People vs. Consorte
The conviction of accused-appellant Benjie Consorte y Franco for murder was set aside upon his death while his motion for reconsideration of the Court's affirming decision remained pending. Pursuant to Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code and established jurisprudence in People v. Bayotas and People v. Brillantes, the Court declared that death occurring prior to final judgment extinguishes not only criminal liability but also civil liability ex delicto (civil liability based solely on the offense), thereby abating the action against the deceased accused.
Primary Holding
Death of an accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes both his criminal liability and his civil liability ex delicto (civil liability based solely on the offense committed), provided the death occurs before final judgment, pursuant to Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
Background
Accused-appellant Benjie Consorte y Franco was convicted for the murder of Elizabeth Palmar. The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction on May 27, 2010. On July 9, 2014, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's decision with modifications to the damages awarded. While his motion for reconsideration of this affirming decision was pending, Consorte died on July 14, 2014 at the New Bilibid Prison.
History
-
RTC convicted accused-appellant Benjie Consorte y Franco for murder
-
CA affirmed the conviction on May 27, 2010 in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01806
-
SC affirmed the CA decision with modifications on July 9, 2014 in G.R. No. 194068
-
Accused-appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the SC Decision
-
Accused-appellant died on July 14, 2014 while the Motion for Reconsideration was pending
-
New Bilibid Prison reported the death to the SC via Letter dated September 21, 2014
-
SC resolved the Motion for Reconsideration on November 26, 2014, declaring criminal and civil liabilities extinguished
Facts
- The Underlying Conviction: Accused-appellant Benjie Consorte y Franco was convicted for the murder of Elizabeth Palmar. The trial court's judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals on May 27, 2010 in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01806.
- Supreme Court Affirmance: On July 9, 2014, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the damages, increasing civil indemnity from ₱50,000.00 to ₱75,000.00 and exemplary damages from ₱25,000.00 to ₱30,000.00, with interest at 6% per annum from finality until full payment.
- Pending Motion for Reconsideration: Accused-appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration challenging the credibility of his identification as the perpetrator, specifically questioning the testimony of prosecution witness Rolando Visbe and citing the allegedly contradictory statements of witness Aneline Mendoza.
- Death of the Accused: While the Motion for Reconsideration was pending resolution, the Officer-in-Charge of the New Bilibid Prison informed the Court via Letter dated September 21, 2014 that accused-appellant died on July 14, 2014. A Death Certificate issued by NBP Medical Officer III Ruth B. Algones, M.D. was attached to the letter.
- Procedural Posture: At the time of death, no final judgment had been rendered as the motion for reconsideration remained unresolved.
Arguments of the Petitioners
- Credibility of Identification: Accused-appellant maintained that his identification as the perpetrator was incredible, arguing that prosecution witness Aneline Mendoza's testimony demonstrated the impossibility of the identification made by Rolando Visbe.
- Inconsistent Statements: He argued that Visbe's statements regarding the identification were unbelievable and inconsistent, casting doubt on the prosecution's version of events.
Issues
- Effect of Death Pending Appeal: Whether the death of the accused-appellant pending resolution of his motion for reconsideration extinguishes his criminal liability.
- Civil Liability Ex Delicto: Whether the civil liability ex delicto based solely on the offense is likewise extinguished by the death of the accused prior to final judgment.
Ruling
- Extinction of Criminal Liability: Criminal liability was extinguished by operation of law upon the death of accused-appellant on July 14, 2014, which occurred prior to final judgment while his motion for reconsideration was still pending, pursuant to Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
- Extinction of Civil Liability Ex Delicto: Civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed (civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore) was likewise extinguished by the death of the accused prior to final judgment, consistent with the doctrine established in People v. Bayotas and clarified in People v. Brillantes.
Doctrines
- Extinguishment of Liability by Death (Article 89(1) RPC) — Criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict as to personal penalties; pecuniary penalties are extinguished only when death occurs before final judgment. Death pending appeal constitutes death before final judgment, as the judgment is not yet final and executory while the motion for reconsideration is pending.
- Civil Liability Ex Delicto vs. Independent Civil Actions — Death of the accused pending appeal extinguishes civil liability based solely on the offense committed (civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore). This is distinct from civil liability arising from other sources of obligation (e.g., quasi-delict, contract, or independent civil actions under Articles 32, 33, and 34 of the Civil Code), which survive the death of the accused and may be pursued in separate proceedings against the estate or heirs.
Key Excerpts
- "Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon." — Citing People v. Brillantes, clarifying the effect of death pending appeal.
- "The death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore." — Quoting Justice Regalado in People v. Bayotas, defining the scope of extinguished civil liability.
- "In the case at bar, accused-appellant died before final judgment, as in fact, his motion for reconsideration is still pending resolution by the Court." — Application of the doctrine to the specific procedural posture where death occurred while a motion for reconsideration was pending.
Precedents Cited
- People v. Brillantes, G.R. No. 190610, 25 April 2012, 671 SCRA 388 — Controlling precedent clarifying that death of the accused pending appeal extinguishes both criminal liability and civil liability based solely on the offense.
- People v. Bayotas, G.R. No. 102007, 2 September 1994, 236 SCRA 255 — Landmark case establishing that death prior to final judgment terminates criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore.
- People v. Agacer, G.R. No. 177751, 7 January 2013, 688 SCRA 42 — Cited for the reaffirmation that death pending appeal extinguishes criminal and civil liability ex delicto.
Provisions
- 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, liability is extinguished only when death occurs before final judgment.
Notable Concurring Opinions
Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno (Chief Justice), Antonio T. Carpio (Chairperson), Mariano C. Del Castillo, and Bienvenido L. Reyes.