GR L 24098; (November, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-24098 November 18, 1967
BUENAVENTURA BELAMALA, petitioner-appellee, vs. MARCELINO POLINAR, administrator, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
The case involves a money claim filed by Buenaventura Belamala against the estate of the deceased Mauricio Polinar for damages arising from physical injuries. Mauricio Polinar was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Bohol of serious physical injuries and ordered to pay Belamala P990.00, P35.80 as indemnity, and P1,000.00 as moral damages. Polinar appealed to the Court of Appeals. While his appeal was pending, Polinar died on July 27, 1956. The Court of Appeals later affirmed the trial court’s decision in toto on March 27, 1958. Belamala filed a claim against Polinar’s estate in the amount of P2,025.80. The administrator, Marcelino Polinar, opposed the claim, contending that the death of the accused prior to final judgment extinguished all criminal and civil liabilities under Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The trial court allowed the claim against the estate. The administrator appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the civil liability of an accused for physical injuries, who dies before final judgment, is extinguished by his death, thereby barring any claim for damages against his estate.
RULING
No. The civil liability is not extinguished by the death of the accused before final judgment. Article 33 of the Civil Code establishes a civil action for damages for physical injuries that is entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action. This civil action can proceed independently. Even assuming the civil action was deemed instituted with the criminal case, the separate civil action under Article 33 may still be enforced since both proceedings were terminated without final adjudication due to the accused’s death. The obligation to indemnify under Article 108 of the Revised Penal Code ultimately becomes an obligation of the offender’s estate, transmissible to his heirs to the extent of the value of the inheritance. However, the claim for damages arising from a tort or delict, such as physical injuries, cannot be enforced by merely filing a claim under Rule 86 of the Rules of Court (which covers claims arising from contract). Instead, it must be prosecuted by a separate civil action against the administrator under Rule 87. The decision of the trial court allowing the claim was reversed and set aside, but without prejudice to Belamala filing a separate action against the administrator of the estate.