People v. Calomia

The death of an accused pending appeal of his conviction, occurring before final judgment, totally extinguishes both his criminal liability and his civil liability ex delicto, rendering the conviction ineffectual and requiring the dismissal of the criminal cases.

Ruben Calomia was charged with two counts of qualified rape of his minor daughter, AAA, who was 11 years old during the first alleged incident in August 2007 and 12 years old during the second alleged incident in April 2008. The cases were filed before the Regional Trial Court of Loay, Bohol, Branch 50, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 1317 and 1318. Republic Act No. 9346, which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, was relevant to the penalty ultimately imposed by the trial court.

Ruben Calomia was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Loay, Bohol, Branch 50, with two counts of qualified rape of his minor daughter, AAA, allegedly committed sometime in August 2007 and April 2008. AAA was 11 years old during the first alleged incident and 12 years old during the second.

After trial on the merits, the RTC promulgated its Decision on March 11, 2015, finding Calomia guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both counts of qualified rape. The RTC sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each offense, the death penalty being prohibited by Republic Act No. 9346. The RTC awarded civil indemnity of ₱75,000, moral damages of ₱75,000, and exemplary damages of ₱30,000 in each case.

Calomia appealed to the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CEB-CR-HC No. 02040. On August 26, 2016, the appellate court upheld the conviction but modified the damages, increasing each award of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to ₱100,000, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of finality of the Decision until fully paid. On September 21, 2016, Calomia filed his Notice of Appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court issued a Resolution on April 25, 2017 requiring the parties to file supplemental briefs within 30 days from notice and ordering the Provincial Jail Warden to transfer Calomia to the Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa City. However, on September 4, 2017, the Court received a letter dated August 2, 2017 from Jail Chief Inspector Felipe A. Montejo, Bohol District Jail Warden, stating that Calomia had died on September 29, 2015 while in confinement at the Bohol District Jail. The cause of death was "Asphyxia due to Strangulation, Self Inflicted, Hanging," as declared by Dr. Calvelo, Medical Officer III, City Health Office, Tagbilaran City, and confirmed by the Death Certificate issued by the Office of the Civil Registrar General. The appellate court had not been timely informed of Calomia's death prior to the promulgation of its Decision on August 26, 2016. Calomia had been scheduled for transfer to BUCOR Muntinlupa City but died before the transfer could be effected.

• Extinction of Liability by Death: Whether the death of the accused pending appeal, occurring before final judgment, extinguishes his criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto, warranting the setting aside of his conviction and the dismissal of the criminal cases.

• Extinction of Liability by Death: Yes. The death of accused-appellant on September 29, 2015, while his appeal was pending before the Court of Appeals and before final judgment, totally extinguished both his criminal liability and his civil liability ex delicto under Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code as construed in People vs. Bayotas, requiring the setting aside of his conviction and the dismissal of the criminal cases.

• Extinction of Liability by Death: Article 89, paragraph 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 the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. In People vs. Bayotas, the Court established four guidelines: (1) death of the accused pending appeal extinguishes criminal liability as well as civil liability based solely thereon (ex delicto in senso strictiore); (2) civil liability survives if predicated on a source of obligation other than the delict, such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts, or quasi-delicts under Article 1157 of the Civil Code; (3) where civil liability survives, a separate civil action may be pursued against the executor/administrator or the estate; and (4) the statute of limitations on civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case if the civil action was instituted together therewith, conformably with Article 1155 of the Civil Code. The death of an accused pending appeal extinguishes the criminal action because there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused, and the civil action for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is likewise ipso facto extinguished because it is grounded on the criminal action. In this case, Calomia died on September 29, 2015, during the pendency of his appeal before the Court of Appeals and prior to final judgment. His death therefore extinguished his criminal liability and civil liabilities directly arising from and based solely on the crimes committed. The conviction by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, was rendered ineffectual and had to be set aside.

• Extinction of criminal liability by death of accused pending appeal — Under Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict as to personal penalties; pecuniary liability is extinguished only when death occurs before final judgment. The Bayotas guidelines establish: (1) death of the accused pending appeal extinguishes criminal liability and civil liability based solely thereon (ex delicto in senso strictiore); (2) civil liability survives if predicated on a source other than the delict — law, contracts, quasi-contracts, or quasi-delicts (Article 1157, Civil Code); (3) where civil liability survives, a separate civil action may be pursued against the executor/administrator or the estate, subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended; and (4) the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case if the civil action was instituted together therewith (Article 1155, Civil Code). In this case, the Court applied the first guideline: because Calomia died before final judgment while his appeal was pending, both his criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto were totally extinguished.

• "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 first Bayotas guideline cited by the Court, articulating the core rule that death pending appeal extinguishes both criminal and civil liability ex delicto.
• "The death of an accused pending the appeal of his conviction extinguishes the criminal action, as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused; and the civil action instituted therein for the recovery of civil liability ex delicto is likewise ipso facto extinguished, as it is grounded on the criminal action." — This passage explains the rationale for extinguishing both the criminal and civil actions upon the death of the accused: the civil action ex delicto is grounded on the criminal action and cannot survive independently.

• People vs. Bayotas, 306 Phil. 266 (1994) — Controlling precedent. The Court applied the guidelines established in Bayotas regarding the effect of the death of the accused pending appeal on criminal and civil liability, specifically the rule that death before final judgment extinguishes both criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto.
• People vs. Lauga, G.R. No. 186228, March 15, 2010 — Cited by the RTC for the award of moral and exemplary damages; not central to the Supreme Court's ruling.

• Article 89, 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 the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. Applied to extinguish Calomia's criminal and civil liability ex delicto because he died while his appeal was pending 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 survive notwithstanding the death of the accused. Cited within the Bayotas guidelines as the basis for surviving civil liability.
• Article 1155, Civil Code — Provides that the statute of limitations on civil liability is interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case. Cited within the Bayotas guidelines to address prescription concerns.
• Republic Act No. 9346 — Prohibits the imposition of the death penalty; the RTC noted that the penalty imposable for each offense was reduced to reclusion perpetua.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno (Chairperson), Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza, and Associate Justice Noel Gimenez Tijam.