Rodriguez v. Elorde
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The dispute originated from an Information dated August 5, 2015, charging Perlita Rodriguez with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, filed by Senior Assistant City Prosecutor Sheilani L. Baes before RTC Branch 257, Parañaque City, docketed as Criminal Case No. 15-1124. The Information alleged that from 1961 to 2009, Rodriguez, by false pretenses and fraudulent acts, obtained numerous loans from Laura Elorde totaling PHP 1,060,185.57, using as collateral a parcel of land in Barangay San Antonio, Parañaque City under TCT No. 95635 (88062), falsely representing herself as owner, later securing more loans payable via the property itself, which Elorde relied upon; Rodriguez then misappropriated the amounts, failed to transfer title to Elorde despite demands, causing prejudice. On September 16, 2015, Judge Rolando G. How dismissed the case for lack of probable cause based on evidence presented. Elorde filed an Entry of Appearance with Motion for Reconsideration on October 29, 2015, and a Motion to Inhibit Judge How on November 29, 2015, under Rule 137, Section 1, Rules of Court, leading to re-raffle to RTC Branch 196 under Judge Brigido Artemon M. Luna. Procedural History: On December 7, 2015, Judge Luna granted Elorde's Motion for Reconsideration, reinstated the case, and issued a warrant of arrest against Rodriguez. Rodriguez countered with an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration of the December 7 Order and to Quash the Information, arguing the facts did not constitute estafa. Elorde opposed, asserting the Information sufficiently alleged elements under Article 315(2)(a), actions fell within its ambit, probable cause existed, and reconsideration was discretionary. On February 18, 2016, Judge Luna denied Rodriguez's motions. Rodriguez elevated to CA via Petition for Certiorari (SP Proc. No. 144846), claiming grave abuse in finding probable cause under Article 315(2)(a) or (1)(b), and improper reversal of Judge How's dismissal due to late Motion for Reconsideration. CA dismissed via Decision (April 6, 2016), affirming RTC Orders, ruling no grave abuse, certiorari improper as trial was adequate remedy; Motion for Reconsideration denied (August 26, 2016). The Petition: Rodriguez petitioned Supreme Court for review on certiorari, arguing: (1) CA erred in upholding reversal of September 16, 2015 Order despite Elorde's late Motion for Reconsideration; (2) No probable cause under Article 315(2)(a) as Rodriguez owned the property; (3) No probable cause under Article 315(1)(b) absent trust/commission/administration obligation. Elorde countered it raised factual issues unfit for certiorari, meriting dismissal as rehash. Rodriguez replied, highlighting avoidance of timeliness issue. Court gave due course; Rodriguez died January 28, 2018, mooting the case.
Issue(s)
Whether the CA correctly dismissed the Petition for Certiorari, ruling RTC Branch 196 did not gravely abuse discretion in reinstating the estafa case. Whether criminal liability is extinguished by the accused's death pending resolution; and if not, whether the remedy of certiorari was proper.
Ruling
The criminal case against petitioner Perlita Rodriguez is DISMISSED in view of her death pursuant to Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code. Let an Entry of Judgment be issued immediately.
Ratio Decidendi
On Dismissal of Certiorari: The Court agrees with the CA that certiorari under Rule 65 was improper against the denial of a Motion to Quash, which is an interlocutory order not appealable. The proper remedy is to plead, proceed to trial, and assign the denial as error on appeal from conviction, per People v. Ramoy (G.R. No. 212738, March 9, 2022). Certiorari lies only for grave abuse absent a plain, adequate, speedy remedy, and no exceptional reasons were shown. The RTC's probable cause finding on the estafa Information (alleging deceit via false ownership pretenses for loans/collateral under Article 315(2)(a)) and discretionary reconsideration were proper and untainted by grave abuse, despite timeliness arguments, as the records supported reinstatement post-re-raffle. On Mootness and Extinction of Criminal Liability: The petitioner's death on January 28, 2018, renders the case moot and academic. Settled jurisprudence dictates that the death of the accused extinguishes criminal liability per Article 89(1), Revised Penal Code, which explicitly states that criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict as to personal penalties, and pecuniary penalties if before final judgment. This principle, drawn from People v. Monroyo (864 Phil. 1027), citing People v. Culas (810 Phil. 205), clarifies: (1) death pending appeal extinguishes criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore; (2) civil liability survives if based on other Article 1157, Civil Code sources (law, contracts, quasi-contracts, quasi-delicts), pursued separately under Rule 111, Sec. 1, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure against the estate; (3) prescription interrupted during criminal pendency per Article 1155, Civil Code. Since the Petition challenges the reinstatement of the estafa case, the petitioner's death extinguishes the action as no accused remains, dismissing the RTC case outright without prejudice to a separate civil action by Elorde, potentially on contract for loans/collateral. Furthermore, even if the case were not moot, the remedy of certiorari was improper as discussed above.
Main Doctrine
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, pursuant to Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code. This extinction applies pending appeal or resolution, rendering the criminal action moot and academic, as no defendant remains to prosecute. However, civil liability based solely on the offense (ex delicto in senso strictiore) is also extinguished, while civil liability predicated on other sources under Article 1157 of the Civil Code—such as contracts, quasi-contracts, or quasi-delicts—survives and may be pursued via a separate civil action against the estate. The statute of limitations for such civil claims is interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case per Article 1155, Civil Code. An order denying a motion to quash an information is interlocutory, not appealable, and generally not subject to certiorari under Rule 65, as the accused must proceed to trial, enter a plea, and raise the denial as error on appeal from final judgment, unless exceptional circumstances justify immediate certiorari.