|
G.R. No. 190610 Present:
CARPIO,
J., Chairperson, BRION, PEREZ,
SERENO,
and REYES,
JJ. Promulgated:
April
25, 2012 |
x - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
PEREZ, J.:
Before the Court is an Appeal[1]
filed by accused-appellant Jose Brillantes y Lopez (Brillantes) assailing the Decision[2]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated
The decision of the Court of Appeals is
an affirmance of the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Laoag City,
Branch 13 in Criminal Case Nos. 11556, 11557 and 11558 convicting accused
Brillantes and Saturnino de la Cruz (De la Cruz) for violation of Sections 5
and 11, Article II of RA 9165 entitled An Act Instituting the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act Of 2002.[3]
In the Criminal Case No. 11556, De la Cruz y Valdez
was charged as follows:
Criminal Case No. 11556
That on or about the 1st
day of December 2004, in the city of Laoag, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have in his possession, control
and custody one (1) plastic sachet containing shabu weighing more or less 0.1
gram including plastic container without prescription or authority to possess
the same in violation of the aforecited law.[4]
On the other hand, Jose Brillantes y Lopez was
charged in Criminal Case Nos. 11557 and 11558 with illegal sale of shabu and illegal possession of dangerous
drug of shabu. The two separate Informations follow:
Criminal
Case No. 11557
That on or about the 1st day of December
2004, in the city of Laoag, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, sell and deliver to a Public Officer, who acted as
poseur buyer 0.1 gram including plastic container of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride, popularly known as shabu, a dangerous drug, without any
license or authority to do so, in violation of the aforecited law.[5]
Criminal Case No. 11558
That on or about the 1st day of December 2004, in the City of
Laoag, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
have in his possession, control and custody two (2) big plastic sachet
containing shabu weighing more or less 2.6 grams including plastic container
without being authorized and permitted by law to possess the same in violation
of the aforecited law.[6]
When arraigned, both the accused pleaded not guilty
of the crimes charged.
The RTC held that the prosecution
successfully discharged the burden of proof in the cases of illegal sale and
illegal possession of dangerous drugs, in this case methamphetamine
hydrochloride otherwise
known as shabu. The trial court relied on the presumption of
regularity in the performance of duty of the police officials who conducted the
buy-bust operation. The dispositive
portion reads:
WHEREFORE,
judgment is hereby rendered finding [the] accused Saturnino De la Cruz GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt as charged in Criminal Case No. 11556 for illegal
possession of shabu with a weight of 0.0619 gram and is therefore sentenced to
serve the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from TWELVE (12) YEARS
AND ONE (1) DAY as minimum to FIFTEEN (15) YEARS as maximum and to pay a fine
of P300,000.00.
Accused
Jose Brillantes is also found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as charged in
Criminal Case No.11557 for illegal sale of shabu and is therefore sentenced to
suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P2,000,000.00. Said accused is likewise found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt as charged in Criminal Case No. 11558 for illegal possession
of shabu with an aggregate weight of 0.2351 gram and is therefore further
sentenced to serve the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from
TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY as minimum to FIFTEEN (15) YEARS as maximum
and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.
The contraband subject of these cases are hereby forfeited, the
same to be disposed of as the law prescribes. [7]
The
appellate court found no reason to depart from the ruling of the trial
court. It upheld that all the elements of
the offense of illegal sale of drugs were present and the finding against
Brillantes well established by the prosecution.
Further, it also found that all the elements constituting illegal
possession of prohibited or regulated drugs were established beyond reasonable
doubt to convict De la Cruz and Brillantes.
On all the three charges, great weight was given to the testimonies of
the members of the buy-bust team and arresting officers SPO3 Rovimanuel
Balolong and PO2 Celso Pang-ag, who also acted as the poseur-buyer.
On
While this case is pending appeal,
Prisons and Security Division Officer-in-Charge Romeo F. Fajardo[9]
informed the Court that accused-appellant Brillantes died while committed at
the Bureau of Corrections on 3 January 2012 as evidenced by a copy of death
report[10]
signed by New Bilibid Prison Hospitals Medical Officer Benevito A. Fontanilla,
III.
Hence, we resolve the effect of death pending
appeal of his conviction of accused-appellant Brillantes with regard to his
criminal and pecuniary liabilities.
The Revised Penal Code is instructive on the matter. It provides in Article 89(1) that:
Criminal liability is totally extinguished:
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment.
It is plain
that both the personal penalty of imprisonment and pecuniary penalty of fine of
Brillantes were extinguished upon his death pending appeal of his conviction by
the lower courts.
We
recite the rules laid down in People v.
Bayotas,[11]
to wit:
1. Death
of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal
liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice
Regalado, in this regard, "the death of the accused prior to final
judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly
arising from and based solely on the offense committed, i.e.,
civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore."
2.
Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death
of accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other
than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these
other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a
result of the same act or omission:
a) Law
b)
Contracts
c)
Quasi-contracts
d) . . .
e)
Quasi-delicts
xxx
There is no civil liability involved in violations
of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.[12] No
private offended party is involved as there is in fact no reference to civil
liability in the decision of the trial court.
The appeal of Brillantes
culminating in the extinguishment of his criminal liability does not have any
effect on his co- accused De la Cruz who did not file a notice of appeal. The Rules on Criminal Procedure on the matter states:
RULE 122 - Appeal
Section 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused.
(a) An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter; (emphasis ours)
xxx
The extinguishment of Brillantes
criminal and pecuniary liabilities is predicated on his death and not on his
acquittal. Following the provision, the
appeal taken by Brillantes and subsequent extinguishment of his liabilities is not
applicable to De la Cruz.
WHEREFORE, in view
of his death on 3 January 2012, the appeal of accused-appellant Jose Brillantes
y Lopez from the Decision of the Court of Appeals
dated 8 July 2009 in CA-G.R. CR No. 30897 affirming the Decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Laoag City, Branch 13 in Criminal Case Nos. 11557 and
11558 convicting him of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165
is hereby declared MOOT and ACADEMIC, his criminal and pecuniary
liabilities having been extinguished. No cost.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
JOSE
|
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
A T T
E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo pp. 40-41.
[2]
[3] Promulgated on
[4] Rollo, p. 3.
[5]
[6]
[7] CA rollo, p. 250.
[8] Rollo, p. 40-41.
[9] Through a Letter dated 3 January
2012 of OIC Romeo F. Fajardo to the Clerk of Court, Second Division of the
Supreme Court, id. at 88.
[10]
[11] G.R.
No. 102007,
[12] R.A. 9165.