The Supreme Court’s resolution in People v. Calomia underscores a critical principle in Philippine law: the death of an accused pending appeal extinguishes both criminal liability and civil liability directly arising from the crime. This means that if a person convicted of a crime dies while their case is still under appeal, the conviction is set aside, and any related civil liabilities are also nullified. This ruling protects the rights of the deceased and their estate, ensuring that penalties are not unjustly imposed on their heirs. However, civil liabilities based on sources other than the crime itself, such as contracts or quasi-delicts, may still be pursued in separate civil actions.

When Death Defeats Justice: The Extinguishment of Liability in Criminal Appeals

Ruben Calomia was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Loay, Bohol, for two counts of qualified rape against his minor daughter. The RTC sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each count, along with civil indemnities. Calomia appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the RTC’s decision with modifications to the damages awarded to the victim. Subsequently, Calomia filed a Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court. However, before the Supreme Court could resolve the appeal, the Bohol District Jail Warden informed the Court that Calomia had died in jail due to self-inflicted strangulation. This development brought into play Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, specifically concerning the extinguishment of criminal liability by death.

Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code provides the legal basis for the extinguishment of criminal liability. Specifically, paragraph 1 states:

Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. – Criminal liability is totally extinguished:

1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefore is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment.

This provision clearly indicates that the death of the accused before a final judgment not only extinguishes the personal penalties but also the pecuniary penalties associated with the crime. The Supreme Court, in the landmark case of People v. Bayotas, extensively interpreted this provision, establishing clear guidelines on how death affects criminal and civil liabilities.

The Supreme Court, in People v. Bayotas, clarified the implications of Article 89, setting forth critical guidelines. The Court emphasized that the death of the accused pending appeal extinguishes criminal liability and civil liability based solely on the crime. Justice Regalado’s opinion, as cited in Bayotas, succinctly captures this principle:

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.

This means that if the civil liability arises exclusively from the criminal act (ex delicto), it is extinguished upon the accused’s death before final judgment. However, civil liabilities stemming from other sources, such as contracts, quasi-contracts, or quasi-delicts, may survive and be pursued through separate civil actions. This distinction is crucial in determining the extent of liability following the death of the accused.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court in Bayotas outlined that civil liabilities may survive if predicated on a source of obligation other than the delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these other sources of obligation from which civil liability may arise:

• Law
• Contracts
• Quasi-contracts
• Quasi-delicts

The Court further elaborated that when the civil liability survives, a separate civil action may be pursued against the executor, administrator, or estate of the accused, depending on the source of the obligation. This ensures that the aggrieved party retains the right to seek compensation through alternative legal avenues. Moreover, the prescriptive period for filing a separate civil action is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case, safeguarding the offended party’s right to pursue their claim without fear of forfeiture.

Applying these principles to the case of Ruben Calomia, the Supreme Court noted that Calomia’s death occurred before the judgment of conviction became final. He died while his appeal was pending before the Court of Appeals, and the appellate court was not informed of his death before rendering its decision. Consequently, the Supreme Court had to resolve the issue of whether Calomia’s death extinguished his criminal and civil liabilities.

Given that Calomia’s death occurred prior to the finality of the judgment, the Supreme Court held that his criminal liability and the civil liabilities directly arising from the crime were extinguished. The Court reasoned that there was no longer an accused person to stand trial, and the civil action grounded on the criminal action was ipso facto extinguished. Therefore, the Court set aside the Court of Appeals’ decision and dismissed the criminal cases against Calomia.

In essence, the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Calomia reaffirms the established doctrine that the death of an accused pending appeal extinguishes both criminal and civil liabilities arising solely from the crime. This ruling underscores the importance of informing the courts of the accused’s death in a timely manner to ensure that the appropriate legal consequences are applied. This resolution highlights the nuanced interplay between criminal and civil liabilities in the context of an accused’s death, providing clarity and guidance for future cases.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the death of the accused, Ruben Calomia, pending appeal of his conviction for qualified rape, extinguished his criminal and civil liabilities.
What does Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code state?	Article 89 states that criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict as to personal penalties; pecuniary penalties are extinguished only if death occurs before final judgment.
What did the Supreme Court rule in People v. Bayotas?	The Supreme Court in People v. Bayotas clarified that the death of the accused pending appeal extinguishes criminal liability and civil liability based solely on the crime (ex delicto).
What happens to civil liabilities that do not arise from the crime itself?	Civil liabilities that arise from other sources, such as contracts or quasi-delicts, may survive the death of the accused and can be pursued in separate civil actions.
What was the basis for the civil liabilities in this case?	The civil liabilities in this case were based solely on the crimes of qualified rape, meaning they were ex delicto, and thus extinguished upon Calomia’s death.
What did the Supreme Court decide in People v. Calomia?	The Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeals’ decision and dismissed the criminal cases against Ruben Calomia due to his death prior to the finality of the judgment.
Why was the Court of Appeals’ decision set aside?	The Court of Appeals rendered its decision without knowledge of Calomia’s death; therefore, the Supreme Court corrected this error by applying Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code.
What is the effect of this ruling on the victim and her family?	While the criminal and ex delicto civil liabilities are extinguished, the victim may still have grounds to pursue civil claims based on other legal principles, such as moral damages, through separate legal action.

The Supreme Court’s resolution in People v. Calomia serves as a clear reminder of the legal principles governing the extinguishment of criminal and civil liabilities upon the death of an accused pending appeal. The decision underscores the necessity of prompt notification to the courts regarding the death of a party to ensure proper application of the law and prevent unjust outcomes. This case highlights the importance of understanding the nuances between liabilities arising directly from criminal acts and those based on other legal grounds.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. RUBEN CALOMIA, G.R. No. 229856, November 20, 2017