TodayisFriday,June17,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC

G.R.No.102007September2,1994
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,plaintiffappellee,
vs.
ROGELIOBAYOTASyCORDOVA,accusedappellant.
TheSolicitorGeneralforplaintiffappellee.
PublicAttorney'sOfficeforaccusedappellant.

ROMERO,J.:
InCriminalCaseNo.C3217filedbeforeBranch16,RTCRoxasCity,RogelioBayotasyCordovawascharged
withRapeandeventuallyconvictedthereofonJune19,1991inadecisionpennedbyJudgeManuelE.Autajay.
Pendingappealofhisconviction,BayotasdiedonFebruary4,1992at
the National Bilibid Hospital due to cardio respiratory arrest secondary to hepatic encephalopathy secondary to
hipato carcinoma gastric malingering. Consequently, the Supreme Court in its Resolution of May 20, 1992
dismissed the criminal aspect of the appeal. However, it required the Solicitor General to file its comment with
regardtoBayotas'civilliabilityarisingfromhiscommissionoftheoffensecharged.
Inhiscomment,theSolicitorGeneralexpressedhisviewthatthedeathofaccusedappellantdidnotextinguish
hiscivilliabilityasaresultofhiscommissionoftheoffensecharged.TheSolicitorGeneral,relyingonthecaseof
Peoplev.Sendaydiego1insiststhattheappealshouldstillberesolvedforthepurposeofreviewinghisconvictionbythe
lowercourtonwhichthecivilliabilityisbased.

Counselfortheaccusedappellant,ontheotherhand,opposedtheviewoftheSolicitorGeneralarguingthatthe
death of the accused while judgment of conviction is pending appeal extinguishes both his criminal and civil
penalties.Insupportofhisposition,saidcounselinvokedtherulingoftheCourtofAppealsinPeoplev.Castillo
andOcfemia 2whichheldthatthecivilobligationinacriminalcasetakesrootinthecriminalliabilityand,therefore,civil
liabilityisextinguishedifaccusedshoulddiebeforefinaljudgmentisrendered.

We are thus confronted with a single issue: Does death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction
extinguishhiscivilliability?
IntheaforementionedcaseofPeoplev.Castillo,thisissuewassettledintheaffirmative.Thissameissueposed
therein was phrased thus: Does the death of Alfredo Castillo affect both his criminal responsibility and his civil
liabilityasaconsequenceoftheallegedcrime?
Itresolvedthisissuethruthefollowingdisquisition:
Article89oftheRevisedPenalCodeisthecontrollingstatute.Itreads,inpart:
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 the pecuniary
penalties liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs
beforefinaljudgment
With reference to Castillo's criminal liability, there is no question. The law is plain. Statutory

constructionisunnecessary.Saidliabilityisextinguished.
Thecivilliability,however,posesaproblem.Suchliabilityisextinguishedonlywhenthedeathofthe
offenderoccursbeforefinaljudgment.Saddleduponusisthetaskofascertainingthelegalimportof
theterm"finaljudgment."Isitfinaljudgmentascontradistinguishedfromaninterlocutoryorder?Or,
isitajudgmentwhichisfinalandexecutory?
Wegotothegenesisofthelaw.ThelegalpreceptcontainedinArticle89oftheRevisedPenalCode
heretofore transcribed is lifted from Article 132 of the Spanish El Codigo Penal de 1870 which, in
part,recites:
Laresponsabilidadpenalseextingue.
1. Por la muerte del reo en cuanto a las penas personales siempre, y respecto a las
pecuniarias,solocuandoasufallecimientonohubiererecaidosentenciafirme.
xxxxxxxxx
The code of 1870 . . . it will be observed employs the term "sentencia firme." What is "sentencia
firme"undertheoldstatute?
XXVIIIEnciclopediaJuridicaEspaola,p.473,furnishesthereadyanswer:Itsays:
SENTENCIA FIRME. La sentencia que adquiere la fuerza de las definitivas por no
haberse utilizado por las partes litigantes recurso alguno contra ella dentro de los
terminosyplazoslegalesconcedidosalefecto.
"Sentencia firme" really should be understood as one which is definite. Because, it is only when
judgment is such that, as Medina y Maranon puts it, the crime is confirmed "en condena
determinada"or,inthewordsofGroizard,theguiltoftheaccusedbecomes"unaverdadlegal."
Priorthereto,shouldtheaccuseddie,accordingtoViada,"nohaylegalmente,entalcaso,nireo,ni
delito,niresponsabilidadcriminaldeningunaclase."And,asJudgeKapunanwellexplained,whena
defendant dies before judgment becomes executory, "there cannot be any determination by final
judgment whether or not the felony upon which the civil action might arise exists," for the simple
reason that "there is no party defendant." (I Kapunan, Revised Penal Code, Annotated, p. 421.
Senator Francisco holds the same view. Francisco, Revised Penal Code, Book One, 2nd ed., pp.
859860)
Thelegalimportoftheterm"finaljudgment"issimilarlyreflectedintheRevisedPenalCode.Articles
72 and 78 of that legal body mention the term "final judgment" in the sense that it is already
enforceable.ThisalsobringstomindSection7,Rule116oftheRulesofCourtwhichstatesthata
judgmentinacriminalcasebecomesfinal"afterthelapseoftheperiodforperfectinganappealor
when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served, or the defendant has expressly
waivedinwritinghisrighttoappeal."
By fair intendment, the legal precepts and opinions here collected funnel down to one positive
conclusion:ThetermfinaljudgmentemployedintheRevisedPenalCodemeansjudgmentbeyond
recall. Really, as long as a judgment has not become executory, it cannot be truthfully said that
defendantisdefinitelyguiltyofthefelonychargedagainsthim.
Notthatthemeaningthusgiventofinaljudgmentiswithoutreason.Forwhere,asinthiscase,the
righttoinstituteaseparatecivilactionisnotreserved,thedecisiontoberenderedmust,ofnecessity,
cover"boththecriminalandthecivilaspectsofthecase."Peoplevs.Yusico(November9,1942),2
O.G.,No.100,p.964.Seealso:Peoplevs.Moll,68Phil.,626,634Francisco,CriminalProcedure,
1958ed.,Vol.I,pp.234,236.Correctly,JudgeKapunanobservedthatas"thecivilactionisbased
solely on the felony committed and of which the offender might be found guilty, the death of the
offenderextinguishesthecivilliability."IKapunan,RevisedPenalCode,Annotated,supra.
Hereisthesituationobtaininginthepresentcase:Castillo'scriminalliabilityisout.Hiscivilliabilityis
sought to be enforced by reason of that criminal liability. But then, if we dismiss, as we must, the
criminalactionandletthecivilaspectremain,wewillbefacedwiththeanomaloussituationwhereby
wewillbecalledupontoclampcivilliabilityinacasewherethesourcethereofcriminalliability
doesnotexist.And,aswaswellstatedinBautista,etal.vs.Estrella,etal.,CAG.R.
No. 19226R, September 1, 1958, "no party can be found and held criminally liable in a civil suit,"
whichsolelywouldremainifwearetodivorceitfromthecriminalproceeding."
ThisrulingoftheCourtofAppealsintheCastillocase3wasadoptedbytheSupremeCourtinthecasesofPeople of

thePhilippinesv.BonifacioAlison,etal.,4PeopleofthePhilippinesv.JaimeJose,etal.5andPeopleofthePhilippinesv.
Satorre6bydismissingtheappealinviewofthedeathoftheaccusedpendingappealofsaidcases.

AsheldbythenSupremeCourtJusticeFernandointheAlisoncase:
ThedeathofaccusedappellantBonifacioAlisonhavingbeenestablished,andconsideringthatthere
isasyetnofinaljudgmentinviewofthependencyoftheappeal,thecriminalandcivilliabilityofthe
said accusedappellant Alison was extinguished by his death (Art. 89, Revised Penal Code Reyes'
Criminal Law, 1971 Rev. Ed., p. 717, citing People v. Castillo and Ofemia C.A., 56 O.G. 4045)
consequently,thecaseagainsthimshouldbedismissed.
On the other hand, this Court in the subsequent cases of Buenaventura Belamala v. Marcelino Polinar 7 and
LambertoTorrijosv.TheHonorableCourtofAppeals 8ruleddifferently.Intheformer,theissuedecidedbythiscourtwas:
Whetherthecivilliabilityofoneaccusedofphysicalinjurieswhodiedbeforefinaljudgmentisextinguishedbyhisdemiseto
theextentofbarringanyclaimthereforeagainsthisestate.Itwasthecontentionoftheadministratorappellantthereinthat
the death of the accused prior to final judgment extinguished all criminal and civil liabilities resulting from the offense, in
viewofArticle89,paragraph1oftheRevisedPenalCode.However,thiscourtruledtherein:

Weseenomeritinthepleathatthecivilliabilityhasbeenextinguished,inviewoftheprovisionsof
the Civil Code of the Philippines of 1950 (Rep. Act No. 386) that became operative eighteen years
after the revised Penal Code. As pointed out by the Court below, Article 33 of the Civil Code
establishes a civil action for damages on account of physical injuries, entirely separate and distinct
fromthecriminalaction.
Art.33.Incasesofdefamation,fraud,andphysicalinjuries,acivilactionfordamages,
entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured
party.Suchcivilactionshallproceedindependentlyofthecriminalprosecution,andshall
requireonlyapreponderanceofevidence.
Assuming that for lack of express reservation, Belamala's civil action for damages was to be
considered instituted together with the criminal action still, since both proceedings were terminated
withoutfinaladjudication,thecivilactionoftheoffendedpartyunderArticle33mayyetbeenforced
separately.
InTorrijos,theSupremeCourtheldthat:
xxxxxxxxx
It should be stressed that the extinction of civil liability follows the extinction of the criminal liability
under Article 89, only when the civil liability arises from the criminal act as its only basis. Stated
differently, where the civil liability does not exist independently of the criminal responsibility, the
extinction of the latter by death, ipsofacto extinguishes the former,provided, of course, that death
supervenesbeforefinaljudgment.Thesaidprincipledoesnotapplyininstantcasewhereinthecivil
liabilityspringsneithersolelynororiginallyfromthecrimeitselfbutfromacivilcontractofpurchase
andsale.(Emphasisours)
xxxxxxxxx
In the above case, the court was convinced that the civil liability of the accused who was charged with
estafa could likewise trace its genesis to Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code since said accused had
swindled the first and second vendees of the property subject matter of the contract of sale. It therefore
concluded:"Consequently,whilethedeathoftheaccusedhereinextinguishedhiscriminalliabilityincluding
fine,hiscivilliabilitybasedonthelawsofhumanrelationsremains."
Thus it allowed the appeal to proceed with respect to the civil liability of the accused, notwithstanding the
extinctionofhiscriminalliabilityduetohisdeathpendingappealofhisconviction.
Tofurtherjustifyitsdecisiontoallowthecivilliabilitytosurvive,thecourtreliedonthefollowingratiocination:Since
Section21,Rule3oftheRulesofCourt9requiresthedismissalofallmoneyclaimsagainstthedefendantwhosedeath
occurred prior to the final judgment of the Court of First Instance (CFI), then it can be inferred that actions for recovery of
money may continue to be heard on appeal, when the death of the defendant supervenes after the CFI had rendered its
judgment.Insuchcase,explainedthistribunal,"thenameoftheoffendedpartyshallbeincludedinthetitleofthecaseas
plaintiffappellee and the legal representative or the heirs of the deceasedaccused should be substituted as defendants
appellants."

Itis,thus,evidentthatasjurisprudenceevolvedfromCastillotoTorrijos,theruleestablishedwasthatthesurvival
of the civil liability depends on whether the same can be predicated on sources of obligations other than delict.

Stated differently, the claim for civil liability is also extinguished together with the criminal action if it were solely
basedthereon,i.e.,civilliabilityexdelicto.
However,theSupremeCourtinPeoplev.Sendaydiego,etal. 10 departed from this longestablished principle of law.
Inthiscase,accusedSendaydiegowaschargedwithandconvictedbythelowercourtofmalversationthrufalsificationof
publicdocuments.Sendaydiego'sdeathsupervenedduringthependencyoftheappealofhisconviction.

This court in an unprecedented move resolved to dismiss Sendaydiego's appeal but only to the extent of his
criminal liability. His civil liability was allowed to survive although it was clear that such claim thereon was
exclusivelydependentonthecriminalactionalreadyextinguished.Thelegalimportofsuchdecisionwasforthe
court to continue exercising appellate jurisdiction over the entire appeal, passing upon the correctness of
Sendaydiego's conviction despite dismissal of the criminal action, for the purpose of determining if he is civilly
liable.Indoingso,thisCourtissuedaResolutionofJuly8,1977statingthus:
TheclaimofcomplainantProvinceofPangasinanforthecivilliabilitysurvivedSendaydiegobecause
hisdeathoccurredafterfinaljudgmentwasrenderedbytheCourtofFirstInstanceofPangasinan,
whichconvictedhimofthreecomplexcrimesofmalversationthroughfalsificationandorderedhimto
indemnifytheProvinceinthetotalsumofP61,048.23(shouldbeP57,048.23).
The civil action for the civil liability is deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal action in the
absence of express waiver or its reservation in a separate action (Sec. 1, Rule 111 of the Rules of
Court). The civil action for the civil liability is separate and distinct from the criminal action (People
andManuelvs.Coloma,105Phil.1287Roavs.DelaCruz,107Phil.8).
When the action is for the recovery of money and the defendant dies before final judgment in the
Court of First Instance, it shall be dismissed to be prosecuted in the manner especially provided in
Rule87oftheRulesofCourt(Sec.21,Rule3oftheRulesofCourt).
Theimplicationisthat,ifthedefendantdiesafteramoneyjudgmenthadbeenrenderedagainsthim
by the Court of First Instance, the action survives him. It may be continued on appeal (Torrijos vs.
CourtofAppeals,L40336,October24,197567SCRA394).
Theaccountablepublicofficermaystillbecivillyliableforthefundsimproperlydisbursedalthoughhe
has no criminal liability (U.S. vs. Elvina, 24 Phil. 230 Philippine National Bank vs. Tugab, 66 Phil.
583).
In view of the foregoing, notwithstanding the dismissal of the appeal of the deceased Sendaydiego
insofar as his criminal liability is concerned, the Court Resolved to continue exercising appellate
jurisdictionoverhispossiblecivilliabilityforthemoneyclaimsoftheProvinceofPangasinanarising
fromtheallegedcriminalactscomplainedof,asifnocriminalcasehadbeeninstitutedagainsthim,
thusmakingapplicable,indetermininghiscivilliability,Article30oftheCivilCode...and,forthat
purpose,hiscounselisdirectedtoinformthisCourtwithinten(10)daysofthenamesandaddresses
ofthedecedent'sheirsorwhetherornothisestateisunderadministrationandhasadulyappointed
judicialadministrator.Saidheirsoradministratorwillbesubstitutedforthedeceasedinsofarasthe
civilactionforthecivilliabilityisconcerned(Secs.16and17,Rule3,RulesofCourt).
Succeedingcases 11raising the identical issue have maintained adherence to our ruling in Sendaydiego in other words,
they were a reaffirmance of our abandonment of the settled rule that a civil liability solely anchored on the criminal (civil
liabilityexdelicto)isextinguishedupondismissaloftheentireappealduetothedemiseoftheaccused.

Butwasitjudicioustohaveabandonedthisoldruling?AreexaminationofourdecisioninSendaydiegoimpelsus
toreverttotheoldruling.
TorestateourresolutionofJuly8,1977inSendaydiego: The resolution of the civil action impliedly instituted in
thecriminalactioncanproceedirrespectiveofthelatter'sextinctionduetodeathoftheaccusedpendingappeal
ofhisconviction,pursuanttoArticle30oftheCivilCodeandSection21,Rule3oftheRevisedRulesofCourt.
Article30oftheCivilCodeprovides:
Whenaseparatecivilactionisbroughttodemandcivilliabilityarisingfromacriminaloffense,andno
criminal proceedings are instituted during the pendency of the civil case, a preponderance of
evidenceshalllikewisebesufficienttoprovetheactcomplainedof.
Clearly,thetextofArticle30couldnotpossiblylendsupporttotherulinginSendaydiego.Nowhereinitstextis
there a grant of authority to continue exercising appellate jurisdiction over the accused's civil liability ex delicto
whenhisdeathsupervenesduringappeal.WhatArticle30recognizesisanalternativeandseparatecivilaction
whichmaybebroughttodemandcivilliabilityarisingfromacriminaloffenseindependentlyofanycriminalaction.

In the event that no criminal proceedings are instituted during the pendency of said civil case, the quantum of
evidence needed to prove the criminal act will have to be that which is compatible with civil liability and that is,
preponderanceofevidenceandnotproofofguiltbeyondreasonabledoubt.CitingorinvokingArticle30tojustify
thesurvivalofthecivilactiondespiteextinctionofthecriminalwouldineffectmerelybegthequestionofwhether
civilliabilityexdelictosurvivesuponextinctionofthecriminalactionduetodeathoftheaccusedduringappealof
hisconviction.Thisisbecausewhetherassertedin
thecriminalactionorinaseparatecivilaction,civilliabilityexdelictoisextinguishedbythedeathoftheaccused
whilehisconvictionisonappeal.Article89oftheRevisedPenalCodeisclearonthismatter:
Art.89.Howcriminalliabilityistotallyextinguished.Criminalliabilityistotallyextinguished:
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties and as to pecuniary penalties, liability
thereforisextinguishedonlywhenthedeathoftheoffenderoccursbeforefinaljudgment
xxxxxxxxx
However, the ruling in Sendaydiegodeviated from the expressed intent of Article 89. It allowed claims for civil
liabilityexdelictotosurvivebyipsofactotreatingthecivilactionimpliedlyinstitutedwiththecriminal,asonefiled
underArticle30,asthoughnocriminalproceedingshadbeenfiledbutmerelyaseparatecivilaction.Thishadthe
effectofconvertingsuchclaimsfromonewhichisdependentontheoutcomeofthecriminalactiontoanentirely
newandseparateone,theprosecutionofwhichdoesnotevennecessitatethefilingofcriminalproceedings. 12
One would be hard put to pinpoint the statutory authority for such a transformation. It is to be borne in mind that in
recoveringcivilliabilityexdelicto,thesamehasperforcetobedeterminedinthecriminalaction,rootedasitisinthecourt's
pronouncementoftheguiltorinnocenceoftheaccused.ThisisbuttorenderfealtytotheintendmentofArticle100ofthe
Revised Penal Code which provides that "every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable." In such cases,
extinctionofthecriminalactionduetodeathoftheaccusedpendingappealinevitablysignifiestheconcomitantextinction
ofthecivilliability.MorsOmniaSolvi.Deathdissolvesallthings.

Insum,inpursuingrecoveryofcivilliabilityarisingfromcrime,thefinaldeterminationofthecriminalliabilityisa
conditionprecedenttotheprosecutionofthecivilaction,suchthatwhenthecriminalactionisextinguishedbythe
demise of accusedappellant pending appeal thereof, said civil action cannot survive. The claim for civil liability
springs out of and is dependent upon facts which, if true, would constitute a crime. Such civil liability is an
inevitableconsequenceofthecriminalliabilityandistobedeclaredandenforcedinthecriminalproceeding.This
is to be distinguished from that which is contemplated under Article 30 of the Civil Code which refers to the
institution of a separate civil action that does not draw its life from a criminal proceeding. The Sendaydiego
resolutionofJuly8,1977,however,failedtotakenoteofthisfundamentaldistinctionwhenitallowedthesurvival
ofthecivilactionfortherecoveryofcivilliabilityexdelictobytreatingthesameasaseparatecivilactionreferred
to under Article 30. Surely, it will take more than just a summary judicial pronouncement to authorize the
conversionofsaidcivilactiontoanindependentonesuchasthatcontemplatedunderArticle30.
Ironically however, the main decision in Sendaydiego did not apply Article 30, the resolution of July 8, 1977
notwithstanding.Thus,itwasheldinthemaindecision:
Sendaydiego's appeal will be resolved only for the purpose of showing his criminal liability which is
thebasisofthecivilliabilityforwhichhisestatewouldbeliable.13
In other words, the Court, in resolving the issue of his civil liability, concomitantly made a determination on
whether Sendaydiego, on the basis of evidenced adduced, was indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
committing the offense charged. Thus, it upheld Sendaydiego's conviction and pronounced the same as the
source of his civil liability. Consequently, although Article 30 was not applied in the final determination of
Sendaydiego's civil liability, there was a reopening of the criminal action already extinguished which served as
basis for Sendaydiego's civil liability. We reiterate: Upon death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction,
thecriminalactionisextinguishedinasmuchasthereisnolongeradefendanttostandastheaccusedthecivil
actioninstitutedthereinforrecoveryofcivilliabilityexdelictoisipsofactoextinguished,groundedasitisonthe
criminal.
Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court was also invoked to serve as another basis for the Sendaydiego
resolutionofJuly8,1977.IncitingSec.21,Rule3oftheRulesofCourt,theCourtmadetheinferencethatcivil
actionsofthetypeinvolvedinSendaydiegoconsistofmoneyclaims,therecoveryofwhichmaybecontinuedon
appealifdefendantdiespendingappealofhisconvictionbyholdinghisestateliabletherefor.Hence,theCourt's
conclusion:
"Whentheactionisfortherecoveryofmoney""andthedefendantdiesbeforefinaljudgmentinthe
courtofFirstInstance,itshallbedismissedtobeprosecutedinthemannerespeciallyprovided"in
Rule87oftheRulesofCourt(Sec.21,Rule3oftheRulesofCourt).
Theimplicationisthat,ifthedefendantdiesafteramoneyjudgmenthadbeenrenderedagainsthim

bytheCourtofFirstInstance,theactionsurviveshim.Itmaybecontinuedonappeal.
Sadly,relianceonthisprovisionoflawismisplaced.Fromthestandpointofprocedurallaw,thiscoursetakenin
Sendaydiegocannotbesanctioned.AscorrectlyobservedbyJusticeRegalado:
xxxxxxxxx
I do not, however, agree with the justification advanced in both Torrijos and Sendaydiego which,
relying on the provisions of Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, drew the strained implication
therefromthatwherethecivilliabilityinstitutedtogetherwiththecriminalliabilitieshadalreadypassed
beyondthejudgmentofthethenCourtofFirstInstance(nowtheRegionalTrialCourt),theCourtof
Appeals can continue to exercise appellate jurisdiction thereover despite the extinguishment of the
component criminal liability of the deceased. This pronouncement, which has been followed in the
Court'sjudgmentssubsequentandconsonanttoTorrijosandSendaydiego,shouldbesetasideand
abandonedasbeingclearlyerroneousandunjustifiable.
SaidSection21ofRule3isaruleofcivilprocedureinordinarycivilactions.Thereisneitherauthority
norjustificationforitsapplicationincriminalproceduretocivilactionsinstitutedtogetherwithandas
partofcriminalactions.Noristhereanyauthorityinlawforthesummaryconversionfromthelatter
categoryofanordinarycivilactionuponthedeathoftheoffender....
Moreover, the civil action impliedly instituted in a criminal proceeding for recovery of civil liability ex delicto can
hardlybecategorizedasanordinarymoneyclaimsuchasthatreferredtoinSec.21,Rule3enforceablebefore
theestateofthedeceasedaccused.
Ordinary money claims referred to in Section 21, Rule 3 must be viewed in light of the provisions of Section 5,
Rule86involvingclaimsagainsttheestate,whichinSendaydiegowasheldliableforSendaydiego'scivilliability.
"WhatarecontemplatedinSection21ofRule3,inrelationtoSection5ofRule86,14arecontractualmoneyclaims
whiletheclaimsinvolvedincivilliabilityexdelictomayincludeeventherestitutionofpersonalorrealproperty." 15Section
5,Rule86providesanexclusiveenumerationofwhatclaimsmaybefiledagainsttheestate.Theseare:funeralexpenses,
expenses for the last illness, judgments for money and claim arising from contracts, expressed or implied. It is clear that
moneyclaimsarisingfromdelictdonotformpartofthisexclusiveenumeration.Hence,therecouldbenolegalbasisin(1)
treating a civil action ex delicto as an ordinary contractual money claim referred to in Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of
Courtand(2)allowingittosurvivebyfilingaclaimthereforbeforetheestateofthedeceasedaccused.Rather,itshouldbe
extinguished upon extinction of the criminal action engendered by the death of the accused pending finality of his
conviction.

Accordingly,werule:iftheprivateoffendedparty,uponextinctionofthecivilliabilityexdelictodesirestorecover
damagesfromthesameactoromissioncomplainedof,hemustsubjecttoSection1,Rule111 16 (1985 Rules on
CriminalProcedureasamended)fileaseparatecivilaction,thistimepredicatednotonthefelonypreviouslychargedbuton
other sources of obligation. The source of obligation upon which the separate civil action is premised determines against
whomthesameshallbeenforced.

Ifthesameactoromissioncomplainedofalsoarisesfromquasidelictormay,byprovisionoflaw,resultinan
injury to person or property (real or personal), the separate civil action must be filed against the executor or
administrator17oftheestateoftheaccusedpursuanttoSec.1,Rule87oftheRulesofCourt:
Sec.1.Actions which may and which may not be brought against executor or administrator. No
action upon a claim for the recovery of money or debt or interest thereon shall be commenced
againsttheexecutororadministratorbutactionstorecoverrealorpersonalproperty,oraninterest
therein,fromtheestate,ortoenforcealienthereon,andactionstorecoverdamagesforaninjuryto
personorproperty,realorpersonal,maybecommencedagainsthim.
ThisisinconsonancewithourrulinginBelamala 18 where we held that, in recovering damages for injury to persons
thru an independent civil action based on Article 33 of the Civil Code, the same must be filed against the executor or
administrator of the estate of deceased accused and not against the estate under Sec. 5, Rule 86 because this rule
explicitlylimitstheclaimtothoseforfuneralexpenses,expensesforthelastsicknessofthedecedent,judgmentformoney
andclaimsarisingfromcontract,expressorimplied.Contractualmoneyclaims,westressed,refersonlytopurelypersonal
obligationsotherthanthosewhichhavetheirsourceindelictortort.

Conversely,ifthesameactoromissioncomplainedofalsoarisesfromcontract,theseparatecivilactionmustbe
filedagainsttheestateoftheaccused,pursuanttoSec.5,Rule86oftheRulesofCourt.
Fromthislengthydisquisition,wesummarizeourrulingherein:
1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil
liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, "the death of the accused prior to

finaljudgmentterminateshiscriminalliabilityandonlythecivilliabilitydirectlyarisingfromandbasedsolelyonthe
offensecommitted,i.e.,civilliabilityexdelictoinsensostrictiore."
2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may also be
predicatedonasourceofobligationotherthandelict.19Article1157oftheCivilCodeenumeratestheseothersources
ofobligationfromwhichthecivilliabilitymayariseasaresultofthesameactoromission:

a)Law20
b)Contracts
c)Quasicontracts
d)...
e)Quasidelicts
3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above, an action for recovery therefor may be
pursuedbutonlybywayoffilingaseparatecivilactionandsubjecttoSection1,Rule111ofthe1985Ruleson
Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate civil action may be enforced either against the
executor/administratorortheestateoftheaccused,dependingonthesourceofobligationuponwhichthesame
isbasedasexplainedabove.
4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action by
prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its extinction, the private
offended party instituted together therewith the civil action. In such case, the statute of limitations on the civil
liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case, conformably with provisions of Article
115521oftheCivilCode,thatshouldtherebyavoidanyapprehensiononapossibleprivationofrightbyprescription.22
Applying this set of rules to the case at bench, we hold that the death of appellant Bayotas extinguished his
criminalliabilityandthecivilliabilitybasedsolelyontheactcomplainedof,i.e.,rape.Consequently,theappealis
herebydismissedwithoutqualification.
WHEREFORE,theappealofthelateRogelioBayotasisDISMISSEDwithcostsdeoficio.
SOORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug,
KapunanandMendoza,JJ.,concur.
Cruz,J.,isonleave.

#Footnotes
1Nos.L33252,L33253andL33254,81SCRA120.
2No.22211R,November4,1959,56O.G.No.23,p.4045.
3supra.
4L30612,April27,1972,44SCRA523.
5No.L28397,June17,1976,71SCRA273.
6No.L26282,August27,1976,72SCRA439.
7No.L24098,November18,1967,21SCRA970.
8No.L40336,October24,1975,67SCRA394.
9Sec.21.Whereclaimdoesnotsurvive.Whentheactionisforrecoveryofmoney,debtor
interestthereon,andthedefendantdiesbeforefinaljudgmentintheCourtofFirstInstance,itshall
bedismissedtobeprosecutedinthemannerespeciallyprovidedintheserules.
10Supra.
11Peoplev.Badeo,G.R.No.72990,November21,1991,204SCRA122Petralbav.