People v. XXX

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 242950. December 10, 2019.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. XXX, * accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 10, 2019which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 242950 — (People of the Philippines v. XXX)

On appeal before this Court is the Decision 1 dated July 31, 2018 of the Court of Appeals-Cagayan de Oro City (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 01716-MIN, which affirmed the Joint Decision 2 dated April 19, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kabacan, Cotabato, Branch 22, in Criminal Case Nos. 10-88 and 10-89, finding accused-appellant XXX guilty of two counts of Qualified Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (1), in relation to Article 266-B, paragraph (1), of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). HTcADC

The accusatory portions of the two Informations which charged XXX of raping his niece, AAA, on two separate occasions read as follows:

Criminal Case No. 10-88

That sometime in the year 2006, in the (place omitted) and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused being the maternal uncle of the victim, a relative by consanguinity within the third civil degree, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously succeeded (sic) in having carnal knowledge with [sic] (AAA), who is a minor, then 13 years old, against her will.

CONTRARY TO LAW.3

Criminal Case No. 10-89

That sometime in the month of June 2009, in the (place omitted), and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused being the maternal uncle of the victim, a relative by consanguinity within the third civil degree, by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously succeeded (sic) in having carnal knowledge with [sic] (AAA), who is a minor, 16 years old, against her will.

CONTRARY TO LAW.4

The dispositive portion of the said RTC Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court finds accused, [XXX], GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of QUALIFIED RAPE in Criminal Case Nos. 10-88 and 10-89, defined and penalized under Article 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA on TWO (2) COUNTS without eligibility for parole and orders him to pay victim AAA:

(1) [PhP]75,000.00 for each count or total of [PhP]150,000.00 as indemnity ex delicto;

(2) [PhP]75,000.00 for each count or total of [PhP]150,000.00 as moral damages; and

(3) [PhP]25,000.00 for each count or total of [PhP]50,000.00 as exemplary damages.

SO ORDERED. 5

On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision and upheld XXX's conviction for Qualified Rape in Criminal Case Nos. 10-88 and 10-89. XXX then sought recourse before this Court by filing a Notice of Appeal before the CA which was given due course in a Resolution 6 dated October 8, 2018.

In a Resolution 7 dated February 11, 2019, this Court required the simultaneous submission of supplemental briefs by the parties, if they so desire, within 30 days from notice, and required the Bureau of Corrections to confirm the confinement of XXX within 10 days from notice.

The Public Attorney's Office-Regional Special and Appealed Cases Unit (Mindanao Station), as counsel for XXX, filed a Manifestation in Lieu of Supplemental Brief 8 dated May 3, 2019, stating that XXX is no longer filing a supplemental brief believing that he has thoroughly discussed his arguments in his Appellant's Brief before the CA.

On the other hand, in compliance with the Resolution dated February 11, 2019, the Bureau of Corrections, through a Letter 9 dated March 30, 2019, confirmed that XXX was received for confinement on January 15, 2018, but died on October 12, 2018 per Certification 10 dated March 30, 2019 signed by CTSO II Ramoncito D. Roque, with attached photocopy of XXX's Certificate of Death. 11

Considering that XXX died during the pendency of his appeal before this Court, the Court resolves to dismiss the case against XXX as his death pending final disposition of his appeal extinguishes his criminal liability. Article 89, paragraph 1 of the RPC provides:

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[.]

Furthermore, the civil liability of XXX arising from his criminal liability (civil liability ex delicto) is also extinguished by his death pending appeal, as aptly held in 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 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. aScITE

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. 13 (Citations omitted)

With the death of XXX, his criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto are now extinguished. For the civil liability of XXX which may be based on sources other than delict, the victim, AAA, may file a separate civil action against the estate of XXX as may be warranted by law and procedural rules. 14

WHEREFORE, in view of the death of accused-appellant XXX pending appeal of his conviction, Criminal Case Nos. 10-88 and 10-89 are hereby DISMISSED, and the appealed CA Decision dated July 31, 2018 is hereby SET ASIDE. The instant case is declared CLOSED and TERMINATED.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

* The identities of the accused and the victim are replaced by fictitious initials in accordance with Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017.

1. Penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles, with Associate Justices Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas and Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon, concurring; rollo, pp. 3-15.

2. Penned by Presiding Judge Laureano T. Alzate; CA rollo, pp. 35-69.

3.Id. at 35-36.

4.Id. at 36.

5.Id. at 69.

6.Id. at 161.

7.Rollo, p. 22.

8.Id. at 32.

9.Id. at 24.

10.Id. at 25.

11.Id. at 29-30. Stated cause of death is "UNCAL HERNIATION SECONDARY TO ACUTE SUBDURAL HEMATOMA ON CHRONIC SUBDURAL HEMORRHAGE (L) TEMPOROPARIETAL SECONDARY TO BLUNT HEAD TRAUMA SECONDARY TO FALL."

12. 306 Phil. 266 (1994).

13.Id. at 282-284.

14.See People v. Egagamao, 792 Phil. 500, 508-509 (2016).