G.R. No.

82562 April 11, 1997

LYDIA VILLEGAS, MA TERESITA VILLEGAS, ANTONIO VILLEGAS, JR., and ANTONIETTE VILLEGAS vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and ANTONIO V. RAQUIZA

G.R. No. 82592 April 11, 1997

ANTONIO V. RAQUIZA vs. COURT OF APPEALS, LYDIA A. VILLEGAS, ANTONIO VILLEGAS, JR., MA.
ANTONETTE VILLEGAS, MA. LYDIA VILLEGAS and ESTATE OF ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS

FACTS: This case originated from a libel suit filed by then Assemblyman Antonio V. Raquiza against then
Manila Mayor Antonio J. Villegas, who allegedly publicly imputed to him acts constituting violations of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. He did this on several occasions in August 1968.

On July 25, 1969, an Information for libel was filed against Villegas who denied the charge. After losing in
the 1971 elections, Villegas left for the United States where he stayed until his death. Nevertheless, trial
proceeded in absentia; by the time of his death, trial had already rested its case. Two months after the
prosecution rested its case, the court issued an order dismissing the criminal aspect of the case but
reserving the right to resolve its civil aspect.

Subsequently the Court awarded Raquiza actual, moral, exemplary damages and cost of suit. On appeal,
the CA affirmed but reduced the amount of damages. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: Did the death of the accused before final judgment extinguish his civil liability?

HELD: NO, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of (the) accused, if the same may
also be predicated on a source of obligation is of Quasi-Delict.

The Court has already settled this issue with the promulgation of the case of People v. Bayotas (G.R. No.
102007) on September 2, 1994, 4 viz.:

1 Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the
civil liability;

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. Article 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:

a) Law
b) Contracts
c) Quasi-contracts
d) x x x x x x x x x
e) Quasi-delicts

3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above, an action for recovery therefor may
be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985
Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. 8 This separate civil action may be enforced either against the
executor/administrator o(f) the estate of the accused, depending on the source of obligation upon which
the same is based as explained above.
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 (Art. 1155)

The source of Villegas’ civil liability in the present case is the felonious act of libel he allegedly committed.
Yet, this act could also be deemed a quasi-delict within the purview of Article 33 9 in relation to Article
1157 of the Civil Code.

The Bayotas ruling, however, makes the enforcement of a deceased accused’s civil liability dependent on
two factors, namely, that it be pursued by filing a separate civil action and that it be made subject to
Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended. Obviously, in the case at bar,
the civil action was deemed instituted with the criminal. There was no waiver of the civil action and no
reservation of the right to institute the same, nor was it instituted prior to the criminal action. What then
is the recourse of the private offended party in a criminal case such as this which must be dismissed in
accordance with the Bayotas doctrine, where the civil action was impliedly instituted with it?

The answer is likewise provided in Bayatas. Assuming that for lack of express reservation, Belamala’s civil
civil for damages was to be considered instituted together with the criminal action still, since both
proceedings were terminated without finals adjudication, the civil action of the offended party under
Article 33 may yet be enforced separately.

The resolution of the civil aspect of the case after the dismissal of the main criminal action by the trial
court was technically defective. There was no proper substitution of parties, as correctly pointed out by
the Heirs and repeatedly put in issue by Atty. Quisumbing. What should have been followed by the court
a quo was the procedure laid down in the Rules of Court, specifically, Section 17, Rule 3, in connection
with Section 1, Rule 87.

WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 82562 is GRANTED and the petition in G.R. No. 82592 is DENIED
without prejudice to the right of the private offended party Antonio V. Raquiza, to file the appropriate
civil action for damages against the executor or administrator of the estate or the heirs of the late Antonto
J. Villegas in accordance with the foregoing procedure.