People of the Philippines vs. Pala Toukyo y Padep

The death of an accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as any civil liability based solely on the offense, requiring dismissal of the criminal case and the appeal. Where no private complainant exists, no civil liability arises from the case.

Pala Toukyo y Padep was prosecuted by the People of the Philippines under Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, which defines and penalizes illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code and People vs. Bayotas supply the rules on the effect of the accused’s death pending appeal.

On November 22, 2010, Agent Ryan Peralta of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency – Cordillera Administrative Region received information from a civilian informant regarding the illegal drug selling activities of Toukyo. After confirming via text message that Toukyo was selling a brick of marijuana for ₱2,000.00, the PDEA-CAR sent a buy-bust team composed of Agents Peralta, John Kay-an, and Santino Awichen to entrap Toukyo. In the afternoon of even date near a restaurant located at Burnham Park, Agent Peralta and the informant met with Toukyo. After Toukyo showed Agent Peralta the brick of marijuana, Agent Peralta executed the pre-arranged signal, leading to Toukyo’s arrest. Agents Kay-an and Awichen immediately marked the seized marijuana at the place of arrest, and thereafter, Agent Peralta took the marijuana as well as the backpack where it was placed. Upon reaching the PDEA-CAR field office, Agent Peralta turned over the backpack containing the seized marijuana to Agent Dick Dayao, who in turn executed the proper documentation and delivered the seized item to the Crime Laboratory. A qualitative examination revealed that the backpack contained one kilogram/1,000 grams of marijuana.

For his part, Toukyo invoked the defenses of denial and frame-up. He averred that on November 21, 2010, he was at the Igorot Garden when he overheard a certain Bonifacio and a companion regarding a possible work opportunity. After inquiring if he could join them in the said opportunity, Bonifacio replied in the affirmative and told him to wait for his text the next day. On the day he was arrested, Toukyo met with Bonifacio and they rode a jeepney together towards Burnham Park. Upon reaching Burnham Park, Bonifacio asked Toukyo to wait for him as he would just go to the restroom, leaving his backpack with Toukyo. While holding Bonifacio’s backpack, Toukyo was suddenly grabbed by police agents and asked where his companion was. Toukyo then pointed at the restroom but Bonifacio was no longer there, prompting the police to bring him to the PDEA-CAR office. Thereat, Toukyo was mauled to force him to admit ownership of the contents of the bag but he refused. After taking the cash from his wallet, Toukyo was fingerprinted, taken to the hospital for a “check-up,” and returned to the PDEA-CAR office. After he again denied ownership of the contents of the backpack, he was brought to the detention cell and was told to wait for his transfer to the Baguio City Jail.

The Regional Trial Court found that the PDEA-CAR agents successfully executed a buy-bust operation and rejected Toukyo’s defenses of denial and frame-up. The Court of Appeals, on the other hand, found that no valid buy-bust operation took place because Agent Peralta prematurely executed the pre-arranged signal upon seeing the brick of marijuana, before any exchange of marijuana and marked money occurred.

• Denial and Frame-Up: Petitioner Toukyo invoked the defenses of denial and frame-up, averring that he was merely holding Bonifacio’s backpack at Burnham Park when police agents suddenly grabbed him; that Bonifacio left the backpack with him and disappeared; and that he was mauled at the PDEA-CAR office to force him to admit ownership of the bag’s contents, which he refused. He maintained that he did not own or possess the marijuana.

• Guilt for Illegal Possession: Whether Toukyo is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165.
• Effect of Death Pending Appeal: Whether the death of accused-appellant pending appeal extinguishes criminal liability and requires dismissal of the criminal case and appeal.

• Guilt for Illegal Possession: Not resolved. The Court dismissed the criminal case and appeal because Toukyo died pending appeal; no adjudication on the merits of the conviction was made.
• Effect of Death Pending Appeal: Yes. Under Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code and People vs. Bayotas, death pending appeal extinguishes criminal liability and civil liability based solely on the offense. No civil liability arose because there was no private complainant.

• Guilt for Illegal Possession: The Court did not reach the merits of the conviction because the records showed Toukyo had died on October 15, 2014, while his appeal was pending. The Bureau of Corrections informed the Court by letter dated January 26, 2017. Since death pending appeal extinguishes criminal liability, the criminal action could no longer proceed; there was no longer a defendant to stand as the accused. The Court of Appeals Decision was set aside and the criminal case dismissed.
• Effect of Death Pending Appeal: 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. Toukyo died before final judgment. People vs. Bayotas summarized the effects: death pending appeal extinguishes criminal liability and civil liability based solely on the offense; civil liability survives if based on another source of obligation under Article 1157 of the Civil Code; if it survives, recovery must be by separate civil action subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure; and prescription is interrupted if the civil action was instituted with the criminal action. Here, no private complainant existed, so no civil liability arose. Thus, dismissal was proper.

• Extinction of Criminal Liability by Death of the Accused — Under Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict as to personal penalties; pecuniary penalties are extinguished only if death occurs before final judgment. The Court applied this because Toukyo died on October 15, 2014, while his appeal from the Court of Appeals conviction was pending, before final judgment. The criminal action was extinguished because there was no longer a defendant to stand as the accused.
• Bayotas Doctrine on Death Pending Appeal — People vs. Bayotas holds: (1) death of the accused pending appeal extinguishes criminal liability and civil liability based solely on the offense; (2) civil liability survives if predicated on a source of obligation other than delict, such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts, or quasi-delicts under Article 1157 of the Civil Code; (3) if civil liability survives, it 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 estate of the accused; and (4) if the private offended party instituted the civil action with the criminal action before extinction, prescription is interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case under Article 1155 of the Civil Code. In this case, no civil liability arose because there was no private complainant.

• "Under Paragraph 1, Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, the consequences of Toukyo's death are as follows: 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." — States the statutory basis for extinguishing criminal liability and pecuniary penalties upon death before final judgment.
• "Thus, upon Toukyo's death pending appeal of his conviction, the criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused." — States the ratio decidendi for dismissing the case.
• "Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon." — Canonical formulation from People vs. Bayotas, quoted by the Court, defining the effect of death pending appeal.
• "Notably, there is no civil liability that arose from this case, there being no private complainant to begin with." — Explains why no surviving civil liability existed despite the general rule.

• People vs. Bayotas, 306 Phil. 266 (1994) — Controlling precedent; the Court quoted its summary of the effects of the death of an accused pending appeal on criminal and civil liabilities, including the rule that death extinguishes criminal liability and civil liability based solely on the offense.
• People vs. Paras, G.R. No. 192912, October 22, 2014, 739 SCRA 179, 184 — Cited for the proposition that upon the death of the accused pending appeal, the criminal action is extinguished because there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused.

• Article 89, Paragraph 1, 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. Applied because Toukyo died pending appeal before final judgment.
• Article 1157, Civil Code — Enumerates sources of obligation other than delict (law, contracts, quasi-contracts, quasi-delicts) from which civil liability may arise. Cited in the Bayotas summary to explain when civil liability survives the accused’s death.
• Article 1155, Civil Code — Provides that the statute of limitations on civil liability is interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case if the civil action was instituted with the criminal action. Cited in the Bayotas summary.
• Section 1, Rule 111, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure — Governs the separate civil action for recovery of civil liability where it survives the accused’s death. Cited in the Bayotas summary.
• Section 11, Republic Act No. 9165 — Defines and penalizes Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the offense of which the Court of Appeals convicted Toukyo. The Supreme Court did not resolve the conviction on the merits because of his death.
• Article 5, Republic Act No. 9165 — The Information charged Toukyo with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under this provision. The Court did not resolve the charge on the merits because of his death.

Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno (Chief Justice, Chairperson); Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro; Mariano C. Del Castillo; Alfredo Banjamin S. Caguioa.