People of the Philippines vs Gerry Lipata Ortiza

Facts: On or about September 1, 2005, at around 6:00 in the evening in Quezon City, Philippines,
Ronaldo Cueno was attacked and stabbed multiple times by three armed men, namely: accused
Gerry Lipata and his brothers Larry Lipata and Rudy Lipata. The attack inflicted mortal wounds to
the former which resulted to death. The precedent facts were attested to by two eyewitnesses:
Merlinda Valzado, sister-in-law of the deceased and Criz Reymiluz Cueno, daughter of the
deceased. Merlinda Valzado at around 6 oclock in the evening of that day, while coming out of
her house to go to the market, saw the three men stab Ronaldo Cueno with a tres cantos, an ice
pick and a broken piece of Red Horse glass bottle. On the other hand, Criz Cueno recounted that
after coming home from work at around 6:00 p.m. that day, she saw her father coming home
from Merlinda Valzados residence when the three men attacked him. On their first attempt,
Ronaldo Cueno was able to run away and escape but later on when he reckoned that the three
men had already gone, he started walking towards home but the Lipatas attacked him again
eventually killing him.
An Information was filed against Gerry Lipata charging him with the crime of Murder. The
Prosecution presented the two eyewitnesses for its evidence while the defense presented a sole
witness in the person of the accused with the allegation that the deed was done on a justifying
circumstance of defense of a relative. Gerry Lipata alleged that around 6:00 p.m. that day Larry
Lipata was being stabbed by the victim which called for his instantaneous defense.
The burden of proof now shifting to the appellant for raising the foregoing justifying
circumstance, the RTC did not find his evidence satisfactory to support the claim thereby finding
accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Accused filed a notice of appeal but CA dismissed
appellants appeal and affirmed the decision of the RTC. In behalf of appellant, PAO filed a notice
of appeal on June 10 2011 and CA elevated the records to the SC.
However, prior to pronouncement of final judgment, Quezon City Jail Warden informed the
Supreme Court that appellant passed away last February 13 2011. The Court then required both
parties to submit their supplemental briefs, if any, on the civil aspect of the case. In the
Manifestation submitted by PAO it stated therein that the civil liability of the appellant arising
from the act complained of is now extinguished therefore, there is no need to substitute the legal
representatives of the appellants estate as party. On July 9, 2014 the Court issued a Resolution
ordering PAO to continue as the legal representative of the estate of the deceased appellant for
purposes of the latters civil liability.

Issue: Whether or not the civil liability of the appellant has been extinguished due to his
death prior final judgment.

Held: In People vs. Bayotas, the Court concluded that upon death of the accused
pending appeal of his conviction, his criminal liability together with the civil liability
ex delicto is extinguished. However if private offended party desires to recover
damages on the same act complained of, he must subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of
the (then applicable) 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure which provides for the filing
of a separate civil action not on the felony but on other sources of obligation. The
issue in the case at bar is provided for more particularly in the 4 th Section of the same
Rule:

Section 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.

Put simply, in order for the private offended party to pursue their claims for indemnity and
damages they must institute as separate civil action against the estate of the deceased appellant.