THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232530. February 27, 2019.]
FERNANDO FAJARDO Y FLORES, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated February 27, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 232530 (Fernando Fajardo y Flores v. People of the Philippines). — Petitioner Fernando Fajardo y Flores, together with Gerry Madaraje and Bryan Mendoza, 1 was charged in Criminal Case No. 08-0923 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City, Branch 275 for the murder of Manuel Lim y Villaraza.
After trial on the merits, the RTC, in its Decision 2 dated March 27, 2015, found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide, thus:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court hereby finds accused, FERNANDO FAJARDO y FLORES @ "Andy", GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT for the crime of HOMICIDE, not murder, in Criminal Case No. 08-0923.
Accordingly, the above-named accused is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate sentence of TEN (10) YEARS OF PRISION MAYOR AS MINIMUM TO SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS OF RECLUSION TEMPORAL AS MAXIMUM.
Regarding the civil aspect of this case, the above-named accused is directed to indemnify the heirs of Manuel Lim y Villaraza the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php50,000.00) as civil indemnity and FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php50,000.00) as moral damages.
In addition, the above-named accused is also liable to pay, by way of actual damages, the heirs of Manuel Lim y Villaraza the total amount of ONE HUNDRED NINETY-TWO THOUSAND PESOS (Php192,000.00).
The said accused is also liable to pay interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of judgment until fully paid.
Said accused is also directed to pay the costs of suit. 3
Acting on petitioner's appeal, docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 37479, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision 4 dated July 18, 2016 upholding the judgment of conviction of the RTC against petitioner but modifying the damages awarded. The dispositive portion of said Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 27 March 2015 rendered by Branch 275, Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, is hereby AFFIRMED but MODIFIED in that the monetary award for actual damages is deleted and in lieu thereof, temperate damages in the amount of fifty thousand (Php50,000.00) pesos is hereby awarded. 5
Petitioner thereafter filed his Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied for lack of merit by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution 6 dated April 10, 2017.
Hence, on August 22, 2017, petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before this Court assailing the Decision dated July 18, 2016 and Resolution dated April 10, 2017 of the Court of Appeals.
The Court issued a Resolution 7 dated November 20, 2017 denying the instant Petition for petitioner's failure to show any reversible error in the assailed Decision and Resolution of the appellate court.
However, on January 23, 2018, the Public Attorney's Office-Special and Appealed Cases Service (PAO-SACS) filed a Manifestation with Undertaking 8 informing the Court of its receipt of a text message from the alleged wife of petitioner which reported the latter's death. The PAO-SACS also received on January 22, 2018 an electronic mail from the Office of the Superintendent of the Bureau of Corrections confirming petitioner's demise on August 30, 2017. The PAO-SACS undertook to immediately submit a certified true copy of petitioner's death certificate upon receipt of the same from the Prison and Security, Bureau of Corrections. 9
In another Manifestation 10 filed on February 6, 2018, the PAO-SACS stated that although its office received on January 22, 2018 a copy of the Court's Resolution dated November 20, 2017 denying the instant Petition, the public attorney-in-charge was furnished a copy of the same only on January 25, 2018. By then, the PAO-SACS had already filed its Manifestation with Undertaking on January 23, 2018 informing the Court of petitioner's death on August 30, 2017, eight days after he filed his Petition. The PAO-SACS reiterated its commitment to file a certified true copy of petitioner's death certificate upon receipt from the Bureau of Corrections.
On May 29, 2018, the Court received the Manifestation/Compliance 11 of the PAO-SACS, with the appended certified true photocopy of petitioner's death certificate. 12 The death certificate confirms petitioner's death on August 30, 2017 due to cardiorespiratory arrest.
Article 89, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the death of the accused before final judgment extinguishes his criminal liability, thus:
Article 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 therefore is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment;
Pursuant to the above-mentioned provision, the Court, in People v. Bayotas, 13 laid down the following guidelines with respect to the criminal and civil liabilities of the accused in case of death:
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.
4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action by prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its extinction, the private-offended party instituted together therewith the civil action. In such case, the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case, conformably with provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil Code, that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible privation of right by prescription.
Here, petitioner had just filed his Petition for Review before the Court on August 22, 2017 when he died eight days later, on August 30, 2017. The Court was informed of his untimely demise only after it had issued its Resolution on November 20, 2017 denying said Petition.
Thus, by reason of his death before final judgment of conviction, petitioner's criminal and civil liabilities arising from the crime he allegedly committed are extinguished. Moreover, the Court's Resolution dated November 20, 2017 had become ineffectual as a result of petitioner's death and must be set aside.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to RECALL and SET ASIDE its Resolution dated November 20, 2017 and to DISMISS Criminal Case No. 08-0923 before the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 275 because of the death of petitioner Fernando Fajardo y Flores on August 30, 2017.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Petitioner's two co-accused remain at large.
2.Rollo, pp. 74-90; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Marjorie T. Uyengco-Nolasco.
3.Id. at 89-90.
4. Id. at 38-54; penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Pedro B. Corales concurring.
5.Id. at 53.
6.Id. at 56-56A.
7.Id. at 124.
8.Id. at 125-129.
9.Id. at 130.
10.Id. at 132-137.
11.Id. at 147-151.
12.Id. at 153.
13. 306 Phil. 266, 282-284 (1994).