requesting that she be included in the instant Petition before the Court.
On September 11, 2020, the PSA submitted proof in compliance with the Court's order to issue Rio's death certificate to the PAO. 16 On March 8, 2021, the PAO submitted to the Court the CTC of Rio's death certificate. 17
Considering that Rio's death transpired before the judgment of conviction became final, his criminal liability and civil liability arising from his criminal liability are totally extinguished. Article 89, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
ART. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. — Criminal liability is totally extinguished:
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment.
In People v. Bayotas, 18 the rules on the effect of the death of the accused on his liability pending review of his conviction were summarized by the Court as follows:
1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, "the death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore."
2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a result of the same act or omission:
a) Law
b) Contracts
c) Quasi-contracts
d) x x x
e) Quasi-delicts
3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above, an action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate civil action may be enforced either against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused, depending on the source of obligation upon which the same is based as explained above. 19 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied; italics in the original)
Applying these established rules in the instant case, Rio's death, prior to the finality of the judgment of conviction, extinguished his criminal liability inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused. 20
With regard to Michelle's request to be included in the present Petition, the same is denied. Under Section 3 (e), Rule 122 21 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, in criminal cases where the penalty imposed is other than death, life imprisonment, or reclusion perpetua, the appeal shall be done by filing a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 which must be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of judgment or final order or resolution appealed from or the denial of a motion for new trial or reconsideration. 22 Michelle did not file an MR of the CA Decision and a subsequent petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Court. As Michelle failed to properly and timely assail the CA Decision which affirmed her conviction, the same has long become final and unappealable as to her. It is axiomatic that the right to appeal is a statutory right and one who seeks to avail of said right must strictly comply with the prescribed procedure under the Rules of Court, otherwise, the remedy of appeal is lost, as in Michelle's case. 23
WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVES to:
(a) DENY the letter-request of accused MICHELLE COMIA y BONDAD to be included as a petitioner in the instant case;
(b) SET ASIDE the Decision dated February 27, 2017 and Resolution dated August 31, 2017 in CA-G.R. CR No. 37373 and DISMISS Criminal Case No. 16684 before Regional Trial Court, Fourth Judicial Branch, Batangas City, Branch 7, as to petitioner RIO COMIA y DUAG due to his death; and
(c) DECLARE the instant case CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 69-89, penned by Presiding Judge Aida S. Santos.
2.Id. at 87.
3.Id. at 79-87.
4. Notice of Appeal dated December 5, 2014, CA rollo, p. 11.
5. Rio's appellant's brief, id. at 166-181; Michelle's appellant's brief, id. at 108-144.
6.Rollo, pp. 32-48, penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon with the concurrence of Associate Justices Elihu A. Ybañez and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes.
7.Id. at 125-130.
8.Id. at 50-51.
9.Id. at 12-30.
10. Except as provided in the last paragraph of Section 13, Rule 124, all other appeals to the Supreme Court shall be by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. (RE: PROPOSED REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE [RULES 110-127, REVISED RULES OF COURT], A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, October 3, 2000).
11.Rollo, pp. 149-183.
12.Id. at 194-197.
13.Id. at 203-205.
14.Id. at 207.
15.Id. at 208-209.
16.Id. at 211-215.
17.Id. at 229-236.
18. G.R. No. 102007, September 2, 1994, 236 SCRA 239.
19.Id. at 255-256.
20. See People v. Egagamao, G.R. No. 218809, August 3, 2016, 799 SCRA 507, 514.
21. SEC. 3. How appeal taken. —
xxx xxx xxx
(e) Except as provided in the last paragraph of Section 13, Rule 124, all other appeals to the Supreme Court shall be by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. (3a).
Supra note 10.
22. RULES OF COURT, Sec. 2, provides:
SEC. 2.Time for filing; extension. — The petition shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or of the denial of the petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the judgment. On motion duly filed and served, with full payment of the docket and other lawful fees and the deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Supreme Court may for justifiable reasons grant an extension of thirty (30) days only within which to file the petition. (1a, 5a)
23.Villena v. People, G.R. No. 184091, January 31, 2011, 641 SCRA 127, 137.