People v. Amistoso
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Anastacio Amistoso y Broca was charged in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Masbate City, Branch 48, Criminal Case No. 10106, with statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code (as amended), for allegedly raping his 12-year-old daughter AAA. The incident involved carnal knowledge of a minor, his daughter, establishing the relationship as a qualifying circumstance. After trial, the RTC convicted him not of statutory rape but of qualified rape under Article 266-A(1)(a) in relation to Article 266-B(1), imposing the death penalty, P75,000 indemnity, P50,000 moral damages, and costs, emphasizing the father-daughter relationship as aggravating the offense to qualified rape punishable by death. Amistoso appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the conviction but modified penalties per RA 9346 to reclusion perpetua without parole, P75,000 civil indemnity, P75,000 moral damages, and P30,000 exemplary damages. Amistoso further appealed to the Supreme Court, insisting on innocence. Procedural History: The Supreme Court, in its January 9, 2013 Decision, affirmed the CA with modification, adding 6% interest on damages from finality. Unbeknownst to the Court, Amistoso died on December 11, 2012, at New Bilibid Prison from cardio-respiratory arrest, as later reported by Bureau of Corrections officers via letters (February 7 and 12, 2013) with death reports and photocopies of death certificates. The Court required a certified true copy, provided June 20, 2013. Meanwhile, PAO filed a Motion for Reconsideration on February 22, 2013, unaware of death. The Court deferred action pending certification. The Petition: Though framed as an appeal insisting on innocence, the resolution addresses no substantive arguments due to death; PAO's Motion for Reconsideration sought reversal of the January 9, 2013 affirmance, but was noted without action as mooted by death extinguishing liability.
Issue(s)
Whether the death of the accused-appellant pending appeal extinguishes his criminal liability, rendering the Supreme Court's prior Decision ineffectual and warranting dismissal of the case; and whether it extinguishes his civil liability arising solely from the offense (ex delicto). Whether the specific civil liabilities awarded (indemnity, moral, exemplary damages) in this case survive the accused's death, considering their basis.
Ruling
The Court RESOLVES to: (1) NOTE PIS Lansangan’s letter dated June 20, 2013 providing the certified true copy of Amistoso’s Death Certificate; (2) SET ASIDE its Decision dated January 9, 2013 and DISMISS Criminal Case No. 10106 before the RTC of Masbate City, Branch 48 by reason of Amistoso’s death on December 11, 2012; and (3) NOTE WITHOUT ACTION the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the PAO.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code explicitly extinguishes criminal liability totally by death of the convict as to personal penalties, and pecuniary penalties if before final judgment. People v. Bayotas establishes that death pending appeal terminates criminal liability and only civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense (ex delicto in senso strictiore), as there is no longer a defendant to punish. Here, Amistoso died December 11, 2012, while his appeal was pending and unresolved; the January 9, 2013 Decision was promulgated post-death due to delayed notification but remains irrelevant and ineffectual since it has not become final and the Court retains jurisdiction to set it aside. The criminal action is ipso facto extinguished, grounded on the criminal case with no accused remaining. This aligns with People v. Bayot, confirming abatement extinguishes both criminal and ex delicto civil actions. Thus, dismissal of the RTC case is mandated. On Issue 2: Civil liability ex delicto is extinguished by death pending final judgment, but survives if predicated on other sources under Article 1157 Civil Code (law, contracts, quasi-contracts, quasi-delicts), enforceable via separate civil action against the estate per Rule 111, Sec. 1, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. Prescription is interrupted during criminal pendency per Article 1155 Civil Code. In this case, awards of indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages are purely ex delicto, tied solely to the rape conviction, hence extinguished; no other sources invoked, so no separate action directed.
Main Doctrine
Under Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict as to personal penalties, and as to pecuniary penalties only if death occurs before final judgment. As reiterated from People v. Bayotas, death pending appeal extinguishes both criminal liability and civil liability based solely thereon (ex delicto in senso strictiore), but civil claims predicated on other sources of obligation (law, contracts, quasi-contracts, quasi-delicts) survive and may be pursued via separate civil action against the estate. The criminal action is ipso facto extinguished with no defendant remaining, thus nullifying associated civil claims ex delicto. Where civil liability survives, prescription is interrupted during pendency of the criminal case per Article 1155 of the Civil Code. In this case, the accused's death on December 11, 2012, before the Supreme Court's January 9, 2013 Decision became final, required setting aside that Decision and dismissing the case, noting the PAO's Motion for Reconsideration without action.