G.R. No. 197252 - People vs. Depillo y Biorco

The case involves accused-appellants Wenlito Depillo y Biorco (“Wewen”) and Lolito Depillo y Dehijido (“Lito”), who were convicted of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
The conviction originally emerged from a decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 28, 2010 in C.A.-G.R. CEB C.R. H.C. No. 00889.
On June 15, 2016, the Special First Division issued a Resolution that affirmed, with modification, the Court of Appeals’ decision.
The Resolution ordered the accused-appellants to pay specified amounts to the heirs of Anatolio Calumba, Jr. as civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and temperate damages, alongside interest and costs of suit.

Evidence, including a Letter from the Bureau of Corrections dated August 24, 2016 and a Certificate of Death, confirmed that accused-appellant Lolito had died on March 16, 2015.
Lolito’s death occurred during the pendency of his criminal case, even though the Resolution affirming his conviction was rendered in 2016 and attained finality in 2017 (only as to Wenlito).
The death event raised the issue of whether his criminal and civil liabilities, established under the Resolution, should have been rendered inoperative.

Article 89 (1) of the Revised Penal Code provides that criminal liability is extinguished by the accused’s death before final judgment, similarly affecting pecuniary penalties and corresponding civil actions.
The principle holds that death of an accused effectively terminates the existence of a defendant for criminal prosecution, and the civil action for recovery based solely on the criminal delict is ipso facto extinguished.
However, following People v. Santiago, the Court noted that if the civil liability may be based on another source of obligation (other than delict), the offended party may pursue a separate civil action against the accused’s estate.

The Court, upon learning of Lolito’s supervening death, recognized that his criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto should have been extinguished before reaching a final judgment.
Despite the Resolution having attained finality, the Court exercised its prerogative to relax the doctrine on immutability of judgments under compelling circumstances.
The decision aimed to rectify the oversight by modifying the Resolution—specifically setting aside the judgment’s imposition on Lolito—by dismissing the criminal case against him and declaring the matter closed with respect to his liability.

Whether the death of accused-appellant Lolito prior to final judgment extinguishes his criminal liability, including any civil liability based solely on the delict committed.
Whether the doctrine of immutability of final judgments should be relaxed in this scenario, given the special or compelling circumstances of Lolito’s death that occurred during the pendency of his criminal prosecution.
Whether the private offended party’s right to recover civil liability survives through a separate civil action, if such civil liability is predicated on a source other than delict and not extinguished by the death of the accused.