GR L 54904; (January, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-54904 January 29, 1988
HEIRS OF TITO RILLORTA, petitioner, vs. HON. ROMEO N. FIRME, Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of La Union, Branch IV, Bauang, La Union; and ANDREW COSTALES, respondents.
FACTS
Andrew Costales was charged with killing Tito Rillorta. The trial court convicted him only of less serious physical injuries, sentencing him to twenty days of arresto menor and ordering him to indemnify the heirs with P500. The court found the inflicted wound was superficial and not fatal, ruling the proximate cause of death was pneumonia induced by needless exploratory surgery. The heirs, through counsel acting under the provincial fiscal’s supervision, filed a motion for reconsideration on February 2, 1980, after notice of the January 23 decision. This motion was denied on February 28, with notice to the private prosecutor on March 18. On March 20, a notice of appeal was jointly filed by the fiscal and private prosecutor. The respondent judge dismissed the appeal as tardy on April 14, 1980, prompting this certiorari petition.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the notice of appeal was timely filed. A secondary, substantive issue is whether the heirs can appeal the civil indemnity award and seek its increase by challenging the criminal conviction itself.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling the appeal was timely. The reglementary 15-day period to appeal began from the January 23 notice of judgment. The filing of the motion for reconsideration on February 2 consumed only ten days and suspended the running of the period until the denial order was served on the private prosecutor on March 18. The notice of appeal filed on March 20 used only twelve total days, making it timely under Rule 122, Section 6. Consequently, the trial court lost jurisdiction on March 20 and its orders dismissing the appeal were issued without authority.
On the substantive issue, the Court affirmed the settled rule that the offended party or heirs may appeal the civil indemnity award in a criminal case. However, such an appeal is strictly limited to the civil aspect; it cannot be used to challenge the criminal conviction to secure a higher award. The petitioners sought to increase the P500 indemnity by arguing Costales should have been convicted of homicide, not just physical injuries. This is prohibited by the constitutional rule on double jeopardy. An appeal that would place the accused in jeopardy of a conviction for a more serious offense is barred. Since the trial court validly convicted Costales of less serious physical injuries after a full trial, that finding cannot be disturbed. The civil liability must be based solely on that offense. The Court, to avoid further delay, directly evaluated the award and found P500 sufficient indemnity for the less serious physical injuries, as determined by the trial court, and not for the death. Thus, while the orders dismissing the appeal were set aside, the civil award was affirmed.