Case Summary (G.R. No. 175457)
Key Dates
Court of Appeals Decision: January 29, 2014.
Supreme Court Resolution adopting the CA decision: August 3, 2015.
Entry of Judgment declaring finality of the August 3, 2015 Resolution: October 14, 2015.
Date of accused’s death: July 30, 2015.
Date Supreme Court was informed of the death (letter received): July 18, 2016.
Procedural History and Holdings Adopted Prior to Notice of Death
The CA found Ariel Layag guilty beyond reasonable doubt of one count of Qualified Rape by Sexual Intercourse (Article 266-A(1) in relation to Article 266-B(1) RPC), two counts of Qualified Rape by Sexual Assault (Article 266-A(2) in relation to Article 266-B(1) RPC), and one count of Acts of Lasciviousness (Article 336 RPC). The Supreme Court, by its August 3, 2015 Resolution, adopted the CA’s findings in toto and modified the award of damages, imposing specified terms of imprisonment and civil, moral, and exemplary damages for each count, with legal interest at six percent per annum from finality until full payment.
Discovery of Death and Reopening of Final Judgment
After the Court had declared the Resolution final and executory, it received notification that Layag had died on July 30, 2015—prior to the promulgation of the August 3, 2015 Resolution—information which reached the Court belatedly. Because the death occurred before the court’s final disposition had been promulgated and because the Court was only belatedly informed, the Court invoked its authority to relax the doctrine of immutability of judgments under special or compelling circumstances and re-opened the matter for reconsideration.
Doctrine of Finality and Grounds for Relaxation
The Court reiterated the doctrine that a final judgment is generally immutable, but explained, following Bigler v. People, that relaxation of immutability is permissible upon showing special or compelling circumstances. The factors enumerated include the involvement of matters of life, liberty, honor, or property; existence of special or compelling circumstances; merits of the case; that the cause for reopening is not entirely attributable to the fault of the party benefitted by finality; absence of a showing that the review sought is frivolous or dilatory; and that reopening will not unjustly prejudice the other party. The Court found Layag’s pre-promulgation death to be a special and compelling circumstance warranting reopening.
Legal Effect of Death on Criminal and Civil Liability
Relying on Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code and controlling jurisprudence (notably People v. Egagamao), the Court explained that death of the accused prior to final judgment extinguishes criminal liability as to personal penalties, and extinguishes pecuniary penalties when death occurs before final judgment. The Court summarized Egagamao: death pending appeal extinguishes criminal liability and civil liability that is based solely on the criminal conviction (civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore). Nonetheless, civil liability may survive if it can be based on other sources of obligation enumerated in Article 1157 of the Civil Code (law, contract, quasi-contract, quasi-delict, etc.), in which case the injured party may pursue a separate civil action against the estate or against an executor/administrator under the procedural rules referenced (Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended). The Court also noted that if a civil action had been timely instituted concurrently with the criminal prosecution, prescription may have been interrupted
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 175457)
Procedural History
- The Supreme Court issued a Resolution dated August 3, 2015 adopting in toto the Court of Appeals Decision dated January 29, 2014 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05383, which had found accused-appellant Ariel Layag guilty beyond reasonable doubt of specified sexual offenses.
- The August 3, 2015 Resolution modified the award of damages and imposed specified penalties and monetary awards for each criminal case.
- An Entry of Judgment dated October 14, 2015 declared the August 3, 2015 Resolution final and executory.
- The Court subsequently received a letter dated July 18, 2016 from the Bureau of Corrections informing the Court of the death of accused-appellant Ariel Layag on July 30, 2015, supported by an attached Certificate of Death.
- In light of the belated notification of Layag’s death, the Court reopened the matter despite the previously declared finality of the August 3, 2015 Resolution.
Court of Appeals Decision Adopted and Charges Found
- The Court of Appeals Decision dated January 29, 2014 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05383, which the Supreme Court adopted in toto, found Ariel Layag guilty beyond reasonable doubt of:
- One (1) count of Qualified Rape by Sexual Intercourse;
- Two (2) counts of Qualified Rape by Sexual Assault; and
- One (1) count of Acts of Lasciviousness.
- The CA Decision was penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza with Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Ramon A. Cruz concurring.
Sentences and Awards Imposed in the August 3, 2015 Resolution
- The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions with modification as to the award of damages and sentenced Layag as follows:
- Crim. Case No. 2007-9591-MK (Qualified Rape by Sexual Intercourse):
- Sentence: Reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
- Monetary awards: P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.
- Crim. Case Nos. 2007-9592-MK and 2007-9593-MK (each count: Qualified Rape by Sexual Assault):
- Sentence for each count: Imprisonment for the indeterminate period of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
- Monetary awards for each count: P30,000.00 as civil indemnity, P30,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
- Crim. Case No. 2007-9594-MK (Acts of Lasciviousness):
- Sentence: Imprisonment for the indeterminate period of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum.
- Monetary awards: P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, P30,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
- Crim. Case No. 2007-9591-MK (Qualified Rape by Sexual Intercourse):
- All monetary awards were ordered to earn legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum, to be reckoned from the date of finality of the August 3, 2015 Resolution until full payment.
Entry of Judgment and Subsequent Notice of Death
- The Court issued an Entry of Judgment dated October 14, 2015 declaring the August 3, 2015 Resolution final and executory.
- On July 18, 2016, the Bureau of Corrections sent a letter informing the Court of Ariel Layag’s death on July 30, 2015 and attached the Certificate of Death as evidence.
- Because Layag’s death occurred prior to the promulgation of the August 3, 2015 Resolution and was belatedly brought to the Court’s attention, the Court considered this a circumstance warranting re-opening the case despite the asserted finality.
Doctrine of Finality, Reopening of Judgment, and Bigler v. People Factors
- The Court invoked the doctrine of finality or immutability of judgment but acknowledged that it has the power to relax this doctrine when special or compelling circumstances exist.
- The Court cited Bigler v. People (G.R. No. 210972, March 19, 2016) and set forth the factors for relaxing immutability of judgment, as stated in the source:
- (a) matters of life, liberty, h