PEOPLE V. LIPATA, G.R. No. 200302, April 20, 2016
The source of
Independent Civil Actions
Facts: Rolando Cueno went to his aunt’s house to ask for
malunggay leaves. However, appellant, Larry Lipata and a
certain Rudy attacked him by repeatedly stabbing him. When
the victim fell on the ground, the assailants escaped. Rolando’s
neighbors rushed him to the hospital but was pronounced dead
on arrival. The RTC found the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and to pay the heirs of
the Rolando Cueno for damages. Appellant, through the Public
Attorney’s Office (PAO), filed a notice of appeal. The Quezon
City Jail Warden, in a letter dated 22 October 2012, informed
this Court that appellant passed away on 13 February 2011.
Issue: Whether or not the appellant’s death extinguishes his
criminal and civil liability.
Ruling: The criminal and civil liabilities ex delicto of appellant
are declared extinguished by his death prior to final judgment.
Upon death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction,
the criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as there is no
longer a defendant to stand as the accused; the civil action
instituted therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso
facto extinguished, grounded as it is on the criminal. We also
ruled that if the private offended party, upon extinction of the
civil liability ex delicto desires to recover damages from the
same act or omission complained of, he must file a separate
civil action, this time predicated not on the felony previously
charged but on other sources of obligation.
obligation upon which the separate civil action is premised
determines against whom the same shall be enforced.
LANDICHO V. RELOVA
Prejudicial Question
Facts:
On February 27, 1963, petitioner was charged before the Court
of First Instance of Batangas, Branch I, presided over by
respondent Judge, with the offense, of bigamy. It was alleged
in the information that petitioner "being then lawfully married
to Elvira Makatangay, which marriage has not been legally
dissolved, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously contract a second marriage with Fe Lourdes Pasia."
On March 15, 1963, an action was filed before the Court of
First Instance of Batangas, likewise presided plaintiff
respondent Judge Fe Lourdes Pasia, seeking to declare her
marriage to petitioner as null and void ab initio because of the
alleged use of force, threats and intimidation allegedly
employed by petitioner and because of its allegedly bigamous
character. On June 15, 1963, petitioner as defendant in said
case, filed a third-party complaint, against the third-party
defendant
Elvira Makatangay, the first spouse, praying that his marriage
with the said third-party defendant be declared null and void,
on the ground that by means of threats, force and intimidation,
she compelled him to appear and contract marriage with her who filed the action for nullity on the ground of force, threats
before the Justice of the Peace of Makati, Rizal. and intimidation. And it was only later that petitioner as
defendant in the civil action, filed a third party complaint
Issue: Whether or not the civil case filed is a prejudicial against the first spouse alleging that his marriage with her
question. should be declared null and void on the ground of force, threats
and intimidation. Assuming the first marriage was null and
Ruling: void on the ground alleged by petitioner, that fact would not be
Where the first wife filed a criminal action for bigamy against material to the outcome of the criminal case. Parties to the
the husband, and later the second wife filed a civil case for marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its
annulment of the marriage on the ground of force and nullity, for the same must be submitted to the judgment of a
intimidation, and the husband later files a civil case for competent court and only when the nullity of the marriage is so
annulment of marriage against the first wife, the civil cases are declared can it be held as void, and so long as there is no such
not prejudicial questions in the determination of his criminal declaration, the presumption is that the marriage exists.
liability for bigamy, since his consent to the second marriage is Therefore, he who contracts a second marriage before the
not in issue. "The mere fact that there are actions to annul the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage assumes the
marriages entered into by accused in a bigamy case does not risk of being prosecuted for bigamy.
mean that "prejudicial questions" are automatically raised in
civil actions as to warrant the suspension of the criminal case.
In order that the case of annulment of marriage be considered a
prejudicial question to the bigamy case against the accused, it
must be shown that petitioner's consent to such marriage must
be the one that was obtained by means of duress, force and
intimidation to show that his act in the second marriage must
be involuntary and cannot be the basis of his conviction for the
crime of bigamy.
The situation in the present case is markedly different. At the
time the petitioner was indicted for bigamy, the fact that two
marriage ceremonies had been contracted appeared to be
indisputable. And it was the second spouse, not the petitioner