THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 231882. June 3, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ALDRIN MAGAT y RINOS, REYNALDO CALDONA, AURELIO SIDRO, JR. y GARBO, RICHARD SEMBLANCE y OYAO, BENJIE JECOSALEM1y RABOR, ROMEO RAYGA y BARCO AND FREEMAN BAGARES y ROBERTO, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 3, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 231882 (People of the Philippines vs. Aldrin Magat y Rinos, Reynaldo Caldona, Aurelio Sidro, Jr. y Garbo, Richard Semblance y Oyao, Benjie Jecosalem yRabor, Romeo Rayga y Barco and Freeman Bagares y Roberto). — Accused-appellants Aldrin Magat y Rinos (Magat), Reynaldo Caldona, Aurelio Sidro, Jr. y Garbo, Richard Semblance y Oyao, Benjie Jecosalem y Rabor, Romeo Rayga y Barco, and Freeman Bagares y Roberto were charged with the crimes of murder and frustrated murder in two separate Informations docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 888-V-05 and 889-V-05 that were filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 171 of Valenzuela City.
After trial on the merits, the RTC, in its Decision 2 dated September 26, 2013, found accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged and sentenced them as follows:
In view of the foregoing, in Criminal Case No. 888-V-05, this Court finds the accused ALDRIN MAGAT Y RINOS, REYNALDO CALDONA, AURELIO SIDRO JR. Y GARBO, RICHARD SEMBLANTE Y OYAO, BENJIE JACOSALEM Y RABOR, ROMEO RAYGA Y BARCO AND FREEMAN BAGARES Y ROBERTO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder. Consequently, they are ordered to suffer the penalty of reclusionperpetua.
The accused Aldrin Magat [y] Rinos, Reynaldo Caldona, Aurelio Sidro Jr. [y] Garbo, Richard Semblante [y] Oyao, Benjie Jacosalem [y] Rabor, Romeo Rayga [y] Barco And(sic) Freeman Bagares [y] Roberto are also held jointly and solidarily liable to pay the heirs of the victim the amount of Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity and Php50,000.00 as moral damages.
In Criminal Case No. 889-V-05, this Court also finds the accused Aldrin Magat [y] Rinos, Reynaldo Caldona, Aurelio Sidro Jr. [y] Garbo, Richard Semblante [y] Oyao, Benjie Jacosalem [y] Rabor, Romeo Rayga [y] Barco and Freeman Bagares [y] Roberto GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Frustrated Murder. Consequently, they are further ordered to suffer the penalty of fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months to twenty (20) years of reclusiontemporal.
The sentence[s] shall be served successively.
The period during which the accused were in preventive imprisonment shall be credited in their favor. 3
Accused-appellants filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07614. The appellate court rendered its Decision 4 on October 13, 2016, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 26 September 2013 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 171 of Valenzuela City is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. In Criminal Case No. 888-V-05, accused-appellants shall suffer the penalty of reclusionperpetua without eligibility for parole and shall pay P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages to the victim's heirs. In Criminal Case No. 889-V-05, accused-appellants shall suffer an indeterminate sentence of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prisionmayor, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusiontemporal, as maximum, and pay P40,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as temperate damages and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages to the victim's heirs. 5
Disheartened by the foregoing judgment, accused-appellants filed a Notice of Appeal which was given due course by the appellate court in a Resolution 6 dated November 10, 2016.
While the accused-appellants' appeal is still pending before the Court, it received a letter dated December 21, 2018 from Chief Superintendent Gerardo F. Padilla of the Bureau of Corrections, New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, confirming the confinement thereat of accused-appellant Magat but, at the same time, informing the Court that said accused-appellant died on May 26, 2016 due to acute coronary syndrome, as evidenced by the attached certified true photocopy of his death certificate.
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, 7 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.
Accused-appellant Magat 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. 8 Accordingly, the criminal case against accused-appellant Magat is dismissed.
WHEREFORE, only insofar as accused-appellant Aldrin Magat y Rinos is concerned, the Court resolves to SETASIDE the Decision dated October 13, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07614 and to DISMISS Criminal Case Nos. 888-V-05 and 889-V-05 that were filed before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 171 of Valenzuela City, in view of his demise.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Also spelled as Jecusalem, Jacosalem, and Jacusalem in some parts of the records.
2. CA rollo, pp. 77-121; penned by Presiding Judge Maria Nena J. Santos.
3.Id. at 120-121.
4.Rollo, pp. 2-17; penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez with Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Leoncia R. Dimagiba concurring.
5.Id. at 16-17.
6. CA rollo, p. 172.
7. 306 Phil. 266, 282-284 (1994).
8.People v. Antido, G.R. No. 208651, March 14, 2018.