PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ROGELIO BAYOTAS Y CORDOVA

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ROGELIO BAYOTAS Y CORDOVA

236 SCRA 239, September 2, 1994

Facts:

Rogelio Bayotas y Cordova, accused-appellant, was charged with rape before Branch 16, RTC Roxas City (Criminal Case No. C-3217). He was convicted on June 19, 1991. Pending appeal of his conviction, Bayotas died on February 4, 1992, at the National Bilibid Hospital due to cardio respiratory arrest secondary to hepatic encephalopathy secondary to hipato carcinoma gastric malingering.

The Supreme Court dismissed the criminal aspect of the appeal in a resolution dated May 20, 1992.

Issue:

Does death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguish his civil liability?

Held:

1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, “the death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore.”
2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict.  Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a result of the same act or omission:

a) Law

b) Contracts

c) Quasi-contracts

d) . . .

e) Quasi-delicts

3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above, an action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate civil action may be enforced either against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused, depending on the source of obligation upon which the same is based as explained above.
4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action by prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its extinction, the private-offended party instituted together therewith the civil action. In such case, the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case, conformably with provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil Code, that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible privation of right by prescription.

The appeal of the late Rogelio Bayotas is dismissed with costs de oficio.