People v. Depillo
REVERSALFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellants Wenlito Depillo y Biorco @ "Wewen" and Lolito Depillo y Dehijido @ "Lito" were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder by the Court of Appeals (CA) in a Decision dated October 28, 2010. The Supreme Court, in a Resolution dated June 15, 2016, affirmed this conviction with modifications regarding civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and temperate damages. Procedural History: The CA convicted the accused-appellants of Murder. The Supreme Court affirmed this conviction in a Resolution dated June 15, 2016. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court on appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the supervening death of an accused prior to final conviction extinguishes criminal and civil liability. Whether the doctrine of immutability of judgment can be relaxed in cases of supervening death pending appeal.
Ruling
The Court resolved to set aside its Resolution dated June 15, 2016, insofar as accused-appellant Lolito Depillo y Dehijido @ "Lito" is concerned, and to dismiss the criminal case against him by reason of his supervening death prior to his final conviction. The case was declared closed and terminated as to him.
Ratio Decidendi
On the extinguishment of criminal and civil liability due to supervening death: The Court reiterated that under Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the accused. This also results in the ipso facto extinguishment of the civil action instituted for the recovery of civil liability ex delicto, as it is grounded on the criminal action. The rationale is that with the death of the accused-appellant pending appeal, there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused. Therefore, Lolito's death on March 16, 2015, prior to the finality of the Court's Resolution on February 27, 2017, should have resulted in the dismissal of the criminal case against him. The Court clarified that civil liability may survive if it can be predicated on sources other than delict, as enumerated in Article 1157 of the Civil Code, and may be pursued through a separate civil action against the accused's estate. On the relaxation of the doctrine of immutability of judgment: The Court found that the doctrine of immutability of judgment, which holds that a final and executory judgment can no longer be modified, is not an absolute rule. It can be relaxed in instances where there are special or compelling circumstances that demand the same to serve the demands of substantial justice. The belatedly discovered supervening death of Lolito Depillo pending his appeal constituted such a compelling circumstance. Citing People v. Layag, the Court explained that it has the power to relax the doctrine of immutability of judgment when certain exceptions are met, including the existence of special or compelling circumstances, and when the review sought is not frivolous or dilatory, and the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced. In this case, the Court deemed it apt to rectify the situation by modifying its previous Resolution to reflect the legal consequence of Lolito's death.
Main Doctrine
The death of an accused prior to final conviction extinguishes both criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto. However, civil liability may survive if it can be predicated on sources other than delict, such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts, or quasi-delicts, and can be pursued through a separate civil action against the accused's estate. The Court may relax the doctrine of immutability of judgment in cases of supervening death pending appeal to serve substantial justice.