Case Digest (G.R. No. 194068)
Facts:
In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Benjie Consorte y Franco (G.R. No. 194068), the decision was rendered on November 26, 2014 by the Special Second Division. The accused-appellant, Benjie Consorte y Franco, was convicted of the murder of Elizabeth Palmar through a decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 27, 2010. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s finding of guilt, although it modified some aspects of the civil damages awarded to the victim's family, increasing civil indemnity from PHP 50,000.00 to PHP 75,000.00 and exemplary damages from PHP 25,000.00 to PHP 30,000.00. Moreover, an interest rate of 6% per annum was imposed on these damages until fully paid.Throughout the proceedings, the accused maintained that the identification of him as the perpetrator was flawed. He raised concerns about the reliability of the identification made by a witness named Rolando Visbe, asserting that the testimony of another prosecution witness, Aneline Mendoza, contai
Case Digest (G.R. No. 194068)
Facts:
- Case Background
- The case involves the People of the Philippines versus Benjie Consorte y Franco, who was convicted for the murder of Elizabeth Palmar.
- The conviction was affirmed in a decision dating 9 July 2014, which also modified the quantum of civil indemnity and exemplary damages.
- Identification Issues
- Accused-appellant challenged his identification as the perpetrator, asserting the incredibility of the evidence against him.
- He pointed out that, despite the positive identification by witness Rolando Visbe, the testimony of prosecution witness Aneline Mendoza demonstrated the impossibility of such identification.
- Visbe’s statements were noted to be unbelievable and inconsistent in describing how the identification was made.
- Subsequent Developments
- A Letter dated 21 September 2014 from the Officer-in-Charge of the New Bilibid Prison informed the Court that accused-appellant had died on 14 July 2014, as evidenced by a Death Certificate issued by NBP Medical Officer III, M.D. Ruth B. Algones.
- The motion for reconsideration filed by the accused-appellant was still pending resolution at the time of his death.
- Legal Framework and Precedents
- Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code was cited, which states that criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict as to personal penalties, and pecuniary liabilities are likewise extinguished if death occurs before final judgment.
- The Court referenced precedents, notably People v. Brillantes and People v. Bayotas, to underscore that the death of an accused pending appeal extinguishes both criminal liability and any civil liability directly arising from the offense (civil liability ex delicto).
Issues:
- Whether the death of the accused-appellant prior to the final judgment extinguishes his criminal liability under Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
- Whether the accused-appellant’s civil liability, arising solely from the crime committed (civil liability ex delicto), is likewise extinguished by his death before the final judgment.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)