People vs. Caloring

The death of an accused pending the final judgment of appeal extinguishes both criminal liability and civil liability based solely thereon (civil liability ex delicto). Furthermore, a judgment of conviction against an accused who was never arraigned is void for violating the constitutional right to be informed of the accusation.

Rogelio Caloring and several co-accused, including police officers, were charged with Kidnapping for Ransom under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. The Amended Information alleged they kidnapped four victims: three minor children (Vinz, Klevwelt, and Genritz Sermonia) and an adult (Eulalia Cuevas), and demanded ransom. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted the accused. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction with modifications to the civil damages. Only Rogelio Caloring appealed to the Supreme Court.

• Nature of the Charge: The accused were charged in a single Amended Information with Kidnapping for Ransom under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code for the abduction of four victims: Vinz, Klevwelt, and Genritz Sermonia (minors), and Eulalia Cuevas.
• Trial Court Proceedings: The RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The criminal liability of one co-accused (Navanes) was extinguished by his death after arraignment. Co-accused Rey Alada remained at large and was not arraigned.
• Appellate Proceedings: The CA affirmed the conviction of the accused who appealed (Caloring, Olidan, PO1 Zapatos) but modified the civil damages. Only Caloring further appealed to the Supreme Court.
• Supervening Event: During the pendency of Caloring's appeal before the Supreme Court, he died on March 10, 2021, as confirmed by the Bureau of Corrections.
• Procedural Defect Noted: The Court observed that the single Information charging the kidnapping of four separate victims was duplicitous, as it should have charged four separate counts. However, none of the accused objected to this defect before entering their pleas.

• Effect of Death: Accused-appellant, through counsel, manifested that he would no longer file a Supplemental Brief, relying on his arguments before the CA. The core issue regarding the effect of his death was addressed by the Court motu proprio.

• Affirmation of Conviction: The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) similarly manifested it would not file a Supplemental Brief, relying on its earlier Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee before the CA, which argued for the affirmance of the conviction.

• Effect of Death Pending Appeal: Whether the death of accused-appellant Rogelio Caloring during the pendency of his appeal extinguishes his criminal and civil liability.
• Validity of Proceedings Against Unarraigned Co-Accused: Whether the conviction of co-accused Rey Alada, who was never arraigned, is valid.
• Defective Information: Whether the filing of a single Information for the kidnapping of four victims is a fatal defect.

• Effect of Death Pending Appeal: The appeal was dismissed. Accused-appellant's death pending the final judgment of his appeal extinguished his criminal liability pursuant to Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code. His civil liability ex delicto (civil liability arising solely from the crime) was likewise extinguished, in accordance with the doctrine in People v. Bayotas.
• Validity of Proceedings Against Unarraigned Co-Accused: The finding of guilt against co-accused Rey Alada was vacated. A judgment of conviction against an accused who was never arraigned is void. Arraignment is a fundamental procedural due process requirement, and trial in absentia is only permissible after a valid arraignment.
• Defective Information: The Information was defective for charging more than one offense (duplicity). However, the defect was deemed waived because the accused failed to file a motion to quash on this ground before entering their pleas. The Court noted that had the objection been timely, separate Informations should have been filed for each victim.

• Extinction of Criminal and Civil Liability by Death of the Accused Pending Appeal — The death of the accused while an appeal is pending extinguishes criminal liability. It also extinguishes civil liability ex delicto (the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the crime). Civil liability may survive only if it can be predicated on other sources of obligation under Article 1157 of the Civil Code (e.g., law, contracts, quasi-delicts), in which case a separate civil action may be filed against the estate of the deceased.
• Necessity of Arraignment — Arraignment is indispensable to satisfy the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. A judgment of conviction against an unarraigned accused is void for lack of due process. Trial in absentia is only authorized after the accused has been arraigned.

• "The death of the accused pending the final disposition of his appeal extinguishes his criminal liability." — The Court applied Article 89(1) of the RPC to dismiss the appeal.
• "A void judgment has no legality from its inception, and thus, it cannot attain finality." — The Court used this principle to vacate the conviction of the unarraigned co-accused, Rey Alada.

• People v. Bayotas, 306 Phil. 266 (1994) — Controlling precedent on the effects of the death of an accused pending appeal. It established the rule that death extinguishes criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto, but civil liability based on other sources may survive in a separate action.
• People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Applied on the rule that an Information must charge only one offense and the consequence of waiving the defect of duplicity by failure to object.
• Kummer v. People, 717 Phil. 670 (2013) — Cited to emphasize the constitutional and procedural necessity of arraignment before a valid trial and conviction can proceed.

• Article 89(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, if death occurs before final judgment.
• Article 267, Revised Penal Code — Defines the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom and provides the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.
• Section 11(a), Rule 122, Rules of Court — States that an appeal by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment is favorable and applicable to the latter.
• Section 14(2), Article III, 1987 Constitution — Guarantees the right of the accused to be informed of the nature of the accusation and provides that trial in absentia may proceed only after arraignment.

• Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo (Chairperson)
• Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa
• Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao
• Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (Ponente)
• Associate Justice Jose Midas P. Marquez

N/A — The decision was unanimous.