G.R. No. 197252 , June 23, 2021
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Nestor De Atras y Ella, et al., Accused; Wenlito Depillo y Biorco @ “Wewen” and Lolito Depillo y Dehijido @ “Lito”, Accused-Appellants.

FACTS

In a Resolution dated June 15, 2016, the Court affirmed with modification a CA decision finding accused-appellants Wenlito Depillo and Lolito Depillo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder. However, it was later discovered that Lolito Depillo had died on March 16, 2015, as evidenced by a Letter from the Bureau of Corrections and a Certificate of Death. This death occurred during the pendency of the criminal case, as the Court’s Resolution was issued on June 15, 2016, and attained finality on February 27, 2017, but only as to Wenlito.

ISSUE

Whether the supervening death of accused-appellant Lolito Depillo prior to the finality of his conviction warrants the dismissal of the criminal case against him and the setting aside of the Court’s final Resolution affirming his conviction.

RULING

Yes. The Court set aside its June 15, 2016 Resolution insofar as Lolito Depillo is concerned and dismissed the criminal case against him.
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, liability is extinguished if death occurs before final judgment. The civil liability ex delicto is also extinguished as it is grounded on the criminal action. The rationale is that upon an accused’s death pending appeal, there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused.
The Court, citing People v. Santiago, clarified that while criminal liability and civil liability based solely on the delict are extinguished, the civil liability arising from other sources of obligation (law, contracts, quasi-contracts, or quasi-delicts) may survive. A separate civil action may be pursued against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused.
Although the June 15, 2016 Resolution had attained finality, the Court relaxed the doctrine of immutability of judgment due to the existence of special or compelling circumstances—specifically, the Court was belatedly informed of Lolito’s supervening death pending his appeal. Therefore, the Court exercised its power to rectify the situation. Consequently, Criminal Case No. 03-63-A was dismissed as against Lolito Depillo by reason of his supervening death prior to final conviction, and the case was declared closed and terminated as to him.