Relox v. People

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 195694. June 11, 2014.]

MERCEDITA A. RELOX, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND CELESIA T. HIDALGO, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 11, 2014, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 195694 (Mercedita A. Relox v. People of the Philippines and Celesia T. Hidalgo). — This resolves the Motion for Clarification 1 filed by the counsel for the deceased petitioner-accused, Mercedita A. Relox (Relox), praying for the recall of the Court's Entry of Judgment in this case as well as for the dismissal of the criminal charge against her by reason of her death.

Record shows that an information, 2 dated May 18, 2008, was filed against Relox before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro (MTCC), charging her with the crime of Grave Oral Defamation, docketed as Criminal Case No. 14553. On April 21, 2009, after trial, the MTCC rendered its decision, 3 finding Relox guilty as charged and meted upon her the indeterminate penalty of four (4) months of arresto mayor medium, as minimum, to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional, as maximum. Further, Relox was ordered to indemnify Hidalgo of moral damages in the amount of P10,000.00.

On appeal, the Regional Trial Court of Calapan City, Branch 39, Oriental Mindoro (RTC) modified the April 21, 2009 MTCC judgment and ruled that Relox was guilty only Slight Oral Defamation. The fallo of its October 23, 2009 Decision 4 reads:

ACCORDINGLY, in view of the foregoing, the Decision of the court a qou dated April 21, 2009 is hereby MODIFIED to read as follows:

1. Accused-appellant MERCEDITA A. RELOX is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of SLIGHT OR SIMPLE ORAL DEFAMATION only, and hereby sentences her to PAY a FINE of P200.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs;

2. The award of moral damages is hereby DELETED.

SO ORDERED. 5

Not satisfied, Relox elevated the October 23, 2009 RTC decision before the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for review under Rule 42 and she raised the sole issue of whether or not the RTC erred in convicting her of the crime of slight oral defamation.

On September 29, 2010, the CA promulgated its decision 6 in CA-G.R. CR. No. 32950, upholding the RTC ruling that the defamatory remarks hurled by Relox against Hidalgo merely constituted slight oral defamation. The CA likewise found the RTC correct in imposing the penalty of a fine in the amount of P200.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The CA adjudged as follows:

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and consequently DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED. 7

Insisting on her innocence of the crime charged, Relox appealed 8 to this Court and essentially questioned the sufficiency of prosecution evidence to warrant her conviction of slight oral defamation. HEcTAI

On April 17, 2013, the Court issued a resolution 9 affirming the judgment of conviction against Relox. The Court ruled that the prosecution evidence established beyond reasonable doubt petitioner's guilt of the crime of slight oral defamation.

On May 17, 2013, Relox' counsel filed a manifestation 10 advising the Court of petitioner's demise on April 27, 2013 due to injuries sustained in vehicular accident. Said counsel moved for the dismissal of the criminal charge against Relox on account of her death during the pendency of the appeal on her conviction. The certified copy of petitioner's death certificate 11 reveals that the immediate cause of her death was brain herniation, with multiple intracranial hemorrhages, as the antecedent cause.

In a minute Resolution, 12 dated July 8, 2013, the Court noted the May 17, 2013 manifestation and required the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to comment thereon.

In its Comment, 13 filed on September 11, 2013, the OSG submitted the position that considering that the death of Relox occurred prior to the finality of this Court's April 17, 2013 resolution, the dismissal of the case against her is in order.

In a minute resolution, 14 dated December 11, 2013, the Court resolved to NOTE WITHOUT ACTION the counsel for petitioner's May 17, 2013 manifestation. Thereafter, an Entry of Judgment 15 was issued in G.R. No. 195684 stating that the April 17, 2013 resolution had become final and executory on May 31, 2013.

In the present motion, counsel for the petitioner argues that Relox' death terminated the criminal case against her and extinguished her criminal liability. Her counsel argues that the Court's April 17, 2013 resolution has never attained finality in view of her supervening death.

The motion is impressed with merit.

Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code 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 therefore is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment; . . . .

In People v. Bayotas, 16 the Court wrote:

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."

The law is plain. Statutory construction is unnecessary. Verba legis non est recedendum, or from the words of a statute there should be no departure. 17 When the death of the offender supervenes before final judgment, his criminal liability is extinguished; his civil liability solely anchored on the criminal responsibility (civil liability ex delicto) is likewise extinguished. The death of the accused extinguished his criminal liability including fine. 18 The term final judgment employed in the Revised Penal Code means judgment beyond recall and as long as a judgment has not become executory, it cannot be truthfully said that accused is definitely guilty of the felony charged against him. 19 It bears stressing that the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction terminates the criminal action inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused. 20EIAHcC

Undeniably, the death of Relox in the case at bench preceded the finality of this Court's April 17, 2013 Resolution. It appears that counsel for petitioner-accused received a copy of the aforesaid resolution on May 15, 2013 and, hence, it should have become final and executory on May 31, 2013, if no motion for reconsideration was filed in the interim. Viewed in light of Relox' death on April 27, 2013, the April 17, 2013 resolution, though affirming her conviction of slight oral defamation, has been rendered irrelevant and ineffectual. Her criminal culpability including the fine of P200.00, is extinguished upon her death. Considering that the assailed resolution has not yet become final, the Court still has jurisdiction to set the same aside.

WHEREFORE, the COURT RESOLVES to:

1. SET ASIDE its April 17, 2013 Resolution and DISMISS Criminal Case No. 14553 before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro by reason of Relox' death on April 27, 2013; and

2. RECALL the Entry of Judgment issued in this case. (Villarama, Jr., J., designated Acting Member in view of the vacancy in the Third Division, per Special Order No. 1691, dated May 22, 2014)

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 355-357.

2. Id. at 18.

3. Penned by Judge Manolo A. Brotonel; id. at 89-100.

4. Penned by Judge Manuel C. Luna, Jr.; id. at 81-88.

5. Id. at 88.

6. Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso, with Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta and Associate Justice Michael P. Elbinias, concurring; id. at 43-58.

7. Id. at 57.

8. Id. at 10-39.

9. Id. at 320-325.

10. Id. at 326-328.

11. Id. at 330.

12. Id. at 332.

13. Id. at 338-341.

14. Id. at 346.

15. Id. at 347.

16. G.R. No. 102007, September 2, 1994, 236 SCRA 239, 255.

17. Funa v. The Chairman, Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 192791, April 24, 2012, 670 SCRA 579.

18. People v. Bayotas, supra note 16, at 245.

19. People v. Castillo and Ocfemia, No. 22211-R, November 4, 1959, 56 O.G. No. 23, p. 4045.

20. People v. Amistoso, G.R. No. 201447, August 28, 2013, 704 SCRA 369.