People vs. Depillo

The death of an accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability, as well as the civil liability based solely thereon (ex delicto), and the Court may relax the doctrine of immutability of judgment to dismiss the case when it was belatedly informed of the accused's supervening death prior to final conviction.

The case originated from Criminal Case No. 03-63-A before the Regional Trial Court of Bais City, Negros Oriental, Branch 45, where accused-appellants Wenlito Depillo y Biorco @ "Wewen" and Lolito Depillo y Dehijido @ "Lito," together with Nestor De Atras y Ella, were charged with Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. The victim was Anatolio Calumba, Jr., and the civil liability was sought by his heirs. The case reached the Supreme Court after the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, and the Court resolved the appeal through a Resolution dated June 15, 2016.

Accused-appellants Wenlito Depillo y Biorco @ "Wewen" and Lolito Depillo y Dehijido @ "Lito," together with Nestor De Atras y Ella, were charged with Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 03-63-A before the Regional Trial Court of Bais City, Negros Oriental, Branch 45. The victim was Anatolio Calumba, Jr., and the civil liability was sought by his heirs.

The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated October 28, 2010 in C.A.-G.R. CEB C.R. H.C. No. 00889, found accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court, which, in a Resolution dated June 15, 2016, affirmed with modification the CA Decision, ordering accused-appellants to pay the Heirs of Anatolio Calumba, Jr. the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P75,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P50,000.00 as temperate damages, with interest of 6% per annum on each item of the civil liability reckoned from the date of finality of the Resolution until fully paid, and to pay the costs of suit.

It later appeared that Lolito died on March 16, 2015, as evidenced by a Letter dated August 24, 2016 from the Bureau of Corrections and the Certificate of Death attached thereto. This meant that Lolito had passed away during the pendency of the criminal case against him, since the same was resolved by the Court only through the Resolution dated June 15, 2016, which attained finality on February 27, 2017, but only insofar as Wenlito is concerned. The Court was belatedly informed of Lolito's supervening death in the interim, and had it been timely made aware, his conviction would not have been affirmed as his criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto in connection therewith had already been extinguished.

N/A — The decision does not recount the arguments of the People of the Philippines as plaintiff-appellee in relation to the issue of Lolito's death.

N/A — The decision does not recount the arguments of accused-appellants in relation to the issue of Lolito's death.

• Extinction of Criminal Liability by Death: Whether Lolito's death on March 16, 2015, prior to his final conviction, extinguished his criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto under Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
• Immutability of Judgment: Whether the Court may set aside its Resolution dated June 15, 2016, which had already attained finality, to give effect to Lolito's supervening death.

• 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 accused, and the civil action instituted for the recovery of the civil liability ex delicto is also ipso facto extinguished, as it is grounded on the criminal action.
• Immutability of Judgment: Yes. The Court has the power to relax the doctrine of immutability of judgment when there exist special or compelling circumstances, as in this case, when the Court was belatedly informed of Lolito's supervening death pending his appeal.

• 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 the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. The rationale behind this rule is that upon an accused-appellant's death pending appeal of his conviction, the criminal action is deemed extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused. The Court cited People vs. Santiago, which clarified that the accused's civil liability in connection with his acts against the victim may be based on sources other than delicts, in which case the victim may file a separate civil action against the accused's estate. However, the civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore is extinguished by the death of the accused prior to final judgment. Had the Court been timely made aware of Lolito's supervening death in the interim, his conviction would not have been affirmed as his criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto in connection therewith had already been extinguished.

• Immutability of Judgment: The Court acknowledged that the Resolution dated June 15, 2016 affirming Lolito's criminal and civil liabilities had already attained finality, and hence, was covered by the doctrine on immutability of judgments. However, citing People vs. Layag, the Court explained that it has the power to relax the doctrine of immutability of judgment if, inter alia, there exists special or compelling circumstances therefor, as in this case, when the Court was belatedly informed of Lolito's supervening death pending his appeal. The Court enumerated the factors for relaxing the doctrine: (a) matters of life, liberty, honor, or property; (b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (c) the merits of the case; (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (e) the lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; and (f) that the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby. Finding the exception applicable, the Court set aside its Resolution dated June 15, 2016 and dismissed Criminal Case No. 03-63-A as against Lolito by reason of his supervening death prior to his final conviction.

• 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 accused, 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. The civil action instituted for the recovery of the civil liability ex delicto is also ipso facto extinguished, as it is grounded on the criminal action. The rationale is that upon an accused-appellant's death pending appeal of his conviction, the criminal action is deemed extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused. The Court applied this doctrine to dismiss the case against Lolito, who died on March 16, 2015, prior to the Court's Resolution dated June 15, 2016 affirming his conviction.

• Civil liability surviving death based on sources other than delict — The claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of the accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these other sources of obligation: law, contracts, quasi-contracts, and quasi-delicts. Where the civil liability survives, an action for recovery therefor may be pursued only by way of filing a separate civil action, subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, and may be enforced either against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused. The private offended party need not fear forfeiture of the right to file this separate civil action by prescription, because the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case, conformably with Article 1155 of the Civil Code.

• Relaxation of the doctrine of immutability of judgment — Under the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment, a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law. Nonetheless, the immutability of final judgments is not a hard and fast rule, as the Court has the power and prerogative to relax the same in order to serve the demands of substantial justice, considering: (a) matters of life, liberty, honor, or property; (b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (c) the merits of the case; (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (e) the lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; and (f) that the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby. The Court applied this exception where it was belatedly informed of Lolito's supervening death pending his appeal.

• "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 controlling statutory provision that the Court applied to extinguish Lolito's criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto upon his death prior to final conviction.

• "Likewise, the civil action instituted for the recovery of the civil liability ex delicto is also ipso facto extinguished, as it is grounded on the criminal action. The rationale behind this rule is that upon an accused-appellant's death pending appeal of his conviction, the criminal action is deemed extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused." — This passage articulates the rationale for extinguishing both criminal and civil liability ex delicto upon the accused's death pending appeal.

• "Under the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment, a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land. Any act which violates this principle must immediately be struck down, Nonetheless, the immutability of final judgments is not a hard and fast rule as the Court has the power and prerogative to relax the same in order to serve the demands of substantial justice considering: (a) matters of life, liberty, honor, or property; (b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (c) the merits of the case; (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (e) the lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; and (f) that the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby." — This passage states the doctrine of immutability of judgment and the exceptions thereto, which the Court applied to set aside its final Resolution and dismiss the case against Lolito.

• People vs. Santiago, G.R. No. 228819, July 24, 2019 — Cited as controlling authority for the rule that death of the accused pending appeal extinguishes criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto, and that civil liability may survive if predicated on sources of obligation other than delict, pursued through a separate civil action.

• People vs. Layag, 797 Phil. 386 (2016) — Cited as controlling authority for the Court's power to relax the doctrine of immutability of judgment when special or compelling circumstances exist, including the belated information of an accused's supervening death pending appeal.

• Article 89(1), Revised Penal Code — Provides that criminal liability is totally extinguished 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. The Court applied this provision to dismiss the case against Lolito, who died prior to final conviction.

• Article 1157, Civil Code — Enumerates the sources of obligations from which civil liability may arise: law, contracts, quasi-contracts, and quasi-delicts. The Court cited this provision to explain that civil liability may survive the accused's death if predicated on sources other than delict.

• Article 1155, Civil Code — Provides that the statute of limitations on civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case. The Court cited this provision to assure that the private offended party need not fear forfeiture of the right to file a separate civil action by prescription.

• Section 1, Rule 111, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended — Governs the filing of a separate civil action against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused where the civil liability survives the accused's death based on sources of obligation other than delict.

Caguioa, Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, and Gaerlan, JJ., concurred.

N/A — No dissenting opinions are noted in the provided text.