PEOPLE v.

BAYOTAS
2 September 1994 | Romero, J. | Automatic review | Total extinction

PETITIONER: People of the Philippines

RESPONDENT: Rogelio Bayotas y Cordova
SUMMARY: Rogelio Bayotas, accused and convicted of Rape, died on February 4, 1992 due to cardio respiratory arrest. The
Solicitor General then submitted a comment stating that the death of the accused does not excuse him from his civil liability
(supported by the Supreme Court’s decision in People vs Sendaydiego). On the other hand, the counsel of the accused claimed that
in the Supreme Court’s decision in People vs Castillo, civil liability is extinguished if accused should die before the final judgement
is rendered. The Court agreed with the counsel of the accused.
DOCTRINE: Under Article 89, RPC, death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as
well as the civil liability based solely thereon. Therefore, Bayotas’s death extinguished his criminal and civil liability based solely
on the act complained of. The extinction of civil liability follows the extinction of the criminal liability under Article 89, only when
the civil liability arises from the criminal act as its only basis. The said principle does not apply in instant case wherein the civil
liability springs neither solely nor originally from the crime itself but from a civil contract of purchase and sale.

FACTS: as the civil liability based solely thereon;

1. In Criminal Case No. C-3217 filed before Branch 16,
RTC Roxas City, Rogelio Bayotas y Cordova was
charged with Rape and eventually convicted thereof
on June 19, 1991 in a decision penned by Judge
Manuel E. Autajay. Pending appeal of his conviction,
Bayotas died on February 4, 1992 at the National
Bilibid Hospital due to cardio respiratory arrest
secondary to hepatic encephalopathy secondary to
hipato carcinoma gastric malingering. Consequently,
the Supreme Court in its Resolution of May 20, 1992
dismissed the criminal aspect of the appeal. However,
it required the Solicitor General to file its comment
with regard to Bayotas' civil liability arising from his
commission of the offense charged.
2. In his comment, the Solicitor General expressed his
view that the death of accused-appellant did not
extinguish his civil liability as a result of his
commission of the offense charged. The Solicitor
General, relying on the case of People v.
Sendaydiego insists that the appeal should still be
resolved for the purpose of reviewing his conviction
by the lower court on which the civil liability is
based.
3. Counsel for the accused-appellant, on the other hand,
opposed the view of the Solicitor General arguing
that the death of the accused while judgment of
conviction is pending appeal extinguishes both his
criminal and civil penalties. In support of his
position, said counsel invoked the ruling of the Court
of Appeals in People v. Castillo and Ocfemia which
held that the civil obligation in a criminal case takes
root in the criminal liability and, therefore, civil
liability is extinguished if accused should die before
final judgment is rendered.
2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives
notwithstanding the death of the accused, if the same
may also be predicated on a source of obligation
other than delict. Aricle 1157 of the Civil Code
enumerates these other sources of obligation from
which the civil liability may arise as a result of the
same act or omission: Law, Contracts, Quasi-
contracts, Delicts…,Quasi-delicts;
3. Where the civil liability survives, an action for
recovery therefore may be pursued but only by way
of separate civil action and may be enforced either
against the executor/administrator of the estate of the
accused, depending on the source of obligation aside
from delicts;
4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a
forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action
by prescription, in cases where during the
prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its
extinction, the private offended party instituted
together therewith the civil action. In such case, the
statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed
interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case,
conformably with provisions of Article 1155 of the
Civil Code, that should thereby avoid any
apprehension on a possible privation of right by
prescription.

ISSUE: WON the death of the accused pending appeal of his

conviction extinguished his civil liability—YES.

RULING: Appeal dismissed.

HELD:
1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his
conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well