GR 197252 2021 Sources of Obligation

l.
\epublic of tbe Jlbtlfppine£{

$>Uprem.e <!I:ourt
;ffianila
SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 197252

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:
- versus -
PERLAS-BERNABE, S.A.J.,
NESTOR DE ATRAS y ELLA, et al., Chairperson,
Accused; WENLITO DEPILLO y CAGUIOA,
CARANDANG,
BIORCO @ "WEWEN" and
LAZARO-JAVIER, and
LOLITO DEPILLO y DEHUIDO @
"LITO" GAERLAN, JJ.
' Accused-Appellants.
Promulgated:
JUN 23 2021 ~ ~
x------------------------ ---------------------------------------~..,(,{, ----x
,J
RESOLUTION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
In a Resolution 1 dated June 15, 2016, the Court affirmed with

modification the Decision 2 dated October 28, 2010 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in C.A.-G.R. CEB C.R. H.C. No. 00889 finding accused-appellants
Wenlito Depillo y Biorco@ "Wewen" (Wenlito) and Lolito Depillo y Dehijido
@ "Lito" (Lolito; collectively, accused-appellants) guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Murder, as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code, the dispositive portion of the said Resolution reads:
1
Rollo, pp. 64-70. Signed by then Division Clerk of Court (now retired En Banc Clerk of Court) Edgar 0.
Aricheta.
Id. at 3-13. Penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon with Executive Justice Portia A. Hormachuelos
and Associate Justice Socorro B. Inting, concurring.
✓
Resolution -2- G.R. No. 197252
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRJ.\'IS the decision promulgated on

October 28, 2010 subject to the MODIFICATIONS that accused-appellants
WENLITO DEPILLO y BIORCO @ WEWEN and LOLITO DEPILLO y
DEHIJIDO @ LITO shall pay to the Heirs of Anatolio Calumba, Jr. the amounts
of !"75,000.00 as civil indemnity, 1'75,000.00 as moral damages, !"75,000.00 as
exemplary damages, and ?50,000.00 as temperate damages, with interest of 6%
per annum on each item of the civil liability reckoned from the date of finality of
this Resolution until fully paid; and ORDERS them to further pay the costs of
suit.
SO ORDERED. 3
However, it appears that Lolito died on March 16, 2015, as evidenced by a

Letter4 dated August 24, 2016 from the Bureau of Corrections and the Certificate
of Death5 attached thereto. Notably, this means that Lolito had passed away during
the pendency of the criminal case against him, since the same was resolved by the
Court only through the aforesaid Resolution dated June 15, 2016, which attained
finality on February 27, 2017, but only insofar as Wenlito is concerned. 6
Under prevailing law and jurisprudence, Lolita's death prior to his final
conviction by the Court should have resulted in the dismissal of the criminal case
against him. Article 89 (1) of the Revised Penal Code provides that criminal
liability is totally extinguished by the death of the accused, 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.
Likewise, the civil action instituted for the recovery of the civil liability ex
delicto is also ipso facto extinguished, as it is grounded on the criminal action.
The rationale behind this rule is that upon an accused-appellant's death pending
appeal of his conviction, the criminal action is deemed extinguished inasmuch
as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused. 7
Nonetheless, the Court clarified in People v. Santiago 8 that in such an

instance, the accused's civil liability in connection with his acts against the
victim may be based on sources other than delicts; in which case, the victim
may file a separate civil action against the accused's estate, as may be
warranted by law and procedural rules, viz.:
Id. at 69.
4 Id. at 61. Signed by P/Supt. I Roberto R. Rabo and received by the Court on August 31, 2016.
Id. at 62-63. Signed by Medical Officer Ill Bencvito A. Fontanilla, M.D.
6 See Entry of Judgment; id. at 86-87. Signed by Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Judicial Records Officer
Basilia T. Ringo!.
7 See People v. Santiago, G.R. No. 2288 I 9, Jilly 24, 2019, citing People v. Cu/as, 8 IO Phil. 205, 209 (2017).
Id.
From this lengthy disquisition, we summarize our ruling herein:
?'.
_ . l_- Death the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes
his cnmmal hab1hty[,J as well as the civil liability[,] based solely thereon. As
opine_d by Justice Regalado, in this regard, "the death of the accused prior to
final Judg~e_nt terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability
d1rectly ansmg 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) XX 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 I, Rule 11 l 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
starute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the
pendency of the criminal case, conformably with provisions of Article
I 155 of the Civil Code. that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a
possible privation of right by prescription. 9
Therefore, had the Court been timely made aware of Lolito's

supervening death in the interim, his conviction would not have been affirmed
as his criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto in connection therewith had
already been extinguished. Given the foregoing, while the Court acknowledges
that the Resolution dated June 15, 2016 affirming Lolito's criminal and civil
liabilities had already attained finality, and hence, covered by the doctrine on
immutability of judgments, the Court deems it apt to rectify the situation by
modifying the said Resolution. In People v. Layag, 10 the Court explained that it
has the power to relax the doctrine of immutability of judgment if, inter alia,
there exists special or compelling circumstances therefor, as in this case, when
Id.
10
797 Phil. 386 (2016).
the Court was belatedly informed of Lolita's supervening death pending his
appeal:
Under the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of

judgment, a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and
unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even
if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law,
and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest
Court of the land. Any act which violates this principle must immediately be
struck down, Nonetheless, the immutability of final judgments is not a
hard and fast rule as the Court has the power and prerogative to relax
the same in order to serve the demands of substantial justice considering:
(a) matters of life, liberty, honor, or property; (b) the existence of special or
compelling circnmstances; (c) the merits of the case; (d) a cause not entirely
attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of
the rules; (e) the lack of any showing that the review sought is merely
frivolous and dilatory; and (j) that the other party will not be unjustly
prejudiced thereby. 11 (Emphases and underscoring in the original)
Finding the aforesaid exception to be applicable, the Court therefore sets

aside its Resolution dated June 15, 2016 and consequently, dismisses Criminal
Case No. 03-63-A before the Regional Trial Court of Bais City, Negros
Oriental, Branch 45 as against Lolita by reason of his supervening death prior
to his final conviction.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to: (a) SET ASIDE the Court's
Resolution dated June 15, 2016 insofar as accused-appellant Lolita Depillo y
Dehijido @ "Lito" is concerned; (b) DISMISS Criminal Case No. 03-63-A
before the Regional Trial Court of Bais City, Negros Oriental, Branch 45 only
as against accused-appellant Lolita Depillo y Dehijido @ "Lito" by reason of
his supervening death prior to his final conviction; and (c) DECLARE this case
CLOSED and TERMINATED as to him. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
ESTELA Mffl.~ERNABE
Senior Associate Justice
11
Id. at 389.
Resolution - 5- G.R. No. 197252
WE CONCUR:
S. CAGUIOA
t1A _
AMY O L~O-JAVIER
Associate Justice
S~UE~
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
ESTELA M. ~ R N A B E
Senior Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division
Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court's Division.
/~MUNDO
· ~/'chief Justice

GR 197252 2021 Sources of Obligation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GR 197252 2021 Sources of Obligation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

l.

\epublic of tbe Jlbtlfppine£{

SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 197252

In a Resolution 1 dated June 15, 2016, the Court affirmed with

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRJ.\'IS the decision promulgated on

However, it appears that Lolito died on March 16, 2015, as evidenced by a

Article 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. -- Criminal

1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to

Nonetheless, the Court clarified in People v. Santiago 8 that in such an

From this lengthy disquisition, we summarize our ruling herein:

2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the

3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above,

Therefore, had the Court been timely made aware of Lolito's

Under the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of

Finding the aforesaid exception to be applicable, the Court therefore sets

You might also like