THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248460. May 5, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. GEORGE GAMAYEN y CALICA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMay 5, 2021,which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 248460 (People of the Philippines v. George Gamayen y Calica). — The Court resolves to:
(1) GRANT accused-appellant's motion for an extension of thirty (30) days from January 11, 2020 within which to file a supplemental brief; and
(2) NOTE:
(a) said Supplemental Brief dated February 7, 2020;
(b) the Office of the Solicitor General's Manifestation in Lieu of Supplemental Brief dated January 3, 2020, stating that considering all relevant issues/arguments have been adequately adduced in its brief for appellee, it cannot file a supplemental brier without being redundant, and prays that it be excused from filing a supplemental brief in this case; and
(c) the letter dated January 28, 2020 of SJO3 Albert Manalo, Officer-in-Charge, Documents Section of the New Bilibid Prison (NBP), Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, informing the court that accused-appellant died on January 19, 2020, as shown by the attached Report of Death issued by CTCI Ruth B. Algones, MD, Medical Officer on Duty, NBP Hospital, Muntinlupa City.
This is an ordinary appeal under Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Court seeking to set aside the Decision 1 dated July 27, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09327, which dismissed the appeal filed by the accused-appellant and upheld the Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando City, La Union, Branch 66 in Criminal Case No. 10879. The courts a quo found accused-appellant guilty of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs as defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
On February 3, 2020, this Court received a letter dated January 28, 2020 from the Bureau of Corrections stating therein that accused-appellant George Gamayen y Calica died on January 19, 2020. 3 Attached to the letter is the Notice of Death 4 dated January 19, 2020 that was issued by the Medical Officer at the New Bilibid Prison Hospital. It would, thus, appear that the accused-appellant passed away during the pendency of his appeal before this Court.
Article 89 (1) of the Revised Penal Code provides for the consequence of accused-appellant's death, to wit:
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 therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment.
It is clear from the foregoing that the criminal liability of accused-appellant is totally extinguished because he died before final judgment. As regards accused-appellant's civil liabilities, it was extensively discussed in the old case of People v. Bayotas5 how the same is affected by his death, to wit:
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) [Acts or omissions punished by law; and]
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. (citations omitted; italics in the original)
Accordingly, accused-appellant's civil liability, which is directly arising from and based solely on the violations committed, is likewise extinguished as a consequence of his death. Accused-appellant's civil liability, which is predicated on other sources of obligation, survives and may be filed against his estate through a separate civil action. 6
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves as follows: (a) the criminal and civil liabilities ex delicto of George Gamayen y Calica in Criminal Case No. 10879 are EXTINGUISHED by reason of his death; and (b) the instant case filed against George Gamayen y Calica is hereby declared CLOSED and TERMINATED. (J. Inting, no part; J. Lopez, M., designated as additional member per Raffle dated July 15, 2019)
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi, with Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, concurring; rollo, pp. 3-10.
2. Penned by Presiding Judge Victor O. Concepcion. CA rollo, pp. 76-84.
3.Rollo, p. 32.
4.Id. at 33.
5. 306 Phil. 266, 282-284 (1994).
6.Dr. Cabugao vs. People, 740 Phil. 9, 31 (2014), citing People v. Bayotas, id.