people vs bayotas full text

8/11/2019 People vs Bayotas Full Text

1/23

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 102007 September 2, 1994

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.ROGELIO !"OT!S # COR$O%!, accused-appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Public Attorney's Office for accused-appellant.

ROMERO, J.:

In Criminal Case No. C-!"# filed before Branch "$, R%C Ro&as Cit',Ro(elio Ba'otas ' Cordova )as char(ed )ith Rape and eventuall'convicted thereof on *une "+, "++" in a decision penned b' *ud(e ManuelE. Autaa'. Pendin( appeal of his conviction, Ba'otas died on ebruar' ,"++! atthe National Bilibid /ospital due to cardio respirator' arrest secondar' tohepatic encephalopath' secondar' to hipato carcinoma (astric malin(erin(.Conse0uentl', the 1upreme Court in its Resolution of Ma' !2, "++!dismissed the criminal aspect of the appeal. /o)ever, it re0uired the1olicitor 3eneral to file its comment )ith re(ard to Ba'otas4 civil liabilit'arisin( from his commission of the offense char(ed.

In his comment, the 1olicitor 3eneral e&pressed his vie) that the death ofaccused-appellant did not e&tin(uish his civil liabilit' as a result of hiscommission of the offense char(ed. %he 1olicitor 3eneral, rel'in( on thecase of People v.Sendaydiego 1insists that the appeal should still beresolved for the purpose of revie)in( his conviction b' the lo)er court on)hich the civil liabilit' is based.


2/23

Counsel for the accused-appellant, on the other hand, opposed the vie) ofthe 1olicitor 3eneral ar(uin( that the death of the accused )hile ud(mentof conviction is pendin( appeal e&tin(uishes both his criminal and civilpenalties. In support of his position, said counsel invo5ed the rulin( of theCourt of Appeals in People v.Castillo and Ocfemia 2)hich held that thecivil obli(ation in a criminal case ta5es root in the criminal liabilit' and,therefore, civil liabilit' is e&tin(uished if accused should die before final

ud(ment is rendered.

6e are thus confronted )ith a sin(le issue7 8oes death of the accusedpendin( appeal of his conviction e&tin(uish his civil liabilit'9

In the aforementioned case of People v.Castillo, this issue )as settled inthe affirmative. %his same issue posed therein )as phrased thus7 8oes the

death of Alfredo Castillo affect both his criminal responsibilit' and his civilliabilit' as a conse0uence of the alle(ed crime9

It resolved this issue thru the follo)in( dis0uisition7

Article :+ of the Revised Penal Code is the controllin( statute. Itreads, in part7

Art. :+. o! criminal liability is totally e"tinguished.; Criminal liabilit' is totall' e&tin(uished7

". B' the death of the convict, as to the personalpenalties< and as to the pecuniar' penalties liabilit'therefor is e&tin(uished onl' )hen the death of theoffender occurs before final ud(mentr, is it a

ud(ment )hich is final and e&ecutor'9


3/23

6e (o to the (enesis of the la). %he le(al precept contained inArticle :+ of the Revised Penal Code heretofore transcribed islifted from Article "! of the 1panish El Codi(o Penal de ":#2)hich, in part, recites7

?a responsabilidad penal se e&tin(ue.

". Por la muerte del reo en cuanto a las penaspersonales siempre, ' respecto a las pecuniarias,solo cuando a su fallecimiento no hubiere recaidosentencia firme.

&&& &&& &&&

%he code of ":#2 . . . it )ill be observed emplo's the term=sentencia firme.= 6hat is =sentencia firme= under the oldstatute9

@@III Enciclopedia *uridica Espaola, p. #, furnishes theread' ans)er7 It sa's7

1EN%ENCIA IRME. ?a sentencia 0ue ad0uiere lafuera de las definitivas por no haberse utiliado porlas partes liti(antes recurso al(uno contra ella

dentro de los terminos ' plaos le(ales concedidosal efecto.

=1entencia firme= reall' should be understood as one )hich isdefinite. Because, it is onl' )hen ud(ment is such that, asMedina ' Maranon puts it, the crime is confirmed ; =encondena determinada


4/23

rancisco holds the same vie). rancisco, Revised PenalCode, Boo5 >ne, !nd ed., pp. :F+-:$2G

%he le(al import of the term =final ud(ment= is similarl'reflected in the Revised Penal Code. Articles #! and #: of thatle(al bod' mention the term =final ud(ment= in the sense that itis alread' enforceable. %his also brin(s to mind 1ection #, Rule""$ of the Rules of Court )hich states that a ud(ment in acriminal case becomes final =after the lapse of the period forperfectin( an appeal or )hen the sentence has been partiall' ortotall' satisfied or served, or the defendant has e&pressl')aived in )ritin( his ri(ht to appeal.=

B' fair intendment, the le(al precepts and opinions here

collected funnel do)n to one positive conclusion7 %he term finalud(ment emplo'ed in the Revised Penal Code meansud(ment be'ond recall. Reall', as lon( as a ud(ment has notbecome e&ecutor', it cannot be truthfull' said that defendant isdefinitel' (uilt' of the felon' char(ed a(ainst him.

Not that the meanin( thus (iven to final ud(ment is )ithoutreason. or )here, as in this case, the ri(ht to institute aseparate civil action is not reserved, the decision to berendered must, of necessit', cover =both the criminal and the

civil aspects of the case.= People vs.#usicoNovember +,"+!G, ! >.3., No. "22, p. +$. 1ee also7 People vs.$oll, $:Phil., $!$, $< %rancisco, Criminal Procedure, "+F: ed., ol. I,pp. !, !$. Correctl', *ud(e Dapunan observed that as =thecivil action is based solel' on the felon' committed and of )hichthe offender mi(ht be found (uilt', the death of the offendere&tin(uishes the civil liabilit'.= I Dapunan, Revised Penal Code,

Annotated, supra.

/ere is the situation obtainin( in the present case7 Castillo4scriminal liabilit' is out. /is civil liabilit' is sou(ht to be enforcedb' reason of that criminal liabilit'. But then, if )e dismiss, as )emust, the criminal action and let the civil aspect remain, )e )illbe faced )ith the anomalous situation )hereb' )e )ill becalled upon to clamp civil liabilit' in a case )here the sourcethereof ; criminal liabilit' ; does not e&ist. And, as )as )ell


5/23

stated in &autista et al.vs.(strella et al., CA-3.R.No. "+!!$-R, 1eptember ", "+F:, =no part' can be found andheld criminall' liable in a civil suit,= )hich solel' )ould remain if)e are to divorce it from the criminal proceedin(.=

%his rulin( of the Court of Appeals in the Castillo case &)as adopted b' the1upreme Court in the cases of People of the Philippines v. &onifacio

Alison et al., 4People of the Philippines v. )aime )ose et al. 'and Peopleof the Philippines v. Satorre (b' dismissin( the appeal in vie) of the deathof the accused pendin( appeal of said cases.

As held b' then 1upreme Court *ustice ernando in theAlisoncase7

%he death of accused-appellant Bonifacio Alison havin( been

established, and considerin( that there is as 'et no finalud(ment in vie) of the pendenc' of the appeal, the criminaland civil liabilit' of the said accused-appellant Alison )ase&tin(uished b' his death Art. :+, Revised Penal Code< Re'es4Criminal ?a), "+#" Rev. Ed., p. #"#, citin( People v. Castilloand >femia C.A., F$ >.3. 2FG< conse0uentl', the casea(ainst him should be dismissed.

>n the other hand, this Court in the subse0uent cases of &uenaventura&elamala v. $arcelino Polinar 7and *amberto Torri+os v. The onorable

Court of Appeals )ruled differentl'. In the former, the issue decided b' thiscourt )as7 6hether the civil liabilit' of one accused of ph'sical inuries )hodied before final ud(ment is e&tin(uished b' his demise to the e&tent ofbarrin( an' claim therefore a(ainst his estate. It )as the contention of theadministrator-appellant therein that the death of the accused prior to final

ud(ment e&tin(uished all criminal and civil liabilities resultin( from theoffense, in vie) of Article :+, para(raph " of the Revised Penal Code./o)ever, this court ruled therein7

6e see no merit in the plea that the civil liabilit' has beene&tin(uished, in vie) of the provisions of the Civil Code of thePhilippines of "+F2 Rep. Act No. :$G that became operativeei(hteen 'ears after the revised Penal Code. As pointed out b'the Court belo), Article of the Civil Code establishes a civilaction for dama(es on account of ph'sical inuries, entirel'separate and distinct from the criminal action.


6/23


7/23

%hus it allo)ed the appeal to proceed )ith respect to the civil liabilit' of theaccused, not)ithstandin( the e&tinction of his criminal liabilit' due to hisdeath pendin( appeal of his conviction.

%o further ustif' its decision to allo) the civil liabilit' to survive, the courtrelied on the follo)in( ratiocination7 1ince 1ection !", Rule of the Rulesof Court 9re0uires the dismissal of all mone' claims a(ainst the defendant)hose death occurred prior to the final ud(ment of the Court of irstInstance CIG, then it can be inferred that actions for recover' of mone'ma' continue to be heard on appeal, )hen the death of the defendantsupervenes after the CI had rendered its ud(ment. In such case,e&plained this tribunal, =the name of the offended part' shall be included inthe title of the case as plaintiff-appellee and the le(al representative or theheirs of the deceased-accused should be substituted as defendants-

appellants.=

It is, thus, evident that as urisprudence evolved from Castillo to %orrios,the rule established )as that the survival of the civil liabilit' depends on)hether the same can be predicated on sources of obli(ations other thandelict. 1tated differentl', the claim for civil liabilit' is also e&tin(uishedto(ether )ith the criminal action if it )ere solel' based thereon, i.e., civilliabilit' e" delicto.

/o)ever, the 1upreme Court in People v. Sendaydiego et al. 10departed

from this lon(-established principle of la). In this case, accused1enda'die(o )as char(ed )ith and convicted b' the lo)er court ofmalversation thru falsification of public documents. 1enda'die(o4s deathsupervened durin( the pendenc' of the appeal of his conviction.

%his court in an unprecedented move resolved to dismiss 1enda'die(o4sappeal but onl' to the e&tent of his criminal liabilit'. /is civil liabilit' )asallo)ed to survive althou(h it )as clear that such claim thereon )ase&clusivel' dependent on the criminal action alread' e&tin(uished. %hele(al import of such decision )as for the court to continue e&ercisin(appellate urisdiction over the entire appeal, passin( upon the correctnessof 1enda'die(o4s conviction despite dismissal of the criminal action, for thepurpose of determinin( if he is civill' liable. In doin( so, this Court issued aResolution of *ul' :, "+## statin( thus7


8/23

%he claim of complainant Province of Pan(asinan for the civilliabilit' survived 1enda'die(o because his death occurred afterfinal ud(ment )as rendered b' the Court of irst Instance ofPan(asinan, )hich convicted him of three comple& crimes ofmalversation throu(h falsification and ordered him to indemnif'the Province in the total sum of P$",2:.! should bePF#,2:.!G.

%he civil action for the civil liabilit' is deemed impliedl'instituted )ith the criminal action in the absence of e&press)aiver or its reservation in a separate action 1ec. ", Rule """of the Rules of CourtG. %he civil action for the civil liabilit' isseparate and distinct from the criminal action People andManuel vs. Coloma, "2F Phil. "!:#< Roa vs. 8e la Cru, "2#

Phil. :G.

6hen the action is for the recover' of mone' and the defendantdies before final ud(ment in the Court of irst Instance, it shallbe dismissed to be prosecuted in the manner especiall'provided in Rule :# of the Rules of Court 1ec. !", Rule ofthe Rules of CourtG.

%he implication is that, if the defendant dies after a mone'ud(ment had been rendered a(ainst him b' the Court of irst

Instance, the action survives him. It ma' be continued onappeal %orrios vs. Court of Appeals, ?-2$, >ctober !,"+#F< $# 1CRA +G.

%he accountable public officer ma' still be civill' liable for thefunds improperl' disbursed althou(h he has no criminal liabilit'H.1. vs. Elvina, ! Phil. !2< Philippine National Ban5 vs.%u(ab, $$ Phil. F:G.

In vie) of the fore(oin(, not)ithstandin( the dismissal of theappeal of the deceased 1enda'die(o insofar as his criminalliabilit' is concerned, the Court Resolved to continue e&ercisin(appellate urisdiction over his possible civil liabilit' for themone' claims of the Province of Pan(asinan arisin( from thealle(ed criminal acts complained of, as if no criminal case hadbeen instituted a(ainst him, thus ma5in( applicable, in


9/23

determinin( his civil liabilit', Article 2 of the Civil Code . . . and,for that purpose, his counsel is directed to inform this Court)ithin ten "2G da's of the names and addresses of thedecedent4s heirs or )hether or not his estate is underadministration and has a dul' appointed udicial administrator.1aid heirs or administrator )ill be substituted for the deceasedinsofar as the civil action for the civil liabilit' is concerned 1ecs."$ and "#, Rule , Rules of CourtG.

1ucceedin( cases 11raisin( the identical issue have maintained adherenceto our rulin( in Sendaydiego< in other )ords, the' )ere a reaffirmance ofour abandonment of the settled rule that a civil liabilit' solel' anchored onthe criminal civil liabilit' e" delictoG is e&tin(uished upon dismissal of theentire appeal due to the demise of the accused.

But )as it udicious to have abandoned this old rulin(9 A re-e&amination ofour decision in Sendaydiego impels us to revert to the old rulin(.

%o restate our resolution of *ul' :, "+## in Sendaydiego7 %he resolution ofthe civil action impliedl' instituted in the criminal action can proceedirrespective of the latter4s e&tinction due to death of the accused pendin(appeal of his conviction, pursuant to Article 2 of the Civil Code and1ection !", Rule of the Revised Rules of Court.

Article 2 of the Civil Code provides7

6hen a separate civil action is brou(ht to demand civil liabilit'arisin( from a criminal offense, and no criminal proceedin(s areinstituted durin( the pendenc' of the civil case, apreponderance of evidence shall li5e)ise be sufficient to provethe act complained of.

Clearl', the te&t of Article 2 could not possibl' lend support to the rulin( inSendaydiego. No)here in its te&t is there a (rant of authorit' to continue

e&ercisin( appellate urisdiction over the accused4s civil liabilit' e" delicto)hen his death supervenes durin( appeal. 6hat Article 2 reco(nies is analternative and separate civil action )hich ma' be brou(ht to demand civilliabilit' arisin( from a criminal offense independentl' of an' criminal action.In the event that no criminal proceedin(s are instituted durin( the pendenc'of said civil case, the 0uantum of evidence needed to prove the criminal act)ill have to be that )hich is compatible )ith civil liabilit' and that is,


10/23


11/23

e&tin(uished b' the demise of accused-appellant pendin( appeal thereof,said civil action cannot survive. %he claim for civil liabilit' sprin(s out of andis dependent upon facts )hich, if true, )ould constitute a crime. 1uch civilliabilit' is an inevitable conse0uence of the criminal liabilit' and is to bedeclared and enforced in the criminal proceedin(. %his is to bedistin(uished from that )hich is contemplated under Article 2 of the CivilCode )hich refers to the institution of a separate civil action that does notdra) its life from a criminal proceedin(. %he 1enda'die(o resolution of *ul':, "+##, ho)ever, failed to ta5e note of this fundamental distinction )hen itallo)ed the survival of the civil action for the recover' of civil liabilit' e"delicto b' treatin( the same as a separate civil action referred to under

Article 2. 1urel', it )ill ta5e more than ust a summar' udicialpronouncement to authorie the conversion of said civil action to anindependent one such as that contemplated under Article 2.

Ironicall' ho)ever, the main decision in 1enda'die(o did not appl' Article2, the resolution of *ul' :, "+## not)ithstandin(. %hus, it )as held in themain decision7

1enda'die(o4s appeal )ill be resolved onl' for the purpose ofsho)in( his criminal liabilit' )hich is the basis of the civilliabilit' for )hich his estate )ould be liable. 1&

In other )ords, the Court, in resolvin( the issue of his civil liabilit',

concomitantl' made a determination on )hether 1enda'die(o, on the basisof evidenced adduced, )as indeed (uilt' be'ond reasonable doubt ofcommittin( the offense char(ed. %hus, it upheld 1enda'die(o4s convictionand pronounced the same as the sourceof his civil liabilit'. Conse0uentl',althou(h Article 2 )as not applied in the final determination of1enda'die(o4s civil liabilit', there )as a reopenin( of the criminal actionalread' e&tin(uished )hich served as basis for 1enda'die(o4s civil liabilit'.6e reiterate7 Hpon death of the accused pendin( appeal of his conviction,the criminal action is e&tin(uished inasmuch as there is no lon(er a

defendant to stand as the accused< the civil action instituted therein forrecover' of civil liabilit' e" delicto is ipso facto e&tin(uished, (rounded as itis on the criminal.

1ection !", Rule of the Rules of Court )as also invo5ed to serve asanother basis for the Sendaydiego resolution of *ul' :, "+##. In citin( 1ec.!", Rule of the Rules of Court, the Court made the inference that civil


12/23

actions of the t'pe involved in Sendaydiegoconsist of mone' claims, therecover' of )hich ma' be continued on appeal if defendant dies pendin(appeal of his conviction b' holdin( his estate liable therefor. /ence, theCourt4s conclusion7

=6hen the action is for the recover' of mone'= =and thedefendant dies before final ud(ment in the court of irstInstance, it shall be dismissed to be prosecuted in the mannerespeciall' provided= in Rule :# of the Rules of Court 1ec. !",Rule of the Rules of CourtG.

%he implication is that, if the defendant dies after a mone'ud(ment had been rendered a(ainst him b' the Court of irstInstance, the action survives him. It ma' be continued on

appeal.

1adl', reliance on this provision of la) is misplaced. rom the standpoint ofprocedural la), this course ta5en in Sendaydiego cannot be sanctioned. Ascorrectl' observed b' *ustice Re(alado7

&&& &&& &&&

I do not, ho)ever, a(ree )ith the ustification advanced in bothTorri+os and Sendaydiego )hich, rel'in( on the provisions of

1ection !", Rule of the Rules of Court, dre) the strainedimplication therefrom that )here the civil liabilit' institutedto(ether )ith the criminal liabilities had alread' passed be'ondthe ud(ment of the then Court of irst Instance no) theRe(ional %rial CourtG, the Court of Appeals can continue toe&ercise appellate urisdiction thereover despite thee&tin(uishment of the component criminal liabilit' of thedeceased. %his pronouncement, )hich has been follo)ed in theCourt4s ud(ments subse0uent and consonant to Torri+os andSendaydiego, should be set aside and abandoned as bein(clearl' erroneous and unustifiable.

1aid 1ection !" of Rule is a rule of civil procedure in ordinar'civil actions. %here is neither authorit' nor ustification for itsapplication in criminal procedure to civil actions institutedto(ether )ith and as part of criminal actions. Nor is there an'authorit' in la) for the summar' conversion from the latter


13/23

cate(or' of an ordinar' civil action upon the death of theoffender. . . .

Moreover, the civil action impliedl' instituted in a criminal proceedin( forrecover' of civil liabilit' e" delicto can hardl' be cate(oried as an ordinar'mone' claim such as that referred to in 1ec. !", Rule enforceable beforethe estate of the deceased accused.

>rdinar' mone' claims referred to in 1ection !", Rule must be vie)ed inli(ht of the provisions of 1ection F, Rule :$ involvin( claims a(ainst theestate, )hich in Sendaydiego )as held liable for 1enda'die(o4s civilliabilit'. =6hat are contemplated in 1ection !" of Rule , in relation to1ection F of Rule :$, 14are contractual mone' claims )hile the claimsinvolved in civil liabilit' e" delicto ma' include even the restitution of

personal or real propert'.=1'

1ection F, Rule :$ provides an e&clusiveenumeration of )hat claims ma' be filed a(ainst the estate. %hese are7funeral e&penses, e&penses for the last illness, ud(ments for mone' andclaim arisin( from contracts, e&pressed or implied. It is clear that mone'claims arisin( from delict do not form part of this e&clusive enumeration./ence, there could be no le(al basis in "G treatin( a civil action e" delictoas an ordinar' contractual mone' claim referred to in 1ection !", Rule ofthe Rules of Court and !G allo)in( it to survive b' filin( a claim thereforbefore the estate of the deceased accused. Rather, it should bee&tin(uished upon e&tinction of the criminal action en(endered b' the

death of the accused pendin( finalit' of his conviction.

Accordin(l', )e rule7 if the private offended part', upon e&tinction of thecivil liabilit' e" delictodesires to recover dama(es from the same act oromission complained of he must subect to 1ection ", Rule """ 1("+:FRules on Criminal Procedure as amendedG file a separate civil action, thistime predicated not on the felon' previousl' char(ed but on other sourcesof obli(ation. %he source of obli(ation upon )hich the separate civil actionis premised determines a(ainst )hom the same shall be enforced.

If the same act or omission complained of also arises from ,uasi-delict orma', b' provision of la), result in an inur' to person or propert' real orpersonalG, the separate civil action must be filed a(ainst the e&ecutor oradministrator 17of the estate of the accused pursuant to 1ec. ", Rule :# ofthe Rules of Court7


14/23

1ec. ".Actions !hich may and !hich may not be broughtagainst e"ecutor or administrator. ; No action upon a claim forthe recover' of mone' or debt or interest thereon shall becommenced a(ainst the e&ecutor or administrator< but actionsto recover real or personal propert', or an interest therein, fromthe estate, or to enforce a lien thereon, and actions to recoverdamages for an in+ury to person or property real or personalma' be commenced a(ainst him.

%his is in consonance )ith our rulin( in Belamala 1))here )e held that, inrecoverin( dama(es for inur' to persons thru an independent civil actionbased on Article of the Civil Code, the same must be filed a(ainst thee&ecutor or administrator of the estate of deceased accused and nota(ainst the estate under 1ec. F, Rule :$ because this rule e&plicitl' limits

the claim to those for funeral e&penses, e&penses for the last sic5ness ofthe decedent, ud(ment for mone' and claims arisin( from contract,e&press or implied. Contractual mone' claims, )e stressed, refers onl' to

purely personal obligations other than those )hich have their source indelict or tort.

Conversel', if the same act or omission complained of also arises fromcontract, the separate civil action must be filed a(ainst the estate of theaccused, pursuant to 1ec. F, Rule :$ of the Rules of Court.

rom this len(th' dis0uisition, )e summarie our rulin( herein7

". 8eath of the accused pendin( appeal of his conviction e&tin(uishes hiscriminal liabilit' as )ell as the civil liabilit' based solel' thereon. As opinedb' *ustice Re(alado, in this re(ard, =the death of the accused prior to final

ud(ment terminates his criminal liabilit' and only the civil liabilit' directlyarisin( from and based solel' on the offense committed, i.e., civil liabilit' e"delicto in senso strictiore.=

!. Corollaril', the claim for civil liabilit' survives not)ithstandin( the deathof accused, if the same ma' also be predicated on a source of obli(ationother than delict. 19Article ""F# of the Civil Code enumerates these othersources of obli(ation from )hich the civil liabilit' ma' arise as a result ofthe same act or omission7

aG ?a)20


15/23

bG Contracts

cG uasi-contracts

dG . . .

eG uasi-delicts

. 6here the civil liabilit' survives, as e&plained in Number ! above, anaction for recover' therefor ma' be pursued but onl' b' )a' of filin( aseparate civil action and subect to 1ection ", Rule """ of the "+:F Ruleson Criminal Procedure as amended. %his separate civil action ma' beenforced either a(ainst the e&ecutorJadministrator or the estate of theaccused, dependin( on the source of obli(ation upon )hich the same isbased as e&plained above.

. inall', the private offended part' need not fear a forfeiture of his ri(ht tofile this separate civil action b' prescription, in cases )here durin( theprosecution of the criminal action and prior to its e&tinction, the private-offended part' instituted to(ether there)ith the civil action. In such case,the statute of limitations on the civil liabilit' is deemed interrupted durin(the pendenc' of the criminal case, conformabl' )ith provisions of Article""FF 21of the Civil Code, that should thereb' avoid an' apprehension on apossible privation of ri(ht b' prescription. 22

Appl'in( this set of rules to the case at bench, )e hold that the death ofappellant Ba'otas e&tin(uished his criminal liabilit' and the civil liabilit'based solel' on the act complained of, i.e., rape. Conse0uentl', the appealis hereb' dismissed )ithout 0ualification.

6/ERE>RE, the appeal of the late Ro(elio Ba'otas is 8I1MI11E8 )ithcosts de oficio.

1> >R8ERE8.

arvasa C.). %eliciano Padilla &idin egalado /avide )r.&ellosillo $elo 0uiason Puno 1itug 2apunan and $endo3a )).concur.

Cru3 ). is on leave.


16/23

*Foot+ote

" Nos. ?-!F!, ?-!F and ?-!F, :" 1CRA "!2.

! No. !!!""-R, November , "+F+, F$ >.3. No. !, p. 2F.

supra.

?-2$"!, April !#, "+#!, 1CRA F!.

F No. ?-!:+#, *une "#, "+#$, #" 1CRA !#.

$ No. ?-!$!:!, Au(ust !#, "+#$, #! 1CRA +.

# No. ?-!2+:, November ":, "+$#, !" 1CRA +#2.

: No. ?-2$, >ctober !, "+#F, $# 1CRA +.

+ 1ec. !". 4here claim does not survive. ; 6hen the action isfor recover' of mone', debt or interest thereon, and thedefendant dies before final ud(ment in the Court of irstInstance, it shall be dismissed to be prosecuted in the mannerespeciall' provided in these rules.

"2 Supra.

"" People v. Badeo, 3.R. No. #!++2, November !", "++", !21CRA "!!< Petralba v. 1andi(anba'an, 3.R. No. :"#, Au(ust"$, "++", !22 1CRA $< 8umlao v. Court of Appeals, No. ?-F"$!F, >ctober F, "+::, "$$ 1CRA !$+< Rufo MauricioConstruction v. Intermediate Appellate Court, No. ?-#FF#,November !#, "+:#, "FF 1CRA #"!< People v. 1alcedo, No. ?-:$!, *une !!, "+:#, "F" 1CRA !!2< People v. Pancho, No.?-!F2#, November , "+:$, "F 1CRA !< People v. Navoa,No. ?-$#+$$, 1eptember !:, "+:, "! 1CRA "2< People v.

Asibar,No. ?-#!FF, >ctober !, "+:!, ""# 1CRA :F$< People v. %irol,No. ?-2F:, *anuar' ", "+:", "2! 1CRA FF:< and People v.?lamoso, No. ?-!:$$, *ul' ", "+#+, +" 1CRA $.


17/23

"! *ustice Barredo in his concurrin( opinion observed that7

. . . this provision contemplates prosecution of the civil liabilit'arisin( from a criminal offense )ithout the need of an' criminalproceedin( to prove the commission of the crime as such, thatis )ithout havin( to prove the criminal liabilit' of the defendantso lon( as his act causin( dama(e or preudice to the offendedpart' is proven b' preponderance of evidence.

" Supra, p. ".

" 1ec. F. Claims !hich must be filed under the notice. 5f notfiled barred< e"ceptions. ; All claims for mone' a(ainst thedecedent, arisin( from contract, e&press or implied, )hether the

same be due, not due, or contin(ent, all claims for funerale&penses and e&penses for the last sic5ness of the decedent,and ud(ment for mone' a(ainst the decedent, must be filed)ithin the time limited in the notice< other)ise the' are barredforever, e&cept that the' ma' be set forth as counterclaims inan' action that the e&ecutor or administrator ma' brin( a(ainstthe claimants. 6here an e&ecutor or administrator commencesan action, or prosecutes an action alread' commenced b' thedeceased in his lifetime, the debtor ma' set forth b' ans)er theclaims he has a(ainst the decedent, instead of presentin( them

independentl' to the court as herein provided, and mutualclaims ma' be set off a(ainst each other in such action< and iffinal ud(ment is rendered in favor of the defendant, the amountso determined shall be considered the true balance a(ainst theestate, as thou(h the claim had been presented directl' beforethe court in the administration proceedin(s. Claims not 'et due,or contin(ent, ma' be approved at their present value.

"F As e&plained b' ). Re(alado in the deliberation of this case.

"$ 1ec. ". 5nstitute of criminal and civil actions. ; 6hen acriminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recover' ofcivil liabilit' is impliedl' instituted )ith the criminal action, unlessthe offended part' )aives the civil action, reserves his ri(ht toinstitute it separatel', or institutes the civil action prior to thecriminal action.


18/23

1uch civil action includes recover' of indemnit' under theRevised Penal Code, and dama(es under Article !, , and!"#$ of the Civil Code of the Philippines arisin( from the sameact or omission of the accused.

A )aiver of an' of the civil actions e&tin(uishes the others. %heinstitution of, or the reservation of the ri(ht to file, an' of saidcivil actions separatel' )aives the others.

%he reservation of the ri(ht to institute the separate civil actionsshall be made before the prosecution starts to present itsevidence and under circumstances affordin( the offended part'a reasonable opportunit' to ma5e such reservation.

In no case ma' the offended part' recover dama(es t)ice forthe same act or omission of the accused.

6hen the offended part' see5s to enforce civil liabilit' a(ainstthe accused b' )a' of moral, nominal, temperate or e&emplar'dama(es, the filin( fees for such civil action as provided inthese Rules shall constitute a first lien on the ud(ment e&ceptin an a)ard for actual dama(es.

In cases )herein the amount of dama(es, other than actual, is

alle(ed in the complaint or information, the correspondin( filin(fees shall be paid b' the offended part' upon the filin( thereofin court for trial.

"# *ustice Re(alado cited the Court4s rulin( in &elamalathatsince the dama(es sou(ht, as a result of the felon' committedamounts to inur' to person or propert', real or personal, thecivil liabilit' to be recovered must be claimed a(ainst thee&ecutorJadministrator and not a(ainst the estate.

": 5bid.

"+ *ustice itu( )ho holds a similar vie) stated7 =%he civilliabilit' ma' still be pursued in a separate civil action but it mustbe predicated on a source of obli(ation other than delict, e&cept)hen b' statutor' provision an independent civil action is


19/23

authoried such as, to e&emplif', in the instance enumerated inArticle of the Civil Code.= *ustice Re(alado stressed that7

Conversel', such civil liabilit' is not e&tin(uished and survivesthe deceased offender )here it also arises simultaneousl' fromor e&ists as a conse0uence or b' reason of a contract, as inTorri+os< or from la), as stated in Torri+os and in the concurrin(opinion in Sendaydiego, such as in reference to the Civil Code2. Corollarily, the clai for civil liability survives notwithstanding the deathof accused, ifthe sae ay also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict.,-+rticle0074 of the Civil Code enuerates these other sources of obligation frowhich the civilliability ay arise as a result of the sae act or oission/6a8 ?aw 6b8 Contracts c8 @uasi'contracts d8 . . . e8 @uasi'delicts1. Ahere the civil liability survives, as e&plained in Nuber 2 above, an

action forrecovery therefor ay be pursued but only by way of "ling a separate civilaction andsub)ect to Section 0, Rule 000 of the 0-7 Rules on Criinal Procedure asaended.(his separate civil action ay be enforced either against thee&ecutoradinistrator orthe estate of the accused, depending on the source of obligation upon whichthe sae isbased as e&plained above.. Dinally, the private o$ended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to

"le thisseparate civil action by prescription, in cases where during the prosecutionof thecriinal action and prior to its e&tinction, the private'o$ended partyinstituted togethertherewith the civil action. %n such case, the statute of liitations on the civilliability is


23/23

deeed interrupted during the pendency of the criinal case, conforablywithprovisions of +rticle 0077 /, of the Civil Code, that should thereby avoidanyapprehension on a possible privation of right by prescription. //

+pplying this set of rules to the case at bench, SC held that the death ofappellantBayotas e&tinguished his criinal liability and the civil liability based solelyon the actcoplained of, i.e., rape. Consequently, the appeal is hereby disissedwithoutquali"cation.

people vs bayotas full text

Documents