PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,

vs.
GERRY LIPATA y ORTIZA , appellant.
[G.R. No. 200302. April 20, 2016.]
J. Carpio

Digest Author: Jude Fanila

Topic: Prosecution of Civil Action – Effect of the death of accused or convict on civil action

Case Summary: Accused, Ortiza was convicted by RTC of QC for murder. Appealed to CA, CA
affirmed conviction. On appeal to the SC, they find out that he died after the RTC trial. Current issue is
regarding the civil liability of his estate to the heirs of the guy he killed. SC rules that under 2000 Revised
Rules on CrimPro death extinguishes civil liability ex delicto but NOT the cause of action for independent
civil actions. Thus, private parties can recover via actions for quasi-delicts, etc. subject to prescription.

Petitioners: People of the Philippines

Respondents: Gerry Lipata y Ortiza – convicted murdered, dead person.

Doctrines Involved: Under the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, a separate civil action may be
filed against the estate of the accused if the cause of action is something OTHER than delicts e.g. quasi-
delicts or contractual liability. Simlarly, the right to file separate civil action – preserved because
prescription is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case. This is because criminal case
comes with civil case.

FACTS:
1. Appellant, Ortiza was charged with Murder before the RTC of QC.
a. Information stated that: Sept. 1, 2005 – in QC, Ortiza along with (2) other unknown
persons conspired to kill one Ronaldo Cueno Y Bonifacio
i. Evident Premeditaiton, Treachery, advantage of superior strength – used bladed
weapons – stab wounds led to death of Bonifacio
2. Arraigned on Oct 11, 2005 – pled not guilty.
a. Pre-trial conference was terminated on Oct 26 – led to trial on the merits.
3. Evidence presented before the RTC
a. Prosecution:
i. Testimony of victim’s sister-in-law – that she saw Ortiza, Ortiza’s brother (Larry
Lipata) and a certain Rudy Lipata attacking the victim, Bonifacio – stabbed
around 10 times with an ice pick and a broken piece of glass from a red horse
bottle – attack was around 6:00 pm, Sept. 1
ii. Testimony of victim’s daughter – That she saw Ortiza with Larry and Rudy
Lipata stab Bonifaco to death in front of their house, just as Bonifacio was
returning from sister-in-law’s house (he was getting malunggay leaves there
apparently) around 6:00pm
b. Defense
i. Testimony of appellant, Ortiza – admitted that he was on scene, rushing to aid his
brother, Larry Lipata who was being stabbed by Bonifacio. Struggle for the knife
led to Bonifacio being stabbed – fled from the scene because he was wounded.
4. CASE TRAIL:
 oRTC Ruling – GUILTY – but no proof of evident premeditation. – Sentenced to reclusion
perpetua (20 yr, 1d – 40 yrs) – decision promulgated sometime 2010 1 - Public Attorney’s
Office (PAO) filed an appeal in behalf of Ortiza.
a. Decision: Ortiza’s testimony admitted stabbing, raised defense of relative. Therefore,
burden of proof shifted on him to prove innocence.
i. Failure to prove unlawful aggression on the part of Bonifacio, no actual or
imminent danger on the life of Larry.
ii. Evidence shows that (3) of them actually ganged up on Bonifacio – 17 stab
wounds inconsistent with theory that he was merely defending Larry.
o CA Decision – affirmed the RTC. – see notes for award of civil liability (same with RTC)
a. Decision: Defense of relative improper, no showing of imminent or actual threat on
the life of Ortiza or his brother.
i. No reason to stab Bonifacio as they outnumbered him 3 to 1.
ii. Overturned RTC as regards to treachery. Treachery proper as Bonifacio was
not forewarned of any impending threat on his life, Ortiza and co-principals
attacked Bonifacio at the same time while armed. Led to it being impossible
for him to retaliate.
o Post termination of CA proceedings:
a. Public Attorney’s Office – filed a notice of appeal in behalf of Ortiza on June 10
2011
i. CA ordered immediate elevation of appeal to SC on June 30 2011.
5. SC –
a. June 2012 Resolution – acknowledged records forwarded by the CA – required the
Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) to confirm the confinement of Ortiza.
i. BuCor – responded on July 2012, no letter of confinement of Ortiza.
b. September 10 2012 Resolution – SC required QC Jail Warden to transfer Ortiza to New
Bilibid within 10 days of receipt of notice.
i. QC Jail Warden – responded on Oct. 22, 2012 – informing SC that Ortiza died on
February 13, 2011
c. Jan 7 2013 Resolution – SC required parties to submit supplemental briefs as regards to
the civil aspect of the case.
i. SolGen didn’t file a supplemental brief.
ii. PAO filed a supplemental brief on March 26, 2013 – declared that civil liability
arose from the murder. Death of Ortiza extinguished the liability. In line with the
doctrine in People v. Jamie Ayochok and People v. Rogelio Bayotas.

ISSUES + HELD:
1. W/N death of Ortiza extinguished civil liability? – YES
a. Criminal Liability - controlling law is RPC 89 2 - criminal liability is totally extinguished
upon death.
b. Civil liability –

1
Case doesn’t indicate exact date of termination of cases before the courts. It only says when the PAO filed an
appeal.
2
Article 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. — Criminal liability is
totally extinguished: 1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to
pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the
offender occurs before final judgment;
 i. Jurisprudential History – Originally, doctrine in People v. Bayotas was
controlling.
1. People v. Bayotas (1994) – Death of an appellant prior to conviction by
final judgment extinguishes criminal liability. It also extinguishes only
ex delicto civil liability.
a. This means that a separate civil action may be filed against the
estate of the accused if the cause of action is something OTHER
than delicts e.g. quasi-delicts or contractual liability. This is
instituted via Rule 111 of the 1985 rules of CrimPro.
b. Right to file separate civil action – preserved because
prescription is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the
criminal case. This is because criminal case comes with civil
case.
2. 2000 Revised Rules on Crimpro – instituted the ruling in Bayotasi
c. As applied to the present case – a separate civil action for recovery, pursuant to the ruling
in Bayotas and 2000 revised rules on crimpro is not deemed instituted with the criminal
action. Instead, the private offended party or their heirs must be the one to file said
action.
i. No separate civil case was instituted prior to the criminal case. No reservation as
made for filing a separate civil case based on quasi-delicts as well.
ii. Thus, right of heirs to recover has already prescribed. (Actions based on QDs
prescribe in four years from the time the QD was committed under NCC 1150) –
Bonifacio died in 2005 – therefore, prescribed.
d. SC refers the case to the Committee on the Revision of the RoC – because peculiar case
where accused dies after conviction by the trial court but pending appeal.
i. Calls attention to ruling in Lumantaz v. Capiz – where acquittal based on
reasonable doubt does not extinguish civil liability ex delicto (bc different
standards of evidence) – based on NCC 29.
ii. Similarly, SC recommends Code Committee and later, SC en banc to make
appropriate amendments to RoC for a speedy and inexpensive resolution of
similar cases to allow for private offended party or heirs to obtain indemnity.

RULING:

WHEREFORE, we SET ASIDE the Decision promulgated on 31 May 2011 by the

Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04461. The criminal and civil liabilities e

delicto of appellant Gerry Lipata y Ortiza are declared EXTINGUISHED by his death

prior to final judgment.

Let a copy of this Decision be forwarded to the Committee on the Revision of the

Rules of Court.

SO ORDERED

NOTES:

Civil Liability - (a)Php50,000.00 representing civil indemnity ex delicto of the

accused;
(b)Php120,550.00 representing the actual damages incurred
by the heirs of Rolando Cueno, incident to his death plus 12%
interest per annum computed from 6 September 2005 until fully
paid;
(c)Php50,000.00 as moral damages for the mental and
emotional anguish suffered by the heirs arising from the death of
Rolando Cueno; and
(d) Php25,000[.00] as exemplary damages
i
Sec. 4. Effect of death on civil actions. — The death of the accused after arraignment and during the pendency of the
criminal action shall extinguish the civil liability arising from the delict. However, the independent civil action instituted
under Section 3 of this Rule or which thereafter is instituted to enforce liability arising from other sources of obligation
may be continued against the estate or legal representative of the accused after proper substitution or against said estate,
as the case may be. The heirs of the accused may be substituted for the deceased without requiring the appointment of an
executor or administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs. The court shall forthwith
order said legal representative or representatives to appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from
notice. A final judgment entered in favor of the offended party shall be enforced in the manner especially provided in
these rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of the deceased. If the accused dies before arraignment, the case
shall be dismissed without prejudice to any civil action the offended party may file against the estate of the deceased.