People of the Philippines vs. Jonathan Maylon y Alvero

The death of an accused pending appeal and before final conviction totally extinguishes his criminal liability under Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code and requires dismissal of the criminal case against him; a motion for reconsideration that merely rehashes grounds already evaluated and passed upon does not warrant reversal.

Jonathan Maylon y Alvero alias "Jun Puke" and Arnel Estrada y Glorian were accused-appellants in criminal cases for violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Their convictions had been affirmed by the Court of Appeals and, on March 11, 2019, by the Supreme Court. The present Resolution arose from their motion for reconsideration and from information that Estrada had died while the case was pending. Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code provides the statutory backdrop: criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict as to personal penalties, and as to pecuniary penalties when death occurs before final judgment.

Jonathan Maylon y Alvero alias "Jun Puke" and Arnel Estrada y Glorian were the accused-appellants in criminal cases for violations of Republic Act No. 9165. The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09141, found both Maylon and Estrada guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and found Maylon additionally guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of the same Act. The Supreme Court, in its March 11, 2019 Decision, affirmed the CA Decision, adopted its findings of fact and conclusions of law, and affirmed the convictions and sentences.

After the affirmance, Maylon and Estrada timely moved for reconsideration. While the motion was pending, the Office of the Overseer and the Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison sent separate letters dated June 28, 2019 informing the Court that Estrada had died on April 26, 2018. A Certificate of Death issued by the Office of the Civil Register General evidenced the death; the Office of the Overseer's letter erroneously stated that Estrada died on April 25, 2018.

The present Resolution resolved the pending incidents. It considered Estrada's supervening death as occurring prior to his final conviction, and it separately resolved Maylon's motion for reconsideration.

• Extinction of Criminal Liability by Death: Whether the supervening death of accused-appellant Arnel Estrada pending appeal and prior to final conviction requires setting aside his conviction and dismissing the criminal case against him.
• Civil Liability: Whether Estrada's death extinguishes the civil liability based solely on the offense, and whether any surviving civil liability may be pursued in a separate civil action.
• Motion for Reconsideration of Maylon: Whether accused-appellant Jonathan Maylon's motion for reconsideration raises cogent reasons to reverse the March 11, 2019 Decision.

• Extinction of Criminal Liability by Death: Yes. Under Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict, and death pending appeal before final conviction renders the criminal case dismissible.
• Civil Liability: Yes, as to civil liability based solely on the offense. Such civil liability is extinguished by death pending appeal; if it may be predicated on another source of obligation, it survives and may be pursued only by separate civil action.
• Motion for Reconsideration of Maylon: No. The issues raised were mere rehash of grounds already evaluated and passed upon, and no cogent reason existed to reverse the March 11, 2019 Decision.

• Extinction of Criminal Liability by Death: Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code provides that criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict as to personal penalties, and as to pecuniary penalties, liability is extinguished only when death occurs before final judgment. Estrada died on April 26, 2018, while his appeal was pending and before final conviction. Under People vs. Monroyo, death of the accused pending appeal extinguishes his criminal liability and the civil liability based solely thereon. Thus, upon Estrada's death, the criminal action against him was extinguished because there was no longer a defendant to stand as the accused; his conviction for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs in Criminal Case No. 2014-4407-D-MK had to be set aside and the case dismissed.
• Civil Liability: The Court adopted the summary in People vs. Monroyo: death of the accused pending appeal extinguishes criminal liability and civil liability based solely on the offense; the claim for civil liability survives if it may be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict under Article 1157 of the Civil Code, such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts, or quasi-delicts. Where civil liability survives, recovery may be pursued only by a separate civil action subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused. The private offended party need not fear prescription where the civil action was instituted with the criminal action prior to its extinction, because the statute of limitations is interrupted under Article 1155 of the Civil Code. In this case, the criminal case against Estrada was dismissed; no separate civil liability was adjudicated in the Resolution.
• Motion for Reconsideration of Maylon: The Court found that the issues raised in Maylon's Motion for Reconsideration were but mere rehash of the grounds already evaluated and passed upon in the assailed Decision. No cogent reason existed to reverse the March 11, 2019 Decision. The Motion for Reconsideration was therefore denied.

• Extinction of Criminal Liability by Death — Under Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict as to personal penalties; as to pecuniary penalties, liability is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. The Court applied this rule to Estrada, whose death pending appeal and before final conviction required the dismissal of the criminal case against him.
• Effects of Death of Accused Pending Appeal — Under People vs. Monroyo, the Court summarized the following rules: (1) death of the accused pending appeal extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon; (2) the claim for civil liability survives if it may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict under Article 1157 of the Civil Code; (3) where civil liability survives, an action for recovery may be pursued only by filing a separate civil action subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, enforceable against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused; and (4) the private offended party need not fear prescription where the civil action was instituted with the criminal action prior to its extinction, because the statute of limitations is interrupted under Article 1155 of the Civil Code.
• Motion for Reconsideration; Rehash — A motion for reconsideration that merely rehashes grounds already evaluated and passed upon by the Court does not warrant reversal. The Court denied Maylon's motion on this basis.

• "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[.]" — This is the statutory basis for the Court's ruling that Estrada's death extinguished his criminal liability.
• "Thus, upon Estrada's death pending appeal of his conviction, the criminal action against him is extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused." — This states the ratio decidendi for dismissing the criminal case against Estrada.
• "Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability[,] as well as the civil liability[,] based solely thereon." — This is the Court's summary of the controlling rule from People vs. Monroyo on the effects of death pending appeal.
• "With respect to the Motion for Reconsideration of accused-appellant Maylon, the Court finds that the issues raised therein are but mere rehash of the grounds already evaluated and passed upon by the Court in the assailed Decision. Hence, the Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the same." — This explains the denial of Maylon's Motion for Reconsideration.

• People vs. Monroyo, G.R. No. 223708, October 9, 2019 — The Court cited this as the controlling explanation of the effects of the death of an accused pending appeal, summarizing the rules on extinction of criminal liability, survival of civil liability from other sources, separate civil action, and prescription.
• People vs. Culas, 810 Phil. 205, 208-209 (2017) — Cited in People vs. Monroyo as authority for the summary of the effects of death pending appeal. The Resolution referenced it through Monroyo.

• Article 89(1), Revised Penal Code — Criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict as to personal penalties; as to pecuniary penalties, liability is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. Applied to Estrada, whose death before final conviction required dismissal of the criminal case.
• Section 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Defines and penalizes illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Maylon and Estrada were convicted under this provision; Estrada's conviction was set aside due to his supervening death, while Maylon's conviction was affirmed.
• Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Defines and penalizes illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Maylon was convicted under this provision, and his Motion for Reconsideration was denied.
• Article 1157, Civil Code — Enumerates sources of obligation other than delict from which civil liability may arise, such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts, and quasi-delicts. Cited in People vs. Monroyo for the rule that civil liability survives the accused's death if predicated on another source of obligation.
• Article 1155, Civil Code — Provides for interruption of the statute of limitations. Cited in People vs. Monroyo for the rule that the private offended party need not fear prescription where the civil action was instituted with the criminal action prior to its extinction.
• Section 1, Rule 111, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure — Governs the separate civil action that may be pursued where civil liability survives the accused's death. Cited in People vs. Monroyo as the procedural condition for recovery against the executor/administrator or estate.

Caguioa, Reyes, Jr., Lazaro-Javier, and Delos Santos, JJ., concur.