People v. Datu
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The case involves a criminal charge against Dante Hernandez Datu for Acts of Lasciviousness, as defined under Section 5, Article III of Republic Act No. 7610. The Information alleged that on February 24, 1995, in Manila, the petitioner, with lewd design, unlawfully and feloniously committed acts of lasciviousness upon Jerica Registrado, a 5-year-old child, by inserting his finger into her genitals against her will. The prosecution presented evidence that the incident occurred in the morning, and Jerica later reported the act to her parents, who observed bloodstains and swelling. A medical examination by an NBI doctor found congestion in the vestibular mucosa and a purplish contusion in the peri-urethral area, though the hymen was intact and physical virginity was preserved. 2. Procedural History: Following the filing of the Information, the petitioner pleaded not guilty, and trial commenced. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 38, rendered a decision on August 28, 2000, finding the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months, and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal, along with moral damages and costs. The petitioner appealed this conviction to the Court of Appeals. On March 31, 2005, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision, upholding the conviction. 3. The Petition: Aggrieved by the appellate court's ruling, the petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court with the Supreme Court. The petition assailed the decision of the Court of Appeals. During the pendency of this petition before the Supreme Court, it was discovered that the petitioner, Dante Hernandez Datu, had died on August 3, 2006. This supervening event, the death of the petitioner before a final judgment, rendered the appeal moot, as criminal liability is extinguished by death according to Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code and established jurisprudence.
Issue(s)
Whether the criminal and civil liability of the petitioner are extinguished by his death pending appeal. Whether the appeal has become moot due to the supervening event of the petitioner's death.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, setting aside the Court of Appeals' decision and dismissing the criminal case. The Court ruled that the death of the petitioner pending appeal extinguished his criminal liability and the civil liability based solely on the offense committed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the extinction of criminal and civil liability due to death pending appeal: The Court reiterated the principles laid down in People v. Bayotas. Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code provides that criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the offender. This includes personal penalties. Pecuniary penalties are extinguished if death occurs before final judgment. In the case of People v. Bayotas, it was clarified that the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon, which is the civil liability ex delicto. The Court emphasized that the civil liability that survives is that which may be predicated on other sources of obligation under Article 1157 of the Civil Code, such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts, or quasi-delicts, and can be pursued through a separate civil action. However, in this case, the civil liability awarded was directly arising from the offense charged, hence, it was extinguished by the petitioner's death. On the mootness of the appeal: The Court found that the death of the petitioner constituted a supervening event that rendered the appeal moot. Even if the Court were to proceed and affirm the conviction, such a ruling would be without force and effect because the criminal liability was totally extinguished by his death. Consequently, the appeal before the Supreme Court became superfluous, as any judgment of conviction would be rendered ineffectual. The dismissal of the criminal case was therefore the appropriate course of action.
Main Doctrine
The death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes both his criminal liability and the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed (civil liability ex delicto).