PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JAIME DAVID A.K.A. PREXY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus David

The Case

This is People versus David, a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines sought to sustain the conviction of Jaime David, also known as Prexy, for acts of lasciviousness committed against a child in relation to Republic Act Number 7610, the Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act. The case matters not for the elements of the crime, which the Court never reached, but for a single procedural event that overtook the appeal: the accused died before final judgment. It is therefore a clean vehicle for the rule on the total extinction of criminal and civil liability by reason of death, and for the consequence of that rule on a judgment of conviction that has not yet become final.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch 60, tried Jaime David in a criminal case for acts of lasciviousness in relation to Section 5 of Republic Act Number 7610. In its decision dated October 16, 2013, the trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of twelve years, ten months and twenty one days of reclusion temporal as minimum, to fifteen years, six months and twenty days of reclusion temporal as maximum. It also ordered him to pay a fine of 15,000 pesos, to indemnify the private complainant Katrina Jeanne Ayson in the amount of 20,000 pesos as civil indemnity, and to pay 15,000 pesos as moral damages.

From that conviction the accused appealed to the Supreme Court. After the records were transmitted, the Court sent the parties a notice to file briefs. The Public Attorney's Office, as counsel for the accused, moved for an extension of time to file the appellant's brief, which the Court granted. A copy of the resolution was returned unclaimed with the postal notation deceased, and so the Court issued a resolution on September 25, 2014 directing counsel to submit a certified true copy of the death certificate of the accused. Counsel twice asked for additional time to comply, and finally, on January 7, 2015, the Court received the certificate of death showing that the accused had died on August 20, 2012 due to cardio-respiratory arrest. The appeal was thus resolved on the strength of that fact rather than on the merits of the conviction.

Facts

Jaime David, known as Prexy, was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City with acts of lasciviousness in relation to Republic Act Number 7610, committed against Katrina Jeanne Ayson. After trial, the court rendered its decision on October 16, 2013, convicting him and imposing the penalty and the civil liabilities already described.

Unknown to the proceedings at the time, the accused had already died. His certificate of death states that he died on August 20, 2012 due to cardio-respiratory arrest, which is to say, before the trial court rendered its judgment of conviction.

When the case reached the Supreme Court on appeal, the Court learned of the death only because its resolution was returned with the notation deceased. It then required counsel to produce the death certificate, which counsel eventually submitted on January 7, 2015. The fact of death before final judgment thus stood undisputed, and the Court proceeded to determine its legal effect on the conviction and on the civil liability arising from the crime.

Issues

• Whether or not the death of the accused before final judgment extinguishes his criminal liability.
• Whether or not the death of the accused before final judgment likewise extinguishes the civil liability arising from the crime, including the fine, civil indemnity, and moral damages awarded by the trial court.
• Whether or not the trial court's decision of conviction may stand despite the death of the accused before final judgment.

Applicable Provisions

Article 89, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Article 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 is the provision on which the entire resolution turns, because it fixes the precise moment that matters, namely whether death occurred before or after final judgment, and it distinguishes personal penalties from pecuniary ones.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the death of the accused before final judgment extinguishes his criminal liability. The Court rested this on Article 89, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, which it quoted in full, and on the settled rule that the criminal action is extinguished because there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused.

On the second issue, the Court held that the civil liability arising from the crime is likewise extinguished. Quoting its earlier ruling in People versus Paras, the Court explained:

the criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused; the civil action instituted therein for the recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished, grounded as it is on the criminal action.

The civil liability ex delicto, meaning the civil liability arising from the crime itself, falls with the criminal action because it is grounded on that action. This is why the fine, the civil indemnity, and the moral damages could not survive the accused.

On the third issue, the Court held that the decision of conviction had become irrelevant and ineffectual by reason of the death of the accused on August 20, 2012, and that it must therefore be set aside and the case dismissed. The Court noted that the death occurred before the rendition of final judgment, and that the trial court's decision, having been rendered in the meantime, could no longer produce any legal effect against a deceased accused.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain the following rules. First, under Article 89, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict as to the personal penalties, and as to pecuniary penalties, the liability is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. Second, the death of the accused before final judgment extinguishes not only the criminal action but also the civil action for the recovery of civil liability ex delicto, because that civil liability is grounded on the criminal action and is extinguished with it. Third, a judgment of conviction that has not yet become final is set aside and the criminal case dismissed when the accused dies before final judgment, the decision having become irrelevant and ineffectual by reason of the death. The timing is everything: death before final judgment wipes out both liabilities, while death after final judgment extinguishes only the personal penalties, the pecuniary penalties surviving.

Disposition

The Court granted the motions for extension, set aside the October 16, 2013 decision of the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch 60, and dismissed the criminal case on account of the death of the accused-appellant.

Remember This

Memorize the line that death before final judgment extinguishes both the criminal liability and the civil liability ex delicto, because there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused. Examiners use this case to test the timing rule under Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code and the effect of the death of an accused pending appeal on a judgment of conviction that has not yet become final.