THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 218132. February 27, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.CONRADO AYUSTE y ACUIN, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 27, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 218132 (People of the Philippines v. Conrado Ayuste y Acuin). — In Criminal Case Nos. C-82807 and C-82808 filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 127, accused-appellant Conrado Ayuste y Acuin was charged for selling and possessing marijuana in violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
After trial on the merits, the RTC, in its Joint Decision 1 dated November 15, 2012, found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged and sentenced him as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring accused Conrado Ayuste y Acuin in Criminal Case No. 82807 for Violation of Sec. 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 guilty beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos.
As regards Criminal Case No. 82808 for violation of Sec. 11, Art. II, R.A. 9165, this Court finds the same accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as the minimum to seventeen (17) years and eight (8) months as the maximum and to pay the sum of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
The drugs subject of these cases are hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the government to be dealt with in accordance with law. 2
Accused-appellant filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05856. In its Decision 3 dated October 20, 2014, the appellate court held: CScTED
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, [the] instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The Joint Decision dated November 15, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 127 in Criminal Cases Nos. C-82807 and C-82808 which convicted accused-appellant Conrado Ayuste y Acuin for the violation of Sec. 5, Article II and Sec. 11, Article II, respectively, of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. 9165) is hereby AFFIRMED. 4
Aggrieved by the foregoing judgment, accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal 5 which was given due course by the appellate court in a Resolution 6 dated February 3, 2015.
While accused-appellant's appeal was pending before the Court, Chief Superintendent Gerardo F. Padilla of the Bureau of Corrections, New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, through a letter 7 dated December 27, 2018, informed the Court that accused-appellant died on October 28, 2017 due to cardiopulmonary arrest, as evidenced by the attached certified true photocopy of his death certificate. 8
Under Article 89, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, 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, 9 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. cDCEIA
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.
Accused-appellant had died before the Court could resolve his appeal. Given his death prior to final judgment of conviction, his criminal liabilities as well as his civil liabilities arising from the crimes allegedly committed, are extinguished as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused. 10 The criminal cases against accused-appellant should therefore be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to DISMISS Criminal Case Nos. C-82807 and C-82808 before the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 127, by reason of the death of accused-appellant Conrado Ayuste y Acuin. ISHaCD
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, pp. 41-59; penned by Presiding Judge Victoriano B. Cabanos.
2.Id. at 58-59.
3.Rollo, pp. 2-35; penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz with Associate Justices Magdangal M. de Leon and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. concurring.
4.Id. at 35.
5.Id. at 36-38.
6.Id. at 39.
7. Temporary rollo.
8.Id.
9. 306 Phil. 266, 282-284 (1994).
10.People v. Antido, G.R. No. 208651, March 14, 2018.