Title
Belamala vs. Polinar
Case
G.R. No. L-24093
Decision Date
Nov 18, 1967
Civil liability for damages survives accused's death; claim must be pursued via separate action against estate administrator, not under Rule 86.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-24093)

Facts:

  1. Parties Involved:

    • Petitioner-Appellee: Buenaventura Belamala, the offended party in Criminal Case No. 1922.
    • Administrator Oppositor-Appellant: Marcelino Polinar, the administrator of the estate of Mauricio Polinar, the deceased accused.
  2. Criminal Case Background:

    • On May 24, 1954, a complaint for Frustrated Murder was filed against Mauricio Polinar and others in the Justice of the Peace of Clarin, Bohol.
    • The case was remanded to the Court of First Instance of Bohol, where an Information was filed on March 12, 1955.
    • On May 28, 1956, the Court of First Instance of Bohol convicted Mauricio Polinar of serious physical injuries and ordered him to pay Buenaventura Belamala:
      • P990.00 as indemnity.
      • P35.80 as additional indemnity.
      • P1,000.00 as moral damages.
  3. Appeal and Death of the Accused:

    • Mauricio Polinar appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals on June 18, 1956.
    • On July 27, 1956, while the appeal was pending, Mauricio Polinar died.
    • No notice of his death was filed in the Court of Appeals.
    • The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision on March 27, 1958, but Mauricio Polinar had already died.
  4. Survivors of Mauricio Polinar:

    • Mauricio Polinar was survived by his wife, Balbina Bongato, and seven children.
  5. Claim Against the Estate:

    • Buenaventura Belamala filed a claim against the estate of Mauricio Polinar for the damages awarded in the criminal case.
    • The trial court admitted the claim for P2,025.80 with legal interest from the date the claim was filed (July 30, 1959).

Issue:

  1. Primary Issue:

    • Whether the civil liability of an accused who dies before final judgment is extinguished by his death, thereby barring any claim against his estate.
  2. Subsidiary Issue:

    • Whether the claim for damages should have been prosecuted by a separate action against the administrator of the estate, rather than as a claim against the estate under Rule 86 of the Rules of Court.

Ruling:

  1. Civil Liability Not Extinguished:

    • The Supreme Court ruled that the civil liability of Mauricio Polinar was not extinguished by his death. The civil action for damages under Article 33 of the Civil Code is separate and distinct from the criminal action and can proceed independently.
  2. Proper Procedure for Claim:

    • The Court held that the claim for damages should have been prosecuted by a separate action against the administrator of the estate under Rule 87 of the Rules of Court, rather than as a claim against the estate under Rule 86.
    • Rule 86 limits claims against the estate to those arising from contract, express or implied, and does not include claims arising from tort or delict.
  3. Reversal of Trial Court's Decision:

    • The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision, setting aside the claim against the estate but without prejudice to the appellee's right to file a separate action against the administrator.

Ratio:

  • (Unlock)

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.