SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 207631. March 7, 2018.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. JOSEMAR GAGNAN y BASADRE, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 7, 2018, which reads as follows: HEITAD
"G.R. No. 207631 (People of the Philippines v. Josemar Gagnan y Basadre). — Herein accused-appellant was charged in two (2) separate Informations, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 2007-636 and 2007-637, with violations of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. 9165), otherwise known as Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, for having sold to a police officer, acting as a poseur-buyer, 5.34 grams of dried marijuana leaves and for having in his possession dried marijuana fruiting tops weighing 68.64 grams, 77 cigarette sticks of marijuana fruiting tops weighing 30.14 grams, and one plastic bag of dried marijuana leaves and stalks weighing 215.4 grams.
After trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cagayan De Oro City, Branch 25, in its Decision, dated March 3, 2011, found accused-appellant guilty as charged and disposed of the case as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court hereby finds:
1. In Criminal Case No. 2007-636, the accused JOSEMAR GAGNAN Y BASADRE, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, and hereby sentences him to LIFE IMPRISONMENT, and to pay a Fine in the amount of P500,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of non-payment of Fine.
2. In Criminal Case No. 2007-637, the accused JOSEMAR GAGNAN Y BASADRE GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the offense defined and penalized under Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 as charged in the Information, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for TWELVE YEARS AND ONE DAY to THIRTEEN YEARS and to pay a Fine of P300,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of non-payment of Fine. The period of his detention shall be credited in full, for the purpose of service of his sentence. 1
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) acquitted accused-appellant on the charge of illegal sale of marijuana (Section 5, RA 9165) but affirmed with modification the RTC decision convicting accused-appellant of illegal possession of marijuana (Section 11, RA 9165). The dispositive portion of the CA Decision 2 reads, thus:
FOR THESE REASONS, for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165, the Court REVERSES the decision of the Regional Trial Court in Criminal Case No. 2007-636 dated 03 March 2011 and ACQUITS Josemar Gagnan y Basadre of the charge against him for that crime.
However, his conviction in Criminal Case No. 2007-637 for Violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 is AFFIRMED with the Modification that the penalty that should be imposed on appellant's conviction of violation of Section 11 of RA 9165, is (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine of Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00)
SO ORDERED. 3
Appellant, through the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) filed an appeal with this Court. 4
Subsequently, on September 5, 2016, this Court issued a Resolution, 5 pertinent portions of which read as follows:
x x x Considering the allegations, issues and arguments presented in the appellant's and appellee's briefs, as well as appellant's supplemental appeal brief, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in its assailed Decision dated September 25, 2012 as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of law in the Decision dated September 25, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00914-MIN and AFFIRMS said Decision, finding appellant Josemar Gagnan y Basadre guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of marijuana in violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for Twenty (20) Years and One (1) Day to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00, but acquitting him of the charge of illegal sale of marijuana under Section 5, Article II of the same law.
SO ORDERED.6
On October 27, 2016, the PAO filed a Motion for Reconsideration 7 praying that accused-appellant be acquitted from all the crimes charged.
In a Resolution 8 dated June 5, 2017, this Court denied the PAO's Motion for Reconsideration with finality as no substantial arguments were raised to warrant its reconsideration. In the same Resolution, the Court ordered that entry of judgment be issued.
However, before an Entry of Judgment could be issued in the present case, this Court received a letter, dated June 14, 2017, from the Officer-in-Charge of the Rehabilitation Operations Division of the Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa City, informing the Court that accused-appellant died at the Davao Prison and Penal Farm on May 20, 2017. 9 In a follow-up letter dated August 10, 2017, the Acting Superintendent of the Davao Prison and Penal Farm, likewise, informed this Court of the death of accused-appellant, on the date abovementioned, due to pulmonary tuberculosis secondary to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 10 Attached to the letter is a copy of accused-appellant's Certificate of Death 11 issued by the Office of the Civil Registrar General in the Municipality of Braulio E. Dujali, Province of Davao Del Norte.
From the foregoing, it is clear that accused-appellant has been dead before the promulgation of this Court's Resolution on June 5, 2017. Thus, when he died, his appeal before this Court was still pending resolution. ATICcS
Article 89 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides the effect of death of the accused on his criminal, as well as civil, liability, to wit:
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;
Applying the foregoing provision, this Court had laid down the following guidelines in the case of People v. Bayotas: 12
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 [the] 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) . . .
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 [the] provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil Code, that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible privation of right by prescription. 13
Based on the above ground rules, it is clear that the death of accused-appellant pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability ex delicto. Since the criminal action is extinguished, inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused, the civil action instituted therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished, grounded as it is on the criminal case. 14
In People v. Amistoso, 15 this Court encountered the same situation wherein the accused-appellant died before his appeal could be resolved with finality. Citing People v. Bayotas, 16 the Court explained the implications of the accused-appellant's demise as follows:
Undeniably, Amistoso's death on December 11, 2012 preceded the promulgation by the Court of its Decision on January 9, 2013. When Amistoso died, his appeal before the Court was still pending and unresolved. The Court ruled upon Amistoso's appeal only because it was not immediately informed of his death.
Amistoso's death on December 11, 2012 renders the Court's Decision, dated January 9, 2013, even though affirming Amistoso's conviction, irrelevant and ineffectual. Moreover, said Decision has not yet become final, and the Court still has the jurisdiction to set it aside. 17
Based on the foregoing, the Resolution of this Court, affirming the Decision of the CA finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal possession of marijuana and acquitting him of the charge of illegal sale of marijuana, had become irrelevant and ineffectual by reason of his death on May 20, 2017. Hence, the same must be set aside and the cases against accused-appellant must, consequently, be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, the Resolutions of this Court, dated September 5, 2016 and June 5, 2017 are SET ASIDE and Criminal Case Nos. 2007-636 and 2007-637 before the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan De Oro City, Branch 25, are DISMISSED by reason of accused-appellant Josemar Gagnan y Basadre's death. Let the instant case be considered CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See rollo, pp. 6-7.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello with the concurrence of Associate Justices Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Renato C. Francisco; id. at 3-17.
3.Id. at 16-17.
4. The Notice of Appeal was dated December 2, 2013.
5.Rollo, pp. 48-49.
6.Id. at 48. (Emphasis in the original).
7.Id. at 50-58.
8.Id. at 60.
9.Id. at 62
10.Id. at 65.
11.Id. at 67.
12. 306 Phil. 266 (1994).
13.Id. at 282-283. (Emphasis supplied)
14.People v. Bayot, 686 Phil. 270, 276 (2012).
15. 716 Phil. 825 (2013).
16.Supra note 12.
17.People v. Amistoso, supra note 15, at 830-831.