G.R. No.

102007 September 2, 1994

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ROGELIO BAYOTAS !OR"O#A, accused-appellant.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Public Attorney's Office for accused-appellant.

RO$ERO, J.:
In Criminal Case No. C-3217 filed before Branch 16, !C
o"as Cit#, o$elio Ba#otas # Cordova %as char$ed %ith ape
and eventuall# convicted thereof on &une 1', 1''1 in a
decision penned b# &ud$e (anuel ). *uta+a#. ,endin$ appeal
of his conviction, Ba#otas died on -ebruar# ., 1''2 at
the National Bilibid /ospital due to cardio respirator# arrest
secondar# to hepatic encephalopath# secondar# to hipato
carcinoma $astric malin$erin$. Conse0uentl#, the 1upreme
Court in its esolution of (a# 22, 1''2 dismissed the criminal
aspect of the appeal. /o%ever, it re0uired the 1olicitor
3eneral to file its comment %ith re$ard to Ba#otas4 civil
liabilit# arisin$ from his commission of the offense char$ed.
In his comment, the 1olicitor 3eneral e"pressed his vie% that
the death of accused-appellant did not e"tin$uish his civil
liabilit# as a result of his commission of the offense char$ed.
!he 1olicitor 3eneral, rel#in$ on the case ofPeople
v. Sendaydiego
1
insists that the appeal should still be
resolved for the purpose of revie%in$ his conviction b# the
lo%er court on %hich the civil liabilit# is based.
Counsel for the accused-appellant, on the other hand,
opposed the vie% of the 1olicitor 3eneral ar$uin$ that the
death of the accused %hile +ud$ment of conviction is pendin$
appeal e"tin$uishes both his criminal and civil penalties. In
support of his position, said counsel invo5ed the rulin$ of the
Court of *ppeals in People v. Castillo and Ocfemia
2
%hich
held that the civil obli$ation in a criminal case ta5es root in
the criminal liabilit# and, therefore, civil liabilit# is
e"tin$uished if accused should die before final +ud$ment is
rendered.
6e are thus confronted %ith a sin$le issue7 8oes death of the
accused pendin$ appeal of his conviction e"tin$uish his civil
liabilit#9
In the aforementioned case of People v. Castillo, this issue
%as settled in the affirmative. !his same issue posed therein
%as phrased thus7 8oes the death of *lfredo Castillo affect
both his criminal responsibilit# and his civil liabilit# as a
conse0uence of the alle$ed crime9
It resolved this issue thru the follo%in$ dis0uisition7
*rticle :' of the evised ,enal Code is the controllin$ statute.
It reads, in part7
*rt. :'. o! criminal liability is totally e"tinguished. ;
Criminal liabilit# is totall# e"tin$uished7
1. B# the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties<
and as to the pecuniar# penalties liabilit# therefor is
e"tin$uished onl# %hen the death of the offender occurs
before final +ud$ment<
6ith reference to Castillo4s criminal liabilit#, there is no
0uestion. !he la% is plain. 1tatutor# construction is
unnecessar#. 1aid liabilit# is e"tin$uished.
!he civil liabilit#, ho%ever, poses a problem. 1uch liabilit# is
e"tin$uished onl# %hen the death of the offender occurs
before final +ud$ment. 1addled upon us is the tas5 of
ascertainin$ the le$al import of the term =final +ud$ment.= Is
it final +ud$ment as contradistin$uished from an interlocutor#
order9 >r, is it a +ud$ment %hich is final and e"ecutor#9
6e $o to the $enesis of the la%. !he le$al precept contained
in *rticle :' of the evised ,enal Code heretofore transcribed
is lifted from *rticle 132 of the 1panish )l Codi$o ,enal de
1:72 %hich, in part, recites7
?a responsabilidad penal se e"tin$ue.
1. ,or la muerte del reo en cuanto a las penas personales
siempre, # respecto a las pecuniarias, solo cuando a su
fallecimiento no hubiere recaido sentencia firme.
""" """ """
!he code of 1:72 . . . it %ill be observed emplo#s the term
=sentencia firme.= 6hat is =sentencia firme= under the old
statute9
@@AIII )nciclopedia &uridica )spaBola, p. .73, furnishes the
read# ans%er7 It sa#s7
1)N!)NCI* -I(). ?a sentencia 0ue ad0uiere la fuerCa de las
definitivas por no haberse utiliCado por las partes liti$antes
recurso al$uno contra ella dentro de los terminos # plaCos
le$ales concedidos al efecto.
=1entencia firme= reall# should be understood as one %hich is
definite. Because, it is onl# %hen +ud$ment is such that, as
(edina # (aranon puts it, the crime is confirmed ; =en
condena determinada<= or, in the %ords of 3roiCard, the $uilt
of the accused becomes ; =una verdad le$al.= ,rior thereto,
should the accused die, accordin$ to Aiada, =no ha#
le$almente, en tal caso, ni reo, ni delito, ni responsabilidad
criminal de nin$una clase.= *nd, as &ud$e Dapunan %ell
e"plained, %hen a defendant dies before +ud$ment becomes
e"ecutor#, =there cannot be an# determination b# final
+ud$ment %hether or not the felon# upon %hich the civil
action mi$ht arise e"ists,= for the simple reason that =there is
no part# defendant.= EI Dapunan, evised ,enal Code,
*nnotated, p. .21. 1enator -rancisco holds the same vie%.
-rancisco, evised ,enal Code, Boo5 >ne, 2nd ed., pp. :F'-
:62G
!he le$al import of the term =final
+ud$ment= is similarl# reflected in the
evised ,enal Code. *rticles 72 and 7: of
that le$al bod# mention the term =final
+ud$ment= in the sense that it is alread#
enforceable. !his also brin$s to mind
1ection 7, ule 116 of the ules of Court
%hich states that a +ud$ment in a criminal
case becomes final =after the lapse of the
period for perfectin$ an appeal or %hen the
sentence has been partiall# or totall#
satisfied or served, or the defendant has
e"pressl# %aived in %ritin$ his ri$ht to
appeal.=
B# fair intendment, the le$al precepts and
opinions here collected funnel do%n to one
positive conclusion7 !he term final +ud$ment
emplo#ed in the evised ,enal Code means
+ud$ment be#ond recall. eall#, as lon$ as a
+ud$ment has not become e"ecutor#, it
cannot be truthfull# said that defendant is
definitel# $uilt# of the felon# char$ed
a$ainst him.
Not that the meanin$ thus $iven to final
+ud$ment is %ithout reason. -or %here, as
in this case, the ri$ht to institute a separate
civil action is not reserved, the decision to
be rendered must, of necessit#, cover =both
the criminal and the civil aspects of the
case.= People vs. #usico ENovember ',
1'.2G, 2 >.3., No. 122, p. '6.. 1ee
also7 People vs. $oll, 6: ,hil., 626,
63.< %rancisco, Criminal ,rocedure, 1'F:
ed., Aol. I, pp. 23., 236. Correctl#, &ud$e
Dapunan observed that as =the civil action is
based solel# on the felon# committed and of
%hich the offender mi$ht be found $uilt#,
the death of the offender e"tin$uishes the
civil liabilit#.= I Dapunan, evised ,enal
Code, *nnotated,supra.
/ere is the situation obtainin$ in the
present case7 Castillo4s criminal liabilit# is
out. /is civil liabilit# is sou$ht to be
enforced b# reason of that criminal liabilit#.
But then, if %e dismiss, as %e must, the
criminal action and let the civil aspect
remain, %e %ill be faced %ith the anomalous
situation %hereb# %e %ill be called upon to
clamp civil liabilit# in a case %here the
source thereof ; criminal liabilit# ; does
not e"ist. *nd, as %as %ell stated
in &autista' et al. vs. (strella' et al., C*-
3..
No. 1'226-, 1eptember 1, 1'F:, =no part#
can be found and held criminall# liable in a
civil suit,= %hich solel# %ould remain if %e
are to divorce it from the criminal
proceedin$.=
!his rulin$ of the Court of *ppeals in the Castillo case
%
%as
adopted b# the 1upreme Court in the cases ofPeople of the
Philippines v. &onifacio Alison' et al.,
4
People of the
Philippines v. )aime )ose' et al.
&
andPeople of the Philippines
v. Satorre
'
b# dismissin$ the appeal in vie% of the death of
the accused pendin$ appeal of said cases.
*s held b# then 1upreme Court &ustice -ernando in
the Alison case7
!he death of accused-appellant Bonifacio
*lison havin$ been established, and
considerin$ that there is as #et no final
+ud$ment in vie% of the pendenc# of the
appeal, the criminal and civil liabilit# of the
said accused-appellant *lison %as
e"tin$uished b# his death E*rt. :', evised
,enal Code< e#es4 Criminal ?a%, 1'71 ev.
)d., p. 717, citin$ ,eople v. Castillo and
>femia C.*., F6 >.3. .2.FG< conse0uentl#,
the case a$ainst him should be dismissed.
>n the other hand, this Court in the subse0uent cases
of &uenaventura &elamala v. $arcelino Polinar
7
and*amberto
Torri+os v. The onorable Court of Appeals
(
ruled differentl#.
In the former, the issue decided b# this court %as7 6hether
the civil liabilit# of one accused of ph#sical in+uries %ho died
before final +ud$ment is e"tin$uished b# his demise to the
e"tent of barrin$ an# claim therefore a$ainst his estate. It
%as the contention of the administrator-appellant therein that
the death of the accused prior to final +ud$ment e"tin$uished
all criminal and civil liabilities resultin$ from the offense, in
vie% of *rticle :', para$raph 1 of the evised ,enal Code.
/o%ever, this court ruled therein7
6e see no merit in the plea that the civil
liabilit# has been e"tin$uished, in vie% of
the provisions of the Civil Code of the
,hilippines of 1'F2 Eep. *ct No. 3:6G that
became operative ei$hteen #ears after the
revised ,enal Code. *s pointed out b# the
Court belo%, *rticle 33 of the Civil Code
establishes a civil action for dama$es on
account of ph#sical in+uries,
entirel# separate and distinct from the
criminal action.
*rt. 33. In cases of
defamation, fraud, and
ph#sical in+uries, a civil
action for dama$es,
entirel# separate and
distinct from the criminal
action, ma# be brou$ht b#
the in+ured part#. 1uch
civil action shall proceed
independentl# of the
criminal prosecution, and
shall re0uire onl# a
preponderance of
evidence.
*ssumin$ that for lac5 of e"press
reservation, Belamala4s civil action for
dama$es %as to be considered instituted
to$ether %ith the criminal action still, since
both proceedin$s %ere terminated %ithout
final ad+udication, the civil action of the
offended part# under *rticle 33 ma# #et be
enforced separatel#.
In Torri+os, the 1upreme Court held that7
""" """ """
It should be stressed that the e"tinction of
civil liabilit# follo%s the e"tinction of the
criminal liabilit# under *rticle :', onl# %hen
the civil liabilit# arises from the criminal act
as its onl# basis. 1tated differentl#, %here
the civil liabilit# does not e"ist
independentl# of the criminal responsibilit#,
the e"tinction of the latter b# death, ipso
facto e"tin$uishes the former, provided, of
course, that death supervenes before final
+ud$ment. !he said principle does not appl#
in instant case %herein the civil liabilit#
sprin$s neither solel# nor ori$inall# from the
crime itself but from a civil contract of
purchase and sale. E)mphasis oursG
""" """ """
In the above case, the court %as convinced that the
civil liabilit# of the accused %ho %as char$ed %ith
estafa could li5e%ise trace its $enesis to *rticles 1',
22 and 21 of the Civil Code since said accused had
s%indled the first and second vendees of the
propert# sub+ect matter of the contract of sale. It
therefore concluded7 =Conse0uentl#, %hile the death
of the accused herein e"tin$uished his criminal
liabilit# includin$ fine, his civil liabilit# based on the
la%s of human relations remains.=
!hus it allo%ed the appeal to proceed %ith respect to the civil
liabilit# of the accused, not%ithstandin$ the e"tinction of his
criminal liabilit# due to his death pendin$ appeal of his
conviction.
!o further +ustif# its decision to allo% the civil liabilit# to
survive, the court relied on the follo%in$ ratiocination7 1ince
1ection 21, ule 3 of the ules of Court
9
re0uires the
dismissal of all mone# claims a$ainst the defendant %hose
death occurred prior to the final +ud$ment of the Court of -irst
Instance EC-IG, then it can be inferred that actions for
recover# of mone# ma# continue to be heard on appeal, %hen
the death of the defendant supervenes after the C-I had
rendered its +ud$ment. In such case, e"plained this tribunal,
=the name of the offended part# shall be included in the title
of the case as plaintiff-appellee and the le$al representative
or the heirs of the deceased-accused should be substituted as
defendants-appellants.=
It is, thus, evident that as +urisprudence evolved from Castillo
to !orri+os, the rule established %as that the survival of the
civil liabilit# depends on %hether the same can be predicated
on sources of obli$ations other than delict. 1tated differentl#,
the claim for civil liabilit# is also e"tin$uished to$ether %ith
the criminal action if it %ere solel# based thereon, i.e., civil
liabilit# e" delicto.
/o%ever, the 1upreme Court in People v. Sendaydiego' et
al.
10
departed from this lon$-established principle of la%. In
this case, accused 1enda#die$o %as char$ed %ith and
convicted b# the lo%er court of malversation thru falsification
of public documents. 1enda#die$o4s death supervened durin$
the pendenc# of the appeal of his conviction.
!his court in an unprecedented move resolved to dismiss
1enda#die$o4s appeal but onl# to the e"tent of his criminal
liabilit#. /is civil liabilit# %as allo%ed to survive althou$h it
%as clear that such claim thereon %as e"clusivel# dependent
on the criminal action alread# e"tin$uished. !he le$al import
of such decision %as for the court to continue e"ercisin$
appellate +urisdiction over the entire appeal, passin$ upon the
correctness of 1enda#die$o4s conviction despite dismissal of
the criminal action, for the purpose of determinin$ if he is
civill# liable. In doin$ so, this Court issued a esolution of &ul#
:, 1'77 statin$ thus7
!he claim of complainant ,rovince of
,an$asinan for the civil liabilit# survived
1enda#die$o because his death occurred
after final +ud$ment %as rendered b# the
Court of -irst Instance of ,an$asinan, %hich
convicted him of three comple" crimes of
malversation throu$h falsification and
ordered him to indemnif# the ,rovince in
the total sum of ,61,2.:.23 Eshould be
,F7,2.:.23G.
!he civil action for the civil liabilit# is
deemed impliedl# instituted %ith the
criminal action in the absence of e"press
%aiver or its reservation in a separate action
E1ec. 1, ule 111 of the ules of CourtG.
!he civil action for the civil liabilit# is
separate and distinct from the criminal
action E,eople and (anuel vs. Coloma, 12F
,hil. 12:7< oa vs. 8e la CruC, 127 ,hil. :G.
6hen the action is for the recover# of
mone# and the defendant dies before final
+ud$ment in the Court of -irst Instance, it
shall be dismissed to be prosecuted in the
manner especiall# provided in ule :7 of the
ules of Court E1ec. 21, ule 3 of the ules
of CourtG.
!he implication is that, if the defendant dies
after a mone# +ud$ment had been rendered
a$ainst him b# the Court of -irst Instance,
the action survives him. It ma# be
continued on appeal E!orri+os vs. Court of
*ppeals, ?-.2336, >ctober 2., 1'7F< 67
1C* 3'.G.
!he accountable public officer ma# still be
civill# liable for the funds improperl#
disbursed althou$h he has no criminal
liabilit# EH.1. vs. )lvina, 2. ,hil. 232<
,hilippine National Ban5 vs. !u$ab, 66 ,hil.
F:3G.
In vie% of the fore$oin$, not%ithstandin$
the dismissal of the appeal of the deceased
1enda#die$o insofar as his criminal liabilit#
is concerned, the Court esolved to
continue e"ercisin$ appellate +urisdiction
over his possible civil liabilit# for the mone#
claims of the ,rovince of ,an$asinan arisin$
from the alle$ed criminal acts complained
of, as if no criminal case had been instituted
a$ainst him, thus ma5in$ applicable, in
determinin$ his civil liabilit#, *rticle 32 of
the Civil Code . . . and, for that purpose, his
counsel is directed to inform this Court
%ithin ten E12G da#s of the names and
addresses of the decedent4s heirs or
%hether or not his estate is under
administration and has a dul# appointed
+udicial administrator. 1aid heirs or
administrator %ill be substituted for the
deceased insofar as the civil action for the
civil liabilit# is concerned E1ecs. 16 and 17,
ule 3, ules of CourtG.
1ucceedin$ cases
11
raisin$ the identical issue have
maintained adherence to our rulin$ in Sendaydiego< in other
%ords, the# %ere a reaffirmance of our abandonment of the
settled rule that a civil liabilit# solel# anchored on the criminal
Ecivil liabilit# e" delictoG is e"tin$uished upon dismissal of the
entire appeal due to the demise of the accused.
But %as it +udicious to have abandoned this old rulin$9 * re-
e"amination of our decision in Sendaydiego impels us to
revert to the old rulin$.
!o restate our resolution of &ul# :, 1'77 in Sendaydiego7 !he
resolution of the civil action impliedl# instituted in the criminal
action can proceed irrespective of the latter4s e"tinction due
to death of the accused pendin$ appeal of his conviction,
pursuant to *rticle 32 of the Civil Code and 1ection 21, ule 3
of the evised ules of Court.
*rticle 32 of the Civil Code provides7
6hen a separate civil action is brou$ht to
demand civil liabilit# arisin$ from a criminal
offense, and no criminal proceedin$s are
instituted durin$ the pendenc# of the civil
case, a preponderance of evidence shall
li5e%ise be sufficient to prove the act
complained of.
Clearl#, the te"t of *rticle 32 could not possibl# lend support
to the rulin$ in Sendaydiego. No%here in its te"t is there a
$rant of authorit# to continue e"ercisin$ appellate +urisdiction
over the accused4s civil liabilit# e" delicto%hen his death
supervenes durin$ appeal. 6hat *rticle 32 reco$niCes is an
alternative and separate civil action %hich ma# be brou$ht to
demand civil liabilit# arisin$ from a criminal offense
independentl# of an# criminal action. In the event that no
criminal proceedin$s are instituted durin$ the pendenc# of
said civil case, the 0uantum of evidence needed to prove the
criminal act %ill have to be that %hich is compatible %ith civil
liabilit# and that is, preponderance of evidence and not proof
of $uilt be#ond reasonable doubt. Citin$ or invo5in$ *rticle 32
to +ustif# the survival of the civil action despite e"tinction of
the criminal %ould in effect merel# be$ the 0uestion of
%hether civil liabilit# e" delicto survives upon e"tinction of the
criminal action due to death of the accused durin$ appeal of
his conviction. !his is because %hether asserted in
the criminal action or in a separate civil action, civil liabilit# e"
delicto is e"tin$uished b# the death of the accused %hile his
conviction is on appeal. *rticle :' of the evised ,enal Code
is clear on this matter7
*rt. :'. o! criminal liability is totally
e"tinguished. ; Criminal liabilit# is totall#
e"tin$uished7
1. B# the death of the convict, as to the
personal penalties< and as to pecuniar#
penalties, liabilit# therefor is e"tin$uished
onl# %hen the death of the offender occurs
before final +ud$ment<
""" """ """
/o%ever, the rulin$ in Sendaydiego deviated from the
e"pressed intent of *rticle :'. It allo%ed claims for civil
liabilit# e" delicto to survive b# ipso facto treatin$ the civil
action impliedl# instituted %ith the criminal, as one filed under
*rticle 32, as thou$h no criminal proceedin$s had been filed
but merel# a separate civil action. !his had the effect of
convertin$ such claims from one %hich is dependent on the
outcome of the criminal action to an entirel# ne% and
separate one, the prosecution of %hich does not even
necessitate the filin$ of criminal proceedin$s.
12
>ne %ould be
hard put to pinpoint the statutor# authorit# for such a
transformation. It is to be borne in mind that in recoverin$
civil liabilit# e" delicto, the same has perforce to be
determined in the criminal action, rooted as it is in the court4s
pronouncement of the $uilt or innocence of the accused. !his
is but to render fealt# to the intendment of *rticle 122 of the
evised ,enal Code %hich provides that =ever# person
criminall# liable for a felon# is also civill# liable.= In such
cases, e"tinction of the criminal action due to death of the
accused pendin$ appeal inevitabl# si$nifies the concomitant
e"tinction of the civil liabilit#. $ors Omnia Solvi. 8eath
dissolves all thin$s.
In sum, in pursuin$ recover# of civil liabilit# arisin$ from
crime, the final determination of the criminal liabilit# is a
condition precedent to the prosecution of the civil action, such
that %hen the criminal action is e"tin$uished b# the demise of
accused-appellant pendin$ appeal thereof, said civil action
cannot survive. !he claim for civil liabilit# sprin$s out of and is
dependent upon facts %hich, if true, %ould constitute a crime.
1uch civil liabilit# is an inevitable conse0uence of the criminal
liabilit# and is to be declared and enforced in the criminal
proceedin$. !his is to be distin$uished from that %hich is
contemplated under *rticle 32 of the Civil Code %hich refers
to the institution of a separate civil action that does not dra%
its life from a criminal proceedin$. !he 1enda#die$o
resolution of &ul# :, 1'77, ho%ever, failed to ta5e note of this
fundamental distinction %hen it allo%ed the survival of the
civil action for the recover# of civil liabilit# e" delicto b#
treatin$ the same as a separate civil action referred to under
*rticle 32. 1urel#, it %ill ta5e more than +ust a summar#
+udicial pronouncement to authoriCe the conversion of said
civil action to an independent one such as that contemplated
under *rticle 32.
Ironicall# ho%ever, the main decision in 1enda#die$o did not
appl# *rticle 32, the resolution of &ul# :, 1'77
not%ithstandin$. !hus, it %as held in the main decision7
1enda#die$o4s appeal %ill be resolved onl#
for the purpose of sho%in$ his criminal
liabilit# %hich is the basis of the civil liabilit#
for %hich his estate %ould be liable.
1%
In other %ords, the Court, in resolvin$ the issue of his civil
liabilit#, concomitantl# made a determination on %hether
1enda#die$o, on the basis of evidenced adduced, %as indeed
$uilt# be#ond reasonable doubt of committin$ the offense
char$ed. !hus, it upheld 1enda#die$o4s conviction and
pronounced the same as thesource of his civil liabilit#.
Conse0uentl#, althou$h *rticle 32 %as not applied in the final
determination of 1enda#die$o4s civil liabilit#, there %as a
reopenin$ of the criminal action alread# e"tin$uished %hich
served as basis for 1enda#die$o4s civil liabilit#. 6e reiterate7
Hpon death of the accused pendin$ appeal of his conviction,
the criminal action is e"tin$uished inasmuch as there is no
lon$er a defendant to stand as the accused< the civil action
instituted therein for recover# of civil liabilit# e" delicto is ipso
facto e"tin$uished, $rounded as it is on the criminal.
1ection 21, ule 3 of the ules of Court %as also invo5ed to
serve as another basis for the Sendaydiegoresolution of &ul#
:, 1'77. In citin$ 1ec. 21, ule 3 of the ules of Court, the
Court made the inference that civil actions of the t#pe
involved in Sendaydiego consist of mone# claims, the
recover# of %hich ma# be continued on appeal if defendant
dies pendin$ appeal of his conviction b# holdin$ his estate
liable therefor. /ence, the Court4s conclusion7
=6hen the action is for the recover# of
mone#= =and the defendant dies before final
+ud$ment in the court of -irst Instance, it
shall be dismissed to be prosecuted in the
manner especiall# provided= in ule :7 of
the ules of Court E1ec. 21, ule 3 of the
ules of CourtG.
!he implication is that, if the defendant dies
after a mone# +ud$ment had been rendered
a$ainst him b# the Court of -irst Instance,
the action survives him. It ma# be
continued on appeal.
1adl#, reliance on this provision of la% is misplaced. -rom the
standpoint of procedural la%, this course ta5en
inSendaydiego cannot be sanctioned. *s correctl# observed
b# &ustice e$alado7
""" """ """
I do not, ho%ever, a$ree %ith the
+ustification advanced in
both Torri+os and Sendaydiego %hich,
rel#in$ on the provisions of 1ection 21, ule
3 of the ules of Court, dre% the strained
implication therefrom that %here the civil
liabilit# instituted to$ether %ith the criminal
liabilities had alread# passed be#ond the
+ud$ment of the then Court of -irst Instance
Eno% the e$ional !rial CourtG, the Court of
*ppeals can continue to e"ercise appellate
+urisdiction thereover despite the
e"tin$uishment of the component criminal
liabilit# of the deceased. !his
pronouncement, %hich has been follo%ed in
the Court4s +ud$ments subse0uent and
consonant to Torri+os and Sendaydiego,
should be set aside and abandoned as bein$
clearl# erroneous and un+ustifiable.
1aid 1ection 21 of ule 3 is a rule of civil
procedure in ordinar# civil actions. !here is
neither authorit# nor +ustification for its
application in criminal procedure to civil
actions instituted to$ether %ith and as part
of criminal actions. Nor is there an#
authorit# in la% for the summar# conversion
from the latter cate$or# of an ordinar# civil
action upon the death of the offender. . . .
(oreover, the civil action impliedl# instituted in a criminal
proceedin$ for recover# of civil liabilit# e" delicto can hardl#
be cate$oriCed as an ordinar# mone# claim such as that
referred to in 1ec. 21, ule 3 enforceable before the estate of
the deceased accused.
>rdinar# mone# claims referred to in 1ection 21, ule 3 must
be vie%ed in li$ht of the provisions of 1ection F, ule :6
involvin$ claims a$ainst the estate, %hich in Sendaydiego %as
held liable for 1enda#die$o4s civil liabilit#. =6hat are
contemplated in 1ection 21 of ule 3, in relation to 1ection F
of ule :6,
14
are contractual mone# claims %hile the claims
involved in civil liabilit# e" delicto ma# include even the
restitution of personal or real propert#.=
1&
1ection F, ule :6
provides an e"clusive enumeration of %hat claims ma# be
filed a$ainst the estate. !hese are7 funeral e"penses,
e"penses for the last illness, +ud$ments for mone# and claim
arisin$ from contracts, e"pressed or implied. It is clear that
mone# claims arisin$ from delict do not form part of this
e"clusive enumeration. /ence, there could be no le$al basis in
E1G treatin$ a civil action e" delicto as an ordinar# contractual
mone# claim referred to in 1ection 21, ule 3 of the ules of
Court and E2G allo%in$ it to survive b# filin$ a claim therefor
before the estate of the deceased accused. ather, it should
be e"tin$uished upon e"tinction of the criminal action
en$endered b# the death of the accused pendin$ finalit# of
his conviction.
*ccordin$l#, %e rule7 if the private offended part#, upon
e"tinction of the civil liabilit# e" delicto desires to recover
dama$es from the same act or omission complained of' he
must sub+ect to 1ection 1, ule 111
1'
E1':F ules on
Criminal ,rocedure as amendedG file a separate civil action,
this time predicated not on the felon# previousl# char$ed but
on other sources of obli$ation. !he source of obli$ation upon
%hich the separate civil action is premised determines a$ainst
%hom the same shall be enforced.
If the same act or omission complained of also arises
from ,uasi-delict or ma#, b# provision of la%, result in an
in+ur# to person or propert# Ereal or personalG, the separate
civil action must be filed a$ainst the e"ecutor or
administrator
17
of the estate of the accused pursuant to 1ec.
1, ule :7 of the ules of Court7
1ec. 1. Actions !hich may and !hich may
not be brought against e"ecutor or
administrator. ; No action upon a claim for
the recover# of mone# or debt or interest
thereon shall be commenced a$ainst the
e"ecutor or administrator< but actions to
recover real or personal propert#, or an
interest therein, from the estate, or to
enforce a lien thereon, and actions to
recover damages for an in+ury to person or
property' real or personal' ma# be
commenced a$ainst him.
!his is in consonance %ith our rulin$ in Belamala
1(
%here %e
held that, in recoverin$ dama$es for in+ur# to persons thru an
independent civil action based on *rticle 33 of the Civil Code,
the same must be filed a$ainst the e"ecutor or administrator
of the estate of deceased accused and not a$ainst the estate
under 1ec. F, ule :6 because this rule e"plicitl# limits the
claim to those for funeral e"penses, e"penses for the last
sic5ness of the decedent, +ud$ment for mone# and claims
arisin$ from contract, e"press or implied. Contractual mone#
claims, %e stressed, refers onl# to purely personal
obligations other than those %hich have their source in delict
or tort.
Conversel#, if the same act or omission complained of also
arises from contract, the separate civil action must be filed
a$ainst the estate of the accused, pursuant to 1ec. F, ule :6
of the ules of Court.
-rom this len$th# dis0uisition, %e summariCe our rulin$
herein7
1. 8eath of the accused pendin$ appeal of his conviction
e"tin$uishes his criminal liabilit# as %ell as the civil liabilit#
based solel# thereon. *s opined b# &ustice e$alado, in this
re$ard, =the death of the accused prior to final +ud$ment
terminates his criminal liabilit# and only the civil
liabilit# directly arisin$ from and based solel# on the offense
committed, i.e., civil liabilit# e" delicto in senso strictiore.=
2. Corollaril#, the claim for civil liabilit# survives
not%ithstandin$ the death of accused, if the same ma# also
be predicated on a source of obli$ation other than
delict.
19
*rticle 11F7 of the Civil Code enumerates these
other sources of obli$ation from %hich the civil liabilit# ma#
arise as a result of the same act or omission7
aG ?a% 20
bG Contracts
cG Iuasi-contracts
dG . . .
eG Iuasi-delicts
3. 6here the civil liabilit# survives, as e"plained in Number 2
above, an action for recover# therefor ma# be pursued but
onl# b# %a# of filin$ a separate civil action and sub+ect to
1ection 1, ule 111 of the 1':F ules on Criminal ,rocedure
as amended. !his separate civil action ma# be enforced either
a$ainst the e"ecutorJadministrator or the estate of the
accused, dependin$ on the source of obli$ation upon %hich
the same is based as e"plained above.
.. -inall#, the private offended part# need not fear a forfeiture
of his ri$ht to file this separate civil action b# prescription, in
cases %here durin$ the prosecution of the criminal action and
prior to its e"tinction, the private-offended part# instituted
to$ether there%ith the civil action. In such case, the statute
of limitations on the civil liabilit# is deemed interrupted durin$
the pendenc# of the criminal case, conformabl# %ith
provisions of *rticle 11FF
21
of the Civil Code, that should
thereb# avoid an# apprehension on a possible privation of
ri$ht b# prescription.
22
*ppl#in$ this set of rules to the case at bench, %e hold that
the death of appellant Ba#otas e"tin$uished his criminal
liabilit# and the civil liabilit# based solel# on the act
complained of, i.e., rape. Conse0uentl#, the appeal is hereb#
dismissed %ithout 0ualification.
6/))->), the appeal of the late o$elio Ba#otas is
8I1(I11)8 %ith costs de oficio.
1> >8))8.
-arvasa' C.).' %eliciano' Padilla' &idin' .egalado'
/avide' )r.' &ellosillo' $elo' 0uiason' Puno' 1itug'
2apunan and $endo3a' )).' concur.
Cru3' ).' is on leave.
G.R. No). L*%%2&2*&4 +,-.,r 20, 197( * PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. /. LI!ERIO P. SEN"AY"IEGO, ET AL.
" E ! I S I O N
A01INO, J.2
In these three cases of malversation throu$h falsification, the
prosecutionKs theor# is that in 1'6' ?icerio ,. 1enda#die$o,
the provincial treasurer of ,an$asinan, in conspirac# %ith
&uan 1amson # 3alvan, an emplo#ee of a lumber and
hard%are store in 8a$upan Cit#, and %ith *nastacio Iuirimit,
the provincial auditor, as an accomplice, used si" E6G for$ed
provincial vouchers in order to embeCCle from the road and
brid$e fund the total sum of ,F7,2.:.23.
!he provincial voucher involved in these cases has several
part. In the upper part %ith the le$end =*!IC?) >
1)AIC)= the nature of the obli$ation incurred is indicated.
!hat part is supposed to be si$ned b# t%o officials of the
provincial en$ineerKs office and b# the $overnorKs
representative.
!he middle part of the voucher contains five numbered
printed para$raphs. ,ara$raph 1 is a certificate to be si$ned
b# the creditor. It is stated therein that the creditor vouches
that the e"penses =%ere actuall# and necessaril# incurred.= In
the instant cases para$raph 1 %as not si$ned presumabl#
because it is not relevant to the purchase of materials for
public %or5s pro+ects.
,ara$raph 2 is a certification that the e"penses are correct
and have been la%full# incurred. It is si$ned b# the provincial
en$ineer.
,ara$raph 3 contains these %ords7 =*pproved for pre-audit
and pa#ment, appropriations and funds bein$ available
therefor.= !his is si$ned b# the provincial treasurer.
,ara$raph . is a certification %hich, as filled up in )"hibit D,
Aoucher No. 1272. dated -ebruar# 2:, 1'6',
reads7chanrobles.com7crala%7red
=I certif# that this voucher has been pre-audited and same
ma# be paid in the amount of si"teen thousand seven
hundred t%ent#-seven and F2J122 E,16,727.F2G in cash or in
chec5, provided there is sufficient fund to cover the
pa#ment.=crala% virtua1a% librar#
!his is si$ned b# the auditor.
,ara$raph F is a certification si$ned b# the provincial
treasurer that the account mentioned in the provincial
en$ineerKs certification =%as paid in the amount and on the
date sho%n belo% and is char$eable as sho%n in the
summar# hereof. . . .= It ma# be noted that the provincial
treasurer si$ns t%o parts of the voucher.
-ollo%in$ para$raph F, and as referred to therein, is the
receipt of pa#ment si$ned b# the creditor. *s accomplished in
)"hibit D, the receipt reads Eit %as si$ned accordin$ to the
prosecution b# &uan 1amson, a point %hich is disputed b#
himG7+$c7chanrobles.com.ph
=eceived this 31st da# of (arch, 1'6', from ?. ,.
1enda#die$o, !reasurer, ,rovince of ,an$asinan, the sum of
si"teen thousand seven hundred t%ent#-seven pesos L
F2J122 E16,727.F2G in full pa#ment of the above stated
account, %hich I hereb# certif# to be correct. ,aid b# Chec5
No. ...........
C*I)8 C>N1!. 1H,,?M C>.
B#7chanrob1es virtual 1a% librar#
E1$d.G &H*N 1*(1>N=
*ccordin$ to the prosecution, 1amson also si$ned on the left
mar$in of the si" vouchers belo% the stamped %ords7
=,resented to ,rov. !reasurer. B# &uan 1amson.=crala%
virtua1a% librar#
Aoucher No. 1272. E)"h. DG. ; !his provincial voucher, dated
-ebruar# 2:, 1'6', evidences the pa#ment of ,16,727.F2 to
the Carried Construction 1uppl# Co. of 8a$upan Cit# for
lumber and hard%are materials supposedl# used in the repair
of the brid$e in Barrio ?ibertad at the Hmin$an-!a#u$ road in
,an$asinan alon$ the Nueva )ci+a boundar# E)"h. DG. !he
voucher ma5es reference to invoice No. 3327 and other
supportin$ papers.
!he falsit# of the provincial voucher is proven b# the follo%in$
circumstances7chanrob1es virtual 1a% librar#
EaG !hat there %as no pro+ect for the repair of the brid$e at
Barrio ?ibertad Ep. 1< )"h. NG.
EbG !hat the amount of ,16,727.F2 %as never received b# the
Carried Construction 1uppl# Co. !he alle$ed official receipts
No. 322F of the compan# dated (arch, 1'6' E)"h. D-6G is
for$ed.
EcG !hat the lumber and materials mentioned in )"hibit D
%ere never delivered b# the compan# to the provincial
$overnment.
EdG !hat in the provincial voucher, )"hibit D, and in the
supportin$ re0uisition and issue voucher EIAG No. 2226
dated &anuar# 2', 1'6' E)"h. *G, coverin$ the same lumber
and hard%are materials, the si$natures of the follo%in$
officials %ere for$ed7 1alvador -. >ropilla, senior civil
en$ineer< odolfo ,. (encias, supervisin$ civil en$ineer<
Aictoriano (. 1erville+a, actin$ provincial en$ineer, and
icardo B. ,rimicias,, chief of e0uipment of the $overnorKs
office. !hese four officials denied that their si$natures in the
t%o vouchers, )"hibits * and B, are their $enuine si$natures.
EeG !hat the imprint of the rubber stamp on )"hibits * and B,
containin$ the %ords =*pproved7 -or and B# *uthorit# of the
3overnor Esi$nedG icardo B. ,rimicias, Chief of )0uipment=,
is not the imprint of the $enuine rubber stamp used in
,rimiciasK office.
EfG !hat char$e invoice No. 3327 of the Carried Construction
1uppl# Co. dated -ebruar# 1:, 1'6', containin$ a description
and the prices of the lumber and hard%are materials E)"h. BG,
is fa5e because, accordin$ to *mbrosio &abanes, the
compan#Ks assistant mana$er, the compan#Ks invoice No.
3327 %as issued to the (ountain *$ricultural Colle$e E)"h. II-
1G. >ropilla denied that his alle$ed si$nature on )"hibit B is
his si$nature.
E$G !hat three other documents, supportin$ the provincial
voucher E)"h. DG, %ere also for$ed. !hose documents are the
ta"pa#erKs certificate dated -ebruar# 12, 1'6' E)"h. CG
statin$ that no ta" is due on the $oods sold in the fa5e
invoice No. 3327 and the t%o certificates as to the samples of
lumber alle$edl# purchased from the Carried Construction
1uppl# Co., E)"h. 8 and )G. Narciso ,. (artineC, a district
forester, denied that his si$natures in )"hibits 8 and ) are his
$enuine si$natures.
EhG !hat *n$elo C. (anuel, the chec5er of the provincial
auditorKs office, denied that his si$nature on the left mar$in is
his si$nature E)"h. *-12G.
!he for$ed character of provincial voucher No. 1272. E)"h. DG
is incontrovertible.
>ther five for$ed vouchers. ; -ive other provincial vouchers
evidencin$ supposed pa#ments of certain amounts to the
Carried Construction 1uppl# Co. for lumber and hard%are
materials supposedl# used in the repair of other brid$es %ere
also falsified. !hese five vouchers are the
follo%in$7chanrob1es virtual 1a% librar#
E1G Aoucher No. 11''F dated *pril 2', 1'6' evidencin$ the
pa#ment of ,1.,F71.:1 for lumber and hard%are materials
alle$edl# used in the repair of Ba#aoas brid$e at the
HrbiCtondo-,asibi oad E)"h. >G.
E2G Aoucher No. 11:6' dated *pril 1F, 1'6' evidencin$ the
pa#ment of ,F,1:7.2: for lumber and hard%are materials
alle$edl# used in the repair of the ,an$aniban brid$e at the
Hmin$an-!a#u$ oad E)"h. ,G.
E3G Aoucher No. 11:72 dated *pril 2:, 1'6' evidencin$ the
pa#ment of ,6,2'2.62 for lumber and hard%are materials
alle$edl# used in the repair of the Cabatuan brid$e at the
Hmin$an-3uimba oad E)"h. IG.
E.G Aoucher No. 11:71 dated *pril 1F, 1'6' evidencin$ the
pa#ment of ,',76'.6. for lumber and hard%are materials
alle$edl# used in the repair of the Casabar brid$e at the
Binalonan-1an (anuel oad E)"h. G.
EFG Aoucher No. 11:72 dated *pril 1F, 1'6' evidencin$ the
pa#ment of ,.,F21.3: for lumber and hard%are materials
alle$edl# used in the repair of the Baracbac brid$e at the
Hmin$an-3uimba oad E)"h. 1G.
*s in the case of voucher No. 1272. E)"h. DG, >ropilla,
(encias, and ,rimicias declared that their si$natures in the
said five vouchers are not their $enuine si$natures. 1amson,
%ho hand-carried the said vouchers for processin$, did not
turn over to the provincial auditorKs office the papers
supportin$ the said vouchers after the vouchers had been
pre-audited. /ence, those supportin$ papers could not be
presented in evidence.
&abanes, the aforementioned assistant mana$er of the
Carried Construction 1uppl# Co., testified that the lumber and
hard%are materials mentioned in the five vouchers %ere
never delivered b# his compan# to the provincial $overnment.
!he char$e invoices mentioned in the said vouchers %ere
cancelled invoices issued to the (ountain *$ricultural Colle$e.
!he pro+ected repairs of the brid$es %ere fictitious.chanrobles
la%librar# 7 rednad
!he compan#Ks cashier testified that the compan# never
received the pa#ments for the lumber and hard%are
materials. !he receipts evidencin$ pa#ments E)"h. D-6, DD to
DD-.G are fa5e official receipts. !he cashier produced in court
the $enuine official receipts E)"h. ?? to ??-7G bearin$ the
serial numbers of the fa5e receipts. !he $enuine receipts do
not refer to transactions %ith the provincial $overnment.
1amson pla#ed a stellar role in the processin$ of the si"
vouchers. /e used to be an emplo#ee of the provincial
treasurerKs office. /e resi$ned and %or5ed %ith several firms
doin$ business %ith the provincial $overnment. In 1'6' he
%as the collector of the Carried Construction 1uppl# Co. /e
represented that firm in its dealin$s %ith the offices of the
$overnor, provincial auditor, provincial en$ineer and provincial
treasurer. /e %as personall# 5no%n to those provincial
officials and the emplo#ees of their offices E21-22
1enda#die$oKs briefG.
!he si" E6G for$ed provincial vouchers, %ith their respective
supportin$ papers, %ere hand-carried b# 1amson. /e
delivered the papers to Carmencita Castillo, the led$er cler5
in the provincial en$ineerKs office, for recordin$ and for her
si$nature E)"h. 88G.
!hereafter, 1amson brou$ht the papers to the provincial
treasurerKs office. (arcelo Crusada, a laborer in that office
%ho performed the chore of recordin$ the vouchers and
pa#rolls, recorded Aouchers Nos. 11:6', 11:71 and 11:72
E)"h. ,, , and 1G. CrusadaKs initials appear on the upper
lefthand corner of the said vouchers %ith the date =.J17J6'=
1amson si$ned on the left mar$in of the vouchers to indicate
that he presented them to the provincial treasurerKs office.
Crusada said that after 1amson had presented the said
papers to him, 1amson brou$ht them to icardo Baraan, the
boo55eeper of the provincial treasurerKs office, for processin$
and for the latterKs si$nature E)"h. 66G.
-rom BaraanKs office, 1amson hand-carried the vouchers to
the provincial auditorKs office. /e as5ed Air$inia CruC, a cler5,
to record the same E)"h. CCG.
*fter%ards, 1amson as5ed 8onato osete, the assistant
provincial treasurer, to initial the vouchers. *fter osete had
initialled the vouchers, 1amson %ent to the provincial
treasurerKs office %here the amounts covered b# the vouchers
%ere paid b# 1enda#die$o to him in cash Einstead of b#
chec5G as representative of the Carried Construction 1uppl#
Co. E)"h. ))G. /e received the pa#ments on (arch 31 and
*pril 2' and 2: Efour pa#ments on that dateG as sho%n on the
face of the vouchers.
!he si$natures of 1enda#die$o and Iuirimit, the auditor, on
the said si" vouchers are admittedl# authentic. 1enda#die$o
si$ned the vouchers ahead of osete, his assistant.
1enda#die$oKs defense is that he si$ned the vouchers in the
honest belief that the si$natures therein of the provincial
officials concerned %ere $enuine because the vouchers had
been pre-audited and approved b# the auditor.
1amson denied the authenticit# of his t%o si$natures on each
of the si" vouchers sho%in$ that he received from
1enda#die$o the amounts covered thereb# as representative
of the lumber and hard%are firm E)"h. >> to !!G and that he
presented the vouchers to the provincial treasurerKs office
E)"h. 6-12 ; 1amsonG. 1enda#die$o testified that 1amsonKs
si$natures are $enuine.
In connection %ith the si" vouchers, 1enda#die$o, 1amson
and Iuirimit %ere char$ed %ith malversation throu$h
falsification in three cases doc5eted as follo%s7chanrob1es
virtual 1a% librar#
1. Criminal Case No. 233.' involvin$ provincial voucher No.
1272. dated -ebruar# 2:, 1'6' in the sum of ,16,727.F2
E)"h. DG, ?-332F2.
2. Criminal Case No. 233F2 involvin$ provincial vouchers Nos.
11:6', 11:72, 11:71 dated *pril 1F Et%o datesG 2: and 1F,
1'6' for the respective amounts of ,F,1:7.2:, ,6,2'2.62,
,',76'.6. and ,.,F21,3: Efour vouchers, )"h. ,, I, and 1G,
no% ?-332F3.
3. Criminal Case No. 233F1 involvin$ provincial voucher No.
11'FF dated *pril 2', 1'6' in the sum of ,1.,F71.:1 E)"h.
>G, no% ?-332F..
*fter trial, the lo%er court ac0uitted the auditor, Iuirimit and
found 1enda#die$o and 1amson $uilt# of malversation
throu$h falsification of public or official documents, imposin$
each of the follo%in$ penalties7chanrob1es virtual 1a% librar#
E1G In Criminal Case No. 233.', an indeterminate sentence of
t%elve #ears, ten months and t%ent#-one-da#s, as minimum,
to ei$hteen #ears, t%o months and t%ent#-one da#s of
reclusion temporal, as ma"imum, and a fine of ,16,727.F2
and to indemnif# solidaril# the provincial 3overnment of
,an$asinan in the same amount<
E2G In Criminal Case No. 233F2, the penalt# of reclusion
perpetua, and a fine of ,2',7.:.'2 and to indemnif# solidaril#
the provincial $overnment of ,an$asinan in the same amount<
and
E3G In Criminal Case No. 233F1, an indeterminate sentence of
t%elve #ears, ten months and t%ent#-one da#s, as minimum,
to ei$hteen #ears, t%o months and t%ent# one da#s of
reclusion temporal, as ma"imum, and a fine of ,1.,F71.:1
and to indemnif# solidaril# the provincial $overnment of
,an$asinan in the same amount.
1enda#die$o and 1amson appealed to this Court.
1enda#die$o died on >ctober F, 1'76. /is appeal as to his
criminal liabilit# %as dismissed. 8eath e"tin$uished his
criminal liabilit# but his civil liabilit# remained. !he resolution
of &ul# :, 1'77 dismissin$ 1enda#die$oKs appeal reads as
follo%s7chanrobles.com 7 virtual la% librar#
=!he death of appellant 1enda#die$o durin$ the pendenc# of
his appeal or before the +ud$ment of conviction rendered
a$ainst him b# the lo%er court became final and e"ecutor#
e"tin$uished his criminal liabilit#, meanin$ his obli$ation to
serve the personal or imprisonment penalties and his liabilit#
to pa# the fines or pecuniar# penalties E*rt. :'O1P, evised
,enal Code< 1 Aiada, Codi$o ,enal, .th )d., F6FG.
=!he claim of complainant ,rovince of ,an$asinan for the civil
liabilit# survived 1enda#die$o because his death occurred
after final +ud$ment %as rendered b# the Court of -irst
Instance of ,an$asinan, %hich convicted him of three comple"
crimes of malversation throu$h falsification and ordered him
to indemnif# the ,rovince in the total sum of ,61,2.:.23
Eshould be ,F7,2.:.23G.
=!he civil action for the civil liabilit# is deemed impliedl#
instituted %ith the criminal action in the absence of e"press
%aiver or its reservation in a separate action E1ec. 1, ule
111 of the ules of CourtG. !he civil action for the civil liabilit#
is separate and distinct from the criminal action E,eople and
(anuel v. Coloma, 12F ,hil. 12:7< oa v. 8e la CruC, 127
,hil. :G.
=Q6hen the action is for the recover# of mone#K Qand the
defendant dies before final +ud$ment in the Court of -irst
Instance, it shall be dismissed to be prosecuted in the manner
especiall# providedK in ule :7 of the ules of Court E1ec. 21,
ule 3 of the ules of CourtG.
=!he implication is that, if the defendant dies after a mone#
+ud$ment had been rendered a$ainst him b# the Court of -irst
Instance, the action survives him. It ma# be continued on
appeal E!orri+os v. Court of *ppeals, ?-.2336, >ctober 2.,
1'7F< 67 1C* 3'.G.
=!he accountable public officer ma# still be civill# liable for the
funds improperl# disbursed althou$h he has no criminal
liabilit# EH. 1. v. )lvina, 2. ,hil. 232< ,hilippine National Ban5
v. !u$ab, 66 ,hil. F:3G.
=In vie% of the fore$oin$, not%ithstandin$ the dismissal of the
appeal of the deceased 1enda#die$o insofar as his criminal
liabilit# is concerned, the Court esolved to continue
e"ercisin$ appellate +urisdiction over his possible civil liabilit#
for the mone# claims of the ,rovince of ,an$asinan arisin$
from the alle$ed criminal acts complained of, as if no criminal
case had been instituted a$ainst him, thus ma5in$ applicable,
in determinin$ his civil liabilit#, *rticle 32 of the Civil Code
ENote7 !he lo%er court had issued an order of attachment
a$ainst him on &anuar# 13, 1'72 for the sum of ,36,.:7 and
in the brief for said appellant, there is no specific assi$nment
of error affectin$ the civil liabilit# fi"ed b# the trial court.G
and, for that purpose, his counsel is directed to inform this
Court %ithin ten E12G da#s of the names and addresses of the
decedentKs heirs or %hether or not his estate is under
administration and has a dul# appointed +udicial administrator.
1aid heirs or administrator %ill be substituted for the
deceased insofar as the civil action for the civil liabilit# is
concerned E1ecs. 16 and 17, ule 3, ules of CourtG.
*ccordin$ to 1enda#die$oKs brief, he had a %ife and ten
children named *rturo, ?icerio, &r., ,rospero, e$ulo, )duardo,
Cesar, Nola, *ida, 6ilfredo and (anolo EdeceasedG.
=!he title of this case should be amended to sho% its civil
aspect b# addin$ thereto the follo%in$7 Q,rovince of
,an$asinan v. /eirs of ?icerio ,. 1enda#die$o.K=
1enda#die$oKs appeal %ill be resolved onl# for the purpose of
sho%in$ his criminal liabilit# %hich is the basis of the civil
liabilit# for %hich his estate %ould be liable.
1enda#die$oKs appeal< civil liabilit# of his estate. ; In vie% of
1enda#die$oKs death, it is not necessar# to resolve his first
t%o assi$nments of error, %herein he assails the imposition
of reclusion perpetua as a cruel and unusual penalt# and
%herein it is ar$ued that there is no comple" crime of
malversation throu$h falsification committed b# ne$li$ence.
In the third assi$nment of error, it is contended that the trial
court erred in allo%in$ private prosecutors (illora and
HrbiCtondo to prosecute the case, thereb# alle$edl#
sub+ectin$ the accused to proceedin$s mar5ed b# undue
publicit#, pre-+ud$ment, bias and political self-interest.
*tt#. Aicente 8. (illora, a senior member of the provincial
board actuall# handled the prosecution of the case from the
preliminar# investi$ation, %hich started on &une F, 1'6', up
to the termination of the trial on &ul# 2', 1'72.
*t the commencement of the preliminar# investi$ation, the
counsel for the accused auditor in0uired %hether *tt#. (illora
%as authoriCed b# the provincial board to act as private
prosecutor in representation of the province of ,an$asinan,
the offended part. *tt#. (illora replied that there %as a board
resolution desi$natin$ him as private prosecutor.
!he actin$ provincial commander, %ho filed the complaints,
manifested to the trial court that he had authoriCed *tt#.
(illora to act as private prosecutor E.-: tsn &une F, 1'6'G.
*nother defense counsel filed a %ritten motion to inhibit
(illora and the others as private prosecutors. !he lo%er court
denied the motion in its order of &une 1:, 1'6' Ep. .2, ecord
of Criminal Case No. 233F2G.
*fter the termination of the preliminar# investi$ation
conducted b# the lo%er court, the provincial fiscal of
,an$asinan and the cit# fiscal of 8a$upan Cit# filed three
informations a$ainst the accused all dated November ., 1'6'.
*t the commencement of the trial on -ebruar# 23, 1'72 the
cit# fiscal, an assistant provincial fiscal, and *tt#. (illora, the
private prosecutor, appeared for the prosecution. !he cit#
fiscal moved =that the private prosecutor E(illoraG be
authoriCed to conduct the e"amination sub+ect to our Ethe
fiscalKsG control and supervision.= !he trial court $ranted the
motion E7 tsnG.chanrobles.com 7 virtual la% librar#
*t the hearin$ on *pril 23, 1'72 the same cit# fiscal moved
that *tt#. HrbiCtondo be authoriCed to e"amine the
prosecution %itnesses under his supervision and control. !he
trial court $ranted the motion E1FF tsnG.
!he record sho%s that at ever# hearin$ the provincial fiscal,
the cit# fiscal or an assistant fiscal %ere present to$ether %ith
the private prosecutor.
Hnder the fore$oin$ circumstances, %e believe that there %as
substantial compliance %ith the rule that the criminal action
should be =prosecuted under the direction and control of the
fiscal= and that =the provincial fiscal shall represent the
province= in an# court E1ec. ., ule 112, ules of Court< sec.
16:3, evised *dministrative CodeG.
!he observation of 1enda#die$oKs counsel, that the imposition
of reclusion perpetua =could have been the result of the
undue publicit#, pre+ud$ment, bias and political self-interest
%hich attended the proceedin$s=, is not %ell founded. !he
trial courtKs decision dispels an# doubt as to its impartialit#.
!he evidence in the three cases is mainl# documentar#. !he
unassailable probative value of the documents involved.
rather than bias and pre+udice, %as the decisive factor on
%hich the trial court anchored the +ud$ment of conviction.
(oreover, as alread# adverted to, 1enda#die$oKs death had
rendered moot the issue as to the propriet# of the imposition
of reclusion perpetua. *nd, as %ill be sho%n later, reclusion
perpetuacannot be imposed in these cases because the
crimes committed %ere not comple".
!he other seven assi$nments of error made b# 1enda#die$oKs
counsel refer to the trial courtKs conclusion that 1enda#die$o
and 1amson are $uilt# be#ond reasonable doubt of
malversation throu$h falsification or, specificall#, that the
provincial treasurer, in si$nin$ the si" vouchers, evinced
=malice or fraud and that there must have been connivance
bet%een= the t%o.
1everal circumstances indicate that 1enda#die$o conspired
%ith 1amson. 8onato N. osete, the assistant provincial
treasurer, testified that, contrar# to the usual procedure, he
affi"ed his initial to para$raph 3 of the vouchers after
1enda#die$o had si$ned it. osete adhered to that unusual
procedure because the interested part#, 1amson, %ho hand
carried the vouchers, approached osete after he E1amsonG
had conferred %ith the provincial treasurer and 1amson told
osete to initial the voucher because it %as are$lado na
Ealread# settledG since the treasurer had alread# si$ned the
voucher EF. tsn &ul# 3, 1'6'G.
oseteKs testimon# and affidavit confute appellant
1enda#die$oKs contention that the trial court erred in findin$
that he si$ned the 0uestioned vouchers before osete had
placed his initial in them. *fter the treasurer had si$ned the
voucher, oseteKs dut# to initial it %as onl# ministerial E7F tsn
&ul# 3, 1'6'G.
!he boo55eeper in the treasurerKs office testified that he
indicated in the vouchers that the amounts covered thereb#
should be paid in cash. !hat indication %as made b# means of
the s#mbol =*-1-1= placed at the bottom of the vouchers
under the column =*ccount Number.= !he boo55eeper %as
instructed b# 1amson to place that s#mbol. 1amson told him
that he E1amsonG had an understandin$ %ith !reasurer
1enda#die$o that the pa#ment should be made in cash. !here
%ere instances %hen the treasurer insisted on pa#ment b#
chec5 to creditors other than &uan 1amson.
!he cash pa#ments %ere made to 1amson in the inner office
of the provincial treasurer %here the cashier %as summoned
to ma5e the cash pa#ments E11-12 tsn &ul# ', 1'6'< p. 11,
)"h. ))G. *s noted b# the trial court, it %as unusual that the
pa#ments should be made in the treasurerKs office %hen that
%as a ministerial chore of the cashier.
!he cash pa#ments %ere made to 1amson even if 1amson
had no po%er of attorne# from the Carried Construction
1uppl# Co. authoriCin$ him to receive the pa#ments. !he
space in the vouchers for the si$nature of the %itness, %ho
should be present %hen the pa#ments %ere received, %as
blan5. !he treasurer did not bother to have a %itness to
attest to the pa#ments or to re0uire the e"hibition of
1amsonKs residence certificate.
*nother apt observation of the trial court is that the for$ed
character of the si" vouchers %ould have been unmas5ed b#
the supposed creditor, Carried Construction 1uppl# Co., if the
pa#ments had been made b# means of chec5s. !he compan#
on receivin$ the chec5s %ould have returned them to the
treasurer because it 5ne% that there %as no reason to ma5e
an# pa#ments at all. !he trial court said that the cash
pa#ments prove 1enda#die$oKs collusion %ith 1amson.
1enda#die$oKs counsel assails the lo%er courtKs findin$ that
there %as a conspirac# bet%een the provincial treasurer and
1amson as sho%n b# the fact that the amounts covered b#
the vouchers %ere paid to 1amson b# the cashier in the
treasurerKs inner office. !hat point %as testified to b# osete,
the assistant provincial treasurer.
!he cashier, Napoleon Hlanda#, %ould have been the best
%itness on ho% and %here the pa#ments %ere made.
/o%ever, Hlanda# died before the preliminar# investi$ation
%as started. >n (a# 27, 1'6', after the anomalies %ere
unearthed, he %rote a letter to the provincial treasurer,
statin$ that he paid to 1amson the amounts covered b# five
vouchers in the presence of 1alaCar D. (isal and &osefina ).
,ulido E)"h. 13G.
osete %as in a position to state that the cash pa#ments %ere
made to 1amson in the treasurerKs inner office because his
table %as near the main door of the treasurerKs office or %as
about fifteen meters a%a# E1: tsnG. osete al%a#s 5ne%
%hen the cashier %ent to the treasurerKs office because the
cashier %as summoned b# means of a buCCer Elon$ buCCG,
and %hen the cashier came out of the treasurerKs office, he
%ould be holdin$ the voucher E12-13 tsnG.
1enda#die$oKs counsel stressed that no $ross ne$li$ence can
be imputed to the treasurer Emalversation is a crime %hich
can be committed b# means of dolo or culpa and the penalt#
in either case is the sameG. !his ar$ument does not deserve
serious consideration because the facts proven b# the
prosecution sho% that he had a tieup %ith 1amson and that
he acted maliciousl# in si$nin$ the si" 0uestioned vouchers.
!he last contention put for%ard for 1enda#die$o is that,
because the trial court ac0uitted the auditor, then the
treasurerKs e"oneration follo%s as a matter of course. 6e see
no merit in that contention because the evidence for the
prosecution a$ainst 1enda#die$o is not the same as its
evidence a$ainst the auditor. -or that reason, the auditor %as
char$ed onl# as an accomplice, %hereas, the treasurer %as
char$ed as a principal. !he auditor based his defense on the
undeniable fact that the treasurer had approved the si"
vouchers =for pre-audit and pa#ment= before the# %ere
passed upon b# the auditor. In short, the auditor %as misled
b# the treasurerKs certification %hich the auditor apparentl#
assumed to have been made in $ood faith %hen in truth it
%as made in bad faith.
6e are convinced after a minutes e"amination of the
documentar# and oral evidence and an unpre+udiced
consideration of the ar$uments of 1enda#die$oKs learned
counsel that his criminal liabilit# %as established be#ond
reasonable doubt and, therefore, the civil liabilit# of his estate
for the amounts malversed %as dul# substantiated.
1amsonKs appeal. ; 1amsonKs brief has no statement of facts.
/e contends that the trial court erred in disre$ardin$ the
e"pert testimon# that his si$natures on the vouchers are not
his si$natures< in findin$ that he for$ed the vouchers and
received the proceeds thereof, and in rel#in$ on
circumstantial evidence as proof of conspirac#.
*s a preliminar# issue, 1amson ar$ues that &ud$e )lo# B.
Bello should have inhibited himself =in fairness to the
accused, in the interest of +ustice, and as a $esture of
delicadeCa= because he had conducted the preliminar#
investi$ation.crala%nad
>ur searchin$ stud# of the record fails to sustain 1amsonKs
insinuation that he %as pre+udiced b# the fact that the &ud$e,
%ho conducted the preliminar# investi$ation, %as the one
%ho tried the case and convicted him. &ud$e Bello tried the
case fairl#. /is conduct of the trial does not sho% that he had
alread# pre+ud$ed their $uilt.
1ection 13, ule 112 of the ules of Court, in allo%in$ a Court
of -irst Instance to conduct a preliminar# investi$ation, does
not dis0ualif# it from tr#in$ the case after it had found
probable cause and after the fiscal, as directed b# the Court
had filed the correspondin$ information. !he rule assumes
that the &ud$e, %ho conducted the preliminar# investi$ation,
could impartiall# tr# the case on the merits.
6e cannot assume that +ud$es as a rule are opinionated and
narro%-minded insomuch that the# %ould invariabl# be iron-
bound b# their findin$s at the preliminar# investi$ation.
!he case of a &ud$e of the Court of -irst Instance, %ho
conducts a preliminar# investi$ation and then tries the case
on the merits, is similar to a situation %here an inferior court
conducts a preliminar# investi$ation of a $rave or less $rave
offense fallin$ %ithin the concurrent +urisdiction of the Court
-irst Instance and the inferior court. In such a case, the
inferior court after terminatin$ the preliminar# investi$ation is
not obli$ated Epor delicadeCaG to remand the case to the
Court of -irst Instance for trial. !he inferior court has the
option to tr# the case on the merits. E,eople v. ,almon, :6
,hil. 3F2< Natividad v. obles, :7 ,hil. :3.< ,eople v. Colicio,
:: ,hil. 1'6G. !he assumption is that the inferior court can tr#
the case %ithout an# in$rained bias or undue pre+udice.
1amson sou$ht to prove, throu$h ?ieutenant Colonel &ose 3.
-ernandeC, retired chief of the Constabular# crime laborator#,
a hand%ritin$ e"pert, that his si$natures on the vouchers are
not his si$natures.
-ernandeC found that the 0uestioned si$natures and the
alle$ed $enuine si$natures Ee"emplarsG of 1amson have
fundamental differences. !he e"pert concluded that the
0uestioned si$natures and the e"emplar si$natures of
1amson %ere not %ritten b# one and the same person E)"h.
22G.
*fter e"aminin$ the 0uestioned and $enuine si$natures and
anal#Cin$ the evidence and contentions of the parties, %e find
that the e"pert is correct in declarin$ that Eas admitted b# the
trial courtG there are radical differences bet%een the
0uestioned and authentic si$natures.
But the e"pert is in error in concludin$ that 1amson did not
for$e the 0uestioned si$natures or in impl#in$ that 1amson
had no hand in the %ritin$ thereof.
!he truth is that 1amson used t%o forms of si$nature. /is
supposed $enuine si$natures found in his residence
certificates, income ta" returns and the $enuine official
receipt of the Carried Construction 1uppl# Co. are =in an
arcade form or rounded form of %ritin$.= !he surname
1amson is encircled.
>n the other hand, the 0uestioned si$natures used in
1amsonKs transactions %ith the provincial $overnment are in
an$ular form< his surname is not encircled, and the
0uestioned si$natures terminate in an$ular and horiContal
stro5es.
1amson %as consistent in his fa5eries. Dno%in$ that the si"
vouchers evidenced fictitious transactions, he used therein his
fa5e si$nature, or the si$nature %hich is different from his
si$nature in $enuine documents. /e used his for$ed
si$natures in the si" fa5e official receipts of the Carried
Construction 1uppl# Co., statin$ that the amounts covered b#
the si" vouchers %ere received b# him E)"h. D-6, DD to DD-
.G. the e"pert admitted that a person ma# have t%o forms of
si$nature E1:6 tsn &ul# 16, 1'72G.
1i$natures ma# be deliberatel# dis$uised %ith the dishonest
intention of den#in$ the same as and %hen necessar# E(ehta,
Identification of /and%ritin$ and Cross )"amination of
)"perts, pp. .th )d., 1'72, p. 22.< /arrison, 1uspect
8ocuments .1:-.1'G.
1enda#die$o himself testified that the 0uestioned si$natures
of 1amson in the si" vouchers %ere 1amsonKs si$natures E'.-
'' tsn &ul# 31, 1'6'G.
-ernandeC, the hand%ritin$ e"pert, declared that the
0uestioned si$natures of 1amson in the vouchers %ere
%ritten b# onl# one person E26.-26F tsn &ul# 16,
1'72G.chanrobles virtuala%librar#
chanrobles.com7chanrobles.com.ph
!he evidence conclusivel# proves that 1amson, as the
representative or collector of the supposed creditor, Carried
Construction 1uppl# Co., hand-carried the vouchers in
0uestion to the offices of the provincial en$ineer, treasurer
and auditor and then bac5 to the treasurerKs office for
pa#ment. /e actuall# received the cash pa#ments. Hnder
those circumstances, 1amson is presumed to be the for$er of
the vouchers.
!he rule is that if a person had in his possession a falsified
document and be made use of it Euttered itG, ta5in$
advanta$e of it and profitin$ thereb#, the presumption is that
he is the material author of the falsification. !his is especiall#
true if the use or utterin$ of the for$ed documents %as so
closel# connected in time %ith the for$er# that the user or
possessor ma# be proven to have the capacit# of committin$
the for$er#, or to have close connection %ith the for$ers, and
therefore, had complicit# in the for$er#. EH.1. v. Castillo, 6
,hil. .F3< ,eople v. 8e ?ara, .F ,hil. 7F.< ,eople v. 8omin$o,
.' ,hil. 2:< ,eople v. *studillo, 62 ,hil. 33:< ,eople v.
(anansala, 12F ,hil. 12F3G.
In the absence of a satisfactor# e"planation, one %ho is found
in possession of a for$ed document and %ho used or uttered
it is presumed to be the for$er E*larcon v. Court of *ppeals,
?-21:.6, (arch 31, 1'67, 1' 1C* 6::< ,eople v. Cara$ao,
?-2:2F:, 8ecember 27, 1'6', 32 1C* ''3G.
1amsonKs use of one form of si$nature for his croo5ed
transaction %ith the provincial $overnment and another form
of si$nature of his valid transactions or papers sho%s the
deviousness of the falsifications perpetrated in these cases.
ENote that 1enda#die$o si$ned the certification in the first
voucher, )"hibit D, statin$ that proceeds thereof %ere paid
1amson but 1enda#die$o did not si$n the same certification
in the other five for$ed vouchers, )"hibits >, ,, I, and 1G.
*s to the 0uestion of conspirac#, the statement of 1amsonKs
counsel on pa$e 1' of his brief, that =the trial court made
absolutel# no findin$ of an# supposed conspirac#= bet%een
1amson and 1enda#die$o, is not correct.
6e have alread# noted that the trial court e"plicitl# stated
that the circumstance that 1enda#die$o si$ned the si"
vouchers ahead of his assistant sho%s that there %as =malice
or fraud= on the part of 1enda#die$o and that there %as
connivance bet%een 1amson and 1enda#die$o %hen the
proceeds of the vouchers %ere paid to 1amson in
1enda#die$oKs inner office, instead of in the cashierKs office
Ep. 23, 26, 8ecision, *ppendi" to 1amsonKs briefG. !he trial
court said that the fact that 1enda#die$o allo%ed pa#ment in
cash sho%s =his collusion= %ith 1amson EIbid, p. 26G.
1amsonKs contention that the trial court merel# con+ectured
that he had received the proceeds of the vouchers is not %ell-
ta5en. !he trial courtKs findin$ on that point is based on ver#
stron$ circumstantial evidence Eassumin$ that it %as not
proven that 1amson si$ned the vouchersG.
1amson vehementl# ar$ues that there is no evidence that the
total sum of ,F7,2.:.23 paid under the si" vouchers =%as
reall# misappropriated.= /e asserts that the si" vouchers are
$enuine Ealthou$h he contends that his si$natures thereon
are for$eriesG and that there is no proof that the amounts
covered thereb# %ere not paid for the construction materials
indicated therein. /e insists that the materials %ere actuall#
delivered to the province.
!hese contentions appear to be untenable in the li$ht of the
declaration of &abanes, the assistant mana$er of Carried
Construction 1uppl# Co., the alle$ed supplier, that the
materials sho%n in the si" vouchers %ere never delivered b#
the compan# E)"h. //G.
*nd ?eticia 1eville+a E%ife of the provincial en$ineerG, %ho
%as emplo#ed as cashier of the Carried Construction 1uppl#
Co., denied that 1amson turned over to the compan# the
proceeds of the si" vouchers %hich he %as supposed to have
collected for the compan# from 1enda#die$o. !he si"
vouchers appear to be fa5e principall# because the# evidence
fictitious sales of construction materials.
Hnder the said circumstances, it cannot be contended that
there %as no malversation after 1enda#die$o admitted that
1amson ac5no%led$ed in the si" vouchers that he received
from !reasurer 1enda#die$o the total sum of ,F7,2.:.23.
!he assertion of 1amsonKs counsel on pa$e 2' of his brief,
that the findin$ as to his $uilt is based on a sha5# foundation
or is predicated on circumstances %hich %ere not proven, is
not correct.
ecapitulation7 ; In resum, it appears that the provincial
treasurer %ants to base his e"culpation on his belief that in
the si" vouchers the si$natures of 1amson and the officials in
the provincial en$ineerKs office appeared to be $enuine and on
the fact that the auditor had approved the vouchers. !he
treasurer claimed that he acted in $ood faith in approvin$ the
pa#ments of the proceeds of the vouchers to 1amson as the
representative of the supplier, Carried Construction Co.
>n the other hand, 1amson, b# impu$nin$ his si$natures in
the vouchers, denied that he received the said amounts from
the cashier of the treasurerKs office.
!hese conflictin$ versions of the treasurer and 1amson have
to be resolved in the li$ht of the ine"pu$nable fact that
1amson had hand-carried the vouchers and follo%ed up their
processin$ in the offices of the provincial en$ineer, treasurer
and auditor E)"h. **, p. 1, )"h. CC, p. 2< )"h. 88< )"h. 6
and )), p. FG and that 1amsonKs principal, the Carried
Construction 1uppl# Co., denied havin$ sold to the provincial
$overnment the construction materials described in the si"
vouchers and denied havin$ received from 1amson the prices
of the alle$ed sales.
!he result is that 1amsonKs denial of his si$natures in the si"
vouchers and in the si" receipts E)"h. D-6 and DD to DD-.G
and the provincial treasurerKs pretension of havin$ acted in
$ood faith or havin$ committed an honest mista5e have to be
disbelieved.
!he unavoidable conclusion is that 1enda#die$o and 1amson
%ere in cahoots to defraud the provincial $overnment and to
camoufla$e the defraudation b# means of the si" vouchers
%hich have some $enuine features and %hich appear to be
e"trinsicall# authentic but %hich %ere intrinsicall# fa5e.
,enalties. ; !he trial court and the parties assumed that
three comple" crimes of malversation throu$h falsification of
public documents %ere committed in this case. !hat
assumption is %ron$.
!he crimes committed in these three cases are not comple".
1eparate crimes of falsification and malversation %ere
committed. !hese are not cases %here the e"ecution of a
sin$le act constitutes t%o $rave or less $rave felonies or
%here the falsification %as used as a means to commit
malversation.
In the si" vouchers the falsification %as used to conceal the
malversation. It is settled that if the falsification %as resorted
to for the purpose of hidin$ the malversation, the falsification
and malversation are separate offenses E,eople v. Cid, 66
,hil. 3F.< ,eople v. Aillanueva, F: ,hil. 671< ,eople v.
3aralde, F2 ,hil. 1222< ,eople v. e$is, 67 ,hil. .3G.
In the e$is case, supra, %here the modus operandi is similar
to the instant cases, the municipal treasurer made it appear
in t%o official pa#rolls dated *pril 32 and (a# 2, 1'31 that
some persons %or5ed as laborers in a certain street pro+ect at
,inamun$ahan, Cebu. In that %a#, the t%o amounts covered
b# the pa#rolls, ,.73.72 and ,271.62, %ere appropriated and
ta5en from the municipal funds. *s a matter of fact, no such
%or5 %as done in the said street pro+ect and the persons
mentioned in both pa#rolls had not performed an# labor.
It %as held in the e$is case, that the falsification and
malversation did not constitute a comple" crime because the
falsifications %ere not necessar# means for the commission of
the malversations. )ach falsification and each malversation
constituted independent offenses %hich must be punished
separatel#.
!he municipal treasurer %as convicted of t%o falsification and
t%o malversations. -our distinct penalties %ere imposed.
In the instant cases, the provincial treasurer, as the custodian
of the mone# formin$ part of the road and brid$e fund, could
have malversed or misappropriated it %ithout falsif#in$ an#
voucher. !he falsification %as used as a device to prevent
detection of the malversation.
!he falsifications cannot be re$arded as constitutin$ one
continuin$ offense impelled b# a sin$le criminal impulse.
)ach falsification of a voucher constitutes one crime. !he
falsification of si" vouchers constitutes si" separate or distinct
offenses E,eople v. (adri$al-3onCales, 117 ,hil. 'F6G.
*nd each misappropriation as evidenced b# a provincial
voucher constitutes a separate offense. !he si"
misappropriations evidenced b# the si" vouchers constitute
si" distinct offenses EH.1. v. 1acramento, F3 ,hil. 63'G.
!he overall result is that in these three cases si" separate
offenses of falsification and si" separate crimes of
malversation %ere committed. *ppellant 1amson is a co-
principal in each of the said t%elve offenses.
*s alread# stated, he is presumed to be the author of the
falsification because he %as in possession of the for$ed
vouchers and he used them in order to receive public monies
from the provincial treasurer.chanrobles virtual la%librar#
/e is a co-principal in the si" crimes of malversation because
he conspired %ith the provincial treasurer in committin$ those
offenses. !he trial court correctl# ruled that a private person
conspirin$ %ith an accountable public officer in committin$
malversation is also $uilt# of malversation E,eople v. odis,
12F ,hil. 12'.< H.1. v. ,onte, 22 ,hil. 37'< H.1. v. 8ato and
?ustre, 37 ,hil. 3F'< H.1. v. 8o%dell, 11 ,hil. .< ,eople v.
Calua$, '. ,hil. .F7G.
Note that a different rule prevails %ith respect to a stran$er
ta5in$ part in the commission of parricide or 0ualified theft.
In such cases, the stran$er is not $uilt# of parricide or
0ualified theft but onl# of murder or homicide, as the case
ma# be, and simple theft, b# reason of para$raph 3, article 62
of the evised ,enal Code E,eople v. ,atricio, .6 ,hil. :7F and
,eople v. Aaldellon, .6 ,hil. 2.FG.
-alsification of a public document committed b# a private
person is punished in article 172E1G of the evised ,enal Code
b# prision correccional in its medium and ma"imum periods
and a fine of not more than ,F,222.
-or the malversation of the sum of ,F,1:7.2: and ,.,F21.3:,
respectivel# covered b# vouchers Nos. 11:6' and 11:72
E)"h. , and 1G, the penalt# provided in para$raph 2 of article
217 of the evised ,enal Code is prision ma#or minimum and
medium.
-or the malversation of the sums of ,6,2'2.62 and
,',76'.6., respectivel# covered b# vouchers Nos. 11:72 and
11:71 E)"h. I and G the penalt# provided in para$raph 3 of
article 217 is prision ma#or ma"imum of reclusion temporal
minimum.
-or the malversation of the sums of ,16,727.F2 and
,1.,F71.:1 respectivel# covered b# vouchers Nos. 1272. and
12''F E)"h. D and >G, the penalt# provided in para$raph . of
article 217 is reclusion temporal medium and ma"imum.
In each of the malversation cases, a fine e0ual to the amount
malversed should be added to the imprisonment penalt#.
In the t%elve cases the penalt# should be imposed in the
medium period since there are no modif#in$ circumstances
E*rts. 6.O1P and 6F, evised ,enal CodeG. 1amson is entitled
to an indeterminate sentence.
6/))->), 1amson is convicted of si" crimes of falsification
of a public document and si" crimes of malversation.
In lieu of the penalties imposed b# the trial court, he is
sentenced to the follo%in$ penalties7chanrob1es virtual 1a%
librar#
-or each of the si" falsifications of the vouchers E)"h. D, >, ,,
I, and 1G, 1amson is sentenced to an indeterminate
penalt# of t%o E2G #ears of prison correccional minimum, as
minimum, to four E.G #ears of prision correccional medium, as
ma"imum, and to pa# a fine of three thousand pesos.
-or the malversation of the sum of ,16,727.F2 covered b#
voucher No. 1272. E)"h. DG, 1amson is sentenced to an
indeterminate penalt# of t%elve E12G #ears of prision ma#or
ma"imum, as minimum, to seventeen E17G #ears of reclusion
temporal medium, as ma"imum< to pa# a fine in the amount
of ,16,727.F2, and to indemnif# the province of ,an$asinan
in the same amount ECriminal Case No. 233.', ?-
332F2G.chanrobles la% librar# 7 red
-or the malversation of the sum of ,1.,F71.:1 covered b#
voucher No. 11''F E)"h. >G, 1amson is sentenced to an
indeterminate penalt# of t%elve E12G #ears of prision ma#or
ma"imum, as minimum, to seventeen E17G #ears of reclusion
temporal medium, as ma"imum< to pa# a fine in the sum of
,1.,F71.:1, and to indemnif# the province of ,an$asinan in
the same amount ECriminal Case No. 233F1, ?-332F.G.
-or the malversation of the sum of ,6,2'2.62 covered b#
voucher No. 11:72 E)"h. IG, 1amson is sentenced to an
indeterminate penalt# of nine E'G #ears of prision ma#or
medium, as minimum, to thirteen E13G #ears of reclusion
temporal minimum, as ma"imum< to pa# a fine of ,6,2'2.62,
and to indemnif# the province of ,an$asinan in the same
amount ECriminal Case No. 233F2, ?-332F3G.
-or the malversation of the sum of ,'.76'.6. covered b#
voucher No. 11:71 E)"h. G, 1amson is sentenced to an
indeterminate penalt# of nine E'G #ears of prision ma#or
medium, as minimum, to thirteen E13G #ears of reclusion
temporal minimum, as ma"imum< to pa# a fine of ,',76'.6.,
and to indemnif# the province of ,an$asinan in the same
amount ECriminal Case No. 233F2, ?-332F3G.
-or the malversation of the sum of ,F,1:7.2:, covered b#
voucher No. 11:6' E)"h. ,G, 1amson is sentenced to an
indeterminate penalt# of five EFG #ears of prision correccional
ma"imum, as minimum, to ei$ht E:G of prision ma#or
minimum, as ma"imum< to pa# a fine of ,F,1:7.2:, and to
indemnif# the province of ,an$asinan in the same amount
ECriminal Case No. 233F2, ?-332F3G.
-or the malversation of the sum of ,.,F21.3: covered b#
voucher no. 11:72 E)"h. 1G, 1amson is sentenced to an
indeterminate penalt# of five EFG #ears of prision correccional
ma"imum, as minimum, to ei$ht E:G #ears of prision ma#or
minimum, as ma"imum< to pa# a fine of ,.,F21.3:, and to
indemnif# the province of ,an$asinan in the same amount
ECriminal Case No. 233F2, ?-332F3G.
In the service of the t%elve penalties meted to 1amson, the
threefold limit provided for in article 72 of the evised ,enal
Code should be observed E,eople v. )scares, 122 ,hil. 677G,
meanin$ that the ma"imum penalt# that he should serve is
three times the indeterminate sentence of t%elve E12G #ears
to seventeen E17G #ears, the severest penalt# imposed on
him, or thirt#-si" E36G #ears to fift#-one EF1G #ears E1ee
,eople v. ,eBas, 6: ,hil. F33G.
!he ma"imum duration of his sentences should not e"ceed
fort# E.2G #ears E,enultimate par. of art. 72< ,eople v. *lisub,
6' ,hil. 362< ,eople v. Concepcion, F' ,hil. F1:, 6: ,hil. F32
and 6' ,hil. F:G.
!he estate of the late ?icerio ,. 1enda#die$o is ordered to
indemnif# the province of ,an$asinan in the sum of
,F7,2.:.23. 1amson and the said estate are solidaril# liable
for the said indemnit# E*rt. 112, evised ,enal CodeG.
1amson should pa# one-half of the costs.
1> >8))8.
*ntonio, Concepcion, &r. and 1antos, ))., concur.
-ernando, )., too5 no part.
Sep,r,te Op3-3o-)
B*)8>, )., concurrin$7chanrob1es virtual 1a% librar#
6hile I concur in the +ud$ment findin$ the accused-appellant
&uan 1amson $uilt# of si" separate crimes each of falsification
and malversation as elucidated in the ver# %ell studied and
abl# prepared main opinion of our distin$uished collea$ue, (r.
&ustice *0uino, and %hile I further a$ree that said appellant
and the estate of the deceased ?icerio ,. 1enda#die$o are
+ointl# and solidaril# liable to the ,rovince of ,an$asinan for
the amounts stated in the dispositive portion of the decision
herein, I have m# o%n le$al basis for holdin$ that the estate
of 1enda#die$o is indeed liable for the said amounts.
!o start %ith, I find it difficult to share the vie% that
=not%ithstandin$ the dismissal of the appeal of the deceased
1enda#die$o Ehe died durin$ the pendenc# of this appealG
insofar as his criminal liabilit# is concerned, . . .
1enda#die$oKs appeal %ill EneverthelessG be resolved onl# for
the purpose of sho%in$ his criminal liabilit# %hich is the basis
of the civil liabilit# for %hich his estate is liable.= It seems to
me that there is some de$ree of irreconcilable inconsistenc#
in dismissin$ a criminal case, thereb# ac0uittin$ the accused
therein of criminal liabilit# ; because of death or an# other
cause not amountin$ to a findin$ that he had not committed
the act complained of ; and at the same time holdin$ that he
or his estate has incurred civil liabilit# based on his criminal
liabilit#. It is to me clearl# obvious that the dismissal of an
appeal, due to death of the appellant, from a +ud$ment of
conviction b# a trial court does not result in the affirmance of
such conviction contrar# to the $eneral rule %hen an appeal in
a criminal case is dismissed ; but, on the contrar#, it
amounts to an ac0uittal of the appellant based on the
constitutionall# mandated presumption of innocence in his
favor that can be overcome onl# b# a findin$ of $uilt,
somethin$ that his death prevents the court from ma5in$. In
a sense, the death of an accused-appellant has the effect of
his total absolution b# 3od from an# earthl# responsibilit# for
the offense as such, a divine act of clemenc# no human court
can reverse, 0ualif#, much less disre$ard. It is an inherent
inalienable human ri$ht of ever# individual not to be sub+ect
to imputation of criminal liabilit# in an# sense, unless his $uilt
of the crime char$ed a$ainst him has been dul# proven
be#ond reasonable doubt in a dul# held criminal proceedin$.
!he intervention of death of the accused in an# criminal case
is an in+unction b# fate itself that no criminal liabilit#
%hatsoever should be imposed on him, not onl# because from
the ver# nature of the situation, it is impossible to do so but
also because it %ould be a +uridical absurdit# to contemplate
such a le$al concept. In short, death e"tin$uishes the crime,
and, corollaril#, all its conse0uences.
Indeed, it is but lo$ical to hold that the civil liabilit# resultin$
from criminal liabilit# under *rticle 122 of the evised ,enal
Code %ould have no basis unless criminal responsibilit# is
fi"ed or e"ists. It has been said that civil liabilit# under this
provision =is rooted in the criminal liabilit#.= 1 In this
connection and ad+ectivel#, 1ection 1 of ule 111 stipulates
that =%hen a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for
recover# of civil liabilit# arisin$ from the offense char$ed is
impliedl# instituted %ith the criminal action, etc.= But it must
be emphasiCed that these le$al precepts refer e"clusivel# to
the civil liabilit# conse0uent of the offense in its +uridical
essence as a crime, it bein$ elementar# on our le$al s#stem
that the same act m# $ive rise to civil responsibilit#
independent of that resultin$ from the commission of the act
as a crime.chanrobles.com 7 virtual la% librar#
!hus, it is entirel# possible for one to be free from civil
liabilit# directl# rooted in the act vie%ed as a violation of the
penal la% and still be liable civill# for it considered other%ise
as an infrin$ement of a ri$ht based on a created b# contract
or b# la%s other than the criminal la%. * consistent host of
+urisprudence, too familiar to the bench and bar to need
particular citation here, e"ists upholdin$ the ri$ht of a part#
a$$rieved b# an act criminal in nature to indemnit#,
restitution or reparation, not%ithstandin$ the absence or
failure of the usual criminal prosecution, in vie% of the
provisions of the pertinent articles of the Civil Code on /uman
elations and 1ection 2 of ule III. 1tated other%ise, the
same act or set of facts can be the sub+ect of obli$ations
arisin$ at the same time thru the different modes
contemplated in *rticle 11F7 of the Civil Code providin$ that
=obli$ations arise from E1G la%< E2G contracts E3G 0uasi-
contracts< E.G acts or omissions punished b# la%, and EFG
0uasi-delicts.= !hus, that an act or omission is punished b#
la%, thereb# ma5in$ the actor civill# liable therefor, does not
e"clude simultaneous liabilit# of the actor for the same act
vie%ed also as one $ivin$ rise to an obli$ation under the
another la%, andJor under a contract, 0uasi-contract or 0uasi-
delict, %ith the sole 0ualification that the a$$rieved part#
cannot recover dama$es more than once for the same act or
omission. E1ee *rt. 2177, Civil Code.G.
I am confident that the points I have +ust discussed are
be#ond debate. *nd as I see it, m# learned collea$ues in the
ma+orit# and I are a$reed that in the li$ht of the le$al
principles I have stated, there can be no doubt that the estate
of 1enda#die$o could be held liable for the acts of the
deceased that can be proven to have dama$ed the ,rovince
of ,an$asinan in spite of the dismissal of 1enda#die$oKs
appeal b# reason of his death. >ur possible disa$reement
relates onl# to the procedural aspect of the matter.
!he main opinion +ustified the imposition of civil liabilit# upon
said estate %ithin this appeal proceedin$, thereb# dispensin$
%ith the filin$ of a separate civil action for the purpose. In m#
vie%, the dismissal of 1enda#die$oKs appeal amounts, as I
have said to his ac0uittal. !his ac0uittal to m# mind is
different +uridicall# from one based on reasonable doubt
because as I have alread# intimated earlier, it is a total
absolution b# fate itself %hich carries %ith it necessaril#,
e"emption from or e"tinction of the civil liabilit# as if the
Court had held that the act from %hich the civil EactionG mi$ht
arise did not e"ist. E1ection 2 E3G, ule 111.G But this is not to
sa# that the estate is alread# e"onerated alto$ether from
another 5ind of civil liabilit# for indemnit#, restitution or
reparation, for under the unbro5en line of precedents I have
alread# referred to, the pertinent provisions on /uman
elations of the Civil Code, particularl# *rticle 32, come into
pla#, for under this cited provision, the total absolution of
1enda#die$o based on his death becomes virtuall#
immaterial, since this provision contemplates prosecution of
the civil liabilit# arisin$ from a criminal offense %ithout the
need of an# criminal proceedin$ to prove the commission of
the crime as such, that is, %ithout havin$ to prove the
criminal liabilit# of the defendant so lon$ as his act causin$
dama$e or pre+udice to the offended part# is proven b# a
preponderance of evidence. !his article provides, =%hen a
separate civil action is brou$ht to demand civil liabilit# arisin$
from a criminal offense, and no criminal proceedin$s, are
instituted durin$ the pendenc# of the civil case, a
preponderance of evidence shall li5e%ise be sufficient to
prove the act complained of.=crala% virtua1a% librar#
(# readin$ of the e"istin$ +urisprudence is that the civil
liabilit# not based on the act as crime has to be prosecuted in
a separate civil action and not %ithin the same criminal
proceedin$ %herein the accused has been ac0uitted or the
case a$ainst him is terminated %ith e"onerative conse0uence.
If there is an# +urisprudence to the contrar#, it is still isolated
and is not bindin$ precedent. 6orse, in m# opinion, it is
based on %hat I consider to be the erroneous premise that
*rticle 2' of the civil Code does not mean literall# %hat it
sa#s. !e"tuall#, this article states7+$c7chanrobles.com.ph
=6hen the accused in a criminal prosecution is ac0uitted on
the $round that his $uilt has not been proved be#ond
reasonable doubt, a civil action for dama$es for the same act
or omission ma# be instituted. 1uch action re0uires onl# a
preponderance of evidence. Hpon motion of the defendant,
the court ma# re0uire the plaintiff to file a bond to ans%er for
dama$es in case the complaint should be found to be
malicious.
=If in a criminal case the +ud$ment of ac0uittal is based upon
reasonable doubt, the court shall so declare. In the absence
of an# declaration to that effect, it ma# be inferred from the
te"t of decision %hether or not the ac0uittal is due to that
$round.=crala% virtua1a% librar#
8efinitel# and une0uivocall#, %hat it authoriCes is that =a civil
action for dama$es for the same act or omission ma# be
instituted.= It does not sa# that the civil action +oined %ith the
criminal action, as provided for in 1ection 1 of ule 111, shall
survive and be the one continued. I reiterate that %hat is left
to the offended part# after the death of an accused before
conviction is the ri$ht to institute a civil action for dama$es
for the same act or omission pursuant to *rticles 2' and 32 of
the Civil Code and 1ections 2 and 3 EcG of ule 111 of the
ules of Court.
*ll these not%ithstandin$, for the purpose of the instant case,
I am %illin$ to ta5e the position that since the point I am
pressin$ on is more or less procedural or remedial in nature,
and perhaps, the failure of the parties concerned to seriousl#
ob+ect to the procedure pursued in the main opinion could be
a sufficient e"cuse for not follo%in$ %hat I feel is the proper
%a# of dealin$ %ith the civil liabilit# incurred b# the estate of
the deceased 1enda#die$o, hence m# concurrence, in the
0ualified sense implicit in this separate opinion, in the
dispositive portion of the decision herein.
(a# I add here that the fore$oin$ reasons e"plain %h# I have
al%a#s insisted that %hen appeals in criminal cases before us
have to be dismissed b# reason of the death of the appellant,
it is not proper to 0ualif# such dismissal as limited to that of
the criminal liabilit# of the appellant. It is m# humble vie%
that the dismissal should be un0ualified and that the offended
parties concerned should be left to pursue their remedies, if
the# so desire, in the appropriate separate civil action
contemplated both in the Civil Code and in ule 111, as
e"plained above. I admit this vie% mi$ht entail the institution
of %hat is virtuall# a repetitive proceedin$, but I cannot see
an# %a# of avoidin$ %hat the une0uivocal lan$ua$e of the
pertinent le$al provisions mandate, unless I ma5e m#self a
part# to +udicial le$islation, %hich I believe it is not
constitutionall# permissible for me to do, no matter ho%
practical the procedure mi$ht be.