G.R. No. 102007 September 2, 1994 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

ROGELIO BAYOTAS y CORDOVA, accused-appellant FACTS: Rogelio Bayotas was charged with Rape and eventually convicted thereof. Pending appeal of his conviction, Bayotas died on February 4, 1992 due to cardiac arrest. Consequently, the Supreme Court in its Resolution dismissed the criminal aspect of the appeal. In SGs comment as the SC required him to file, he expressed his view that the death of accused-appellant did not extinguish his civil liability as a result of his commission of the offense charged. The SG, relying on the case of People v. Sendaydiego insists that the appeal should still be resolved for the purpose of reviewing his conviction by the lower court on which the civil liability is based. Counsel for the accused-appellant, on the other hand, opposed the view of the SG arguing that the death of the accused while judgment of conviction is pending appeal extinguishes both his criminal and civil penalties. In support of his position, said counsel invoked the ruling of CA in People v. Castillo and Ocfemia which held that the civil obligation in a criminal case takes root in the criminal liability and, therefore, civil liability is extinguished if accused should die before final judgment is rendered. ISSUE: Does death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguish his civil liability? HELD: The Court decided on this case through stating the cases of Castillo and Sendaydiego. In the Castillo case, the Court said that civil liability is extinguished only when death of the accused occurred before the final judgement. Judge Kapunan further stated that civil liability is extinguished because there will be no party defendant in the case. There will be no civil liability if criminal liability does not exist. Further, the Court stated it is, thus, evident that the rule established was that the survival of the civil liability depends on whether the same can be predicated on the sources of obligations other than delict. In the Sendaydiego case, the Court issued Resolution of July 8, 1977 where it states that civil liability will only survive if death came after the final judgement of the CFI of Pangasinan. However, Article 30 of the Civil Code (separate filing for civil damages) could not possibly lend support to the ruling in Sendaydiego. Civil liability ex delicto is extinguished by the death of the accused while his conviction is on appeal. The Court also gave a summary on which cases should civil liability be extinguished, to wit: Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. Therefore, Bayotass death extinguished his criminal and civil liability based solely on the act complained of. G.R. No. L-31665 August 6, 1975 LEONARDO ALMEDA, vs. HON. ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ

FACTS: Petitioner Leonardo Almeda was charged, together with five others, with the crime of qualified theft of a motor vehicle presided by the respondent Judge. At the hearing, the respondent city fiscal, thru his assistant, reiterated his oral motion made at a previous hearing for amendment of the information so as to include allegations of recidivism and habitual delinquency in the particular case of Almeda. The latter vigorously objected, arguing that (a) such an amendment was premature since no copies of prior conviction could yet be presented in court, (b) the motion to amend should have been made in writing in order to enable him to object formally, and (c) the proposed amendment would place him in double jeopardy considering that he had already pleaded not guilty to the information. The trial court nevertheless granted the respondent fiscal's motion in open court. An oral motion for reconsideration was denied. Immediately thereafter, the assistant fiscal took hold of the original information and, then and there, entered his amendment by annotating the same on the back of the document. The petitioner forthwith moved for the dismissal of the charge on the ground of double jeopardy, but this motion and a motion for reconsideration were denied in open court. Hence, the present special civil action for certiorari with preliminary injunction. ISSUE: WON the amendment to the information, after a plea of not guilty thereto, was properly allowed in both substance and procedure. HELD: the amendment of the information to include allegations of habitual delinquency and recidivism, after a previous plea thereto by the accused, is valid and in no way violates his right to be fully apprised before trial of the charges against him. Under section 13 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, the trial court has discretion to allow amendments to the information on all matters of form after the defendant has pleaded and during the trial when the same can be done without prejudice to the rights of the defendant. What are prohibited at this stage of the proceedings are amendments in substance. And the substantial matter in a complaint or information is the recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the court. All other matters are merely of form.
The additional allegations of habitual delinquency and recidivism do not have the effect of charging another offense different or distinct from the charge of qualified theft (of a motor vehicle) contained in the information. Neither do they tend to correct any defect in the jurisdiction of the trial court over the subject-matter of the case. The said new allegations relate only to the range of the penalty that the court might impose in the event of conviction. They do not alter the prosecution's theory of the case nor possibly prejudice the form of defense the accused has or will assume. Consequently, in authorizing the amendments, the respondent judge acted with due consideration of the petitioner's rights and did not abuse his discretion.