People v. Calomia
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellant Ruben Calomia was charged with two counts of qualified rape of his minor daughter, AAA, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Loay, Bohol. The alleged incidents occurred in August 2007 and April 2008, when AAA was 11 and 12 years old, respectively. Procedural History: The RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both counts of qualified rape and imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, along with civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the award of damages. Accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The accused-appellant appealed his conviction before the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the death of the accused-appellant pending his appeal extinguishes his criminal and civil liabilities. Whether the decision of the Court of Appeals should be set aside due to the death of the accused-appellant.
Ruling
The Supreme Court RESOLVED TO SET ASIDE the Decision dated August 26, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-CR-HC No. 02040 and to DISMISS Criminal Case Nos. 1317 and 1318 before the Regional Trial Court of Loay, Bohol, Branch 50, by reason of the death of the sole accused therein, Ruben Calomia, on September 29, 2015.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the death of the accused-appellant pending appeal: Paragraph 1 of Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, explicitly provides that criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict as to personal penalties. Furthermore, pecuniary penalties are extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. In the landmark case of People v. Bayotas, this Court 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, meaning civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore. However, the claim for civil liability survives if it may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict, such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts, or quasi-delicts, as enumerated in Article 1157 of the Civil Code. In such surviving cases, the action for recovery must be pursued by filing a separate civil action, either against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused, depending on the source of the obligation. The Court also noted that the offended party need not fear prescription of this separate civil action if it was already instituted during the pendency of the criminal case. On whether the decision of the Court of Appeals should be set aside: In the present case, accused-appellant Ruben Calomia died on September 29, 2015, during the pendency of his appeal before the Supreme Court. This death occurred prior to the finality of any judgment of conviction. Consequently, his criminal liability was extinguished. Moreover, his civil liabilities directly arising from and based solely on the crime/s he committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto, were also extinguished by his death. The Court noted that the Court of Appeals was not timely informed of the accused-appellant's death prior to the promulgation of its Decision on August 26, 2016. Therefore, the conviction and the damages awarded by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, were rendered ineffectual by the supervening event of the accused-appellant's death. Thus, the decision of the Court of Appeals must be set aside, and the criminal cases dismissed.
Main Doctrine
The death of an accused pending appeal extinguishes both criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto. However, civil liability that may be predicated on other sources of obligation under Article 1157 of the Civil Code survives and may be pursued through a separate civil action.