People v. Dimaala

IV — Effect of Death on Civil Actions

Subject Home

16px

←Previous: People v. JaoPrevious case

Next: Nissan-Gallery v. FelipeNext case→

Case DigestWeek 4 - Rule 111 - Prosecution of Civil Action

People v. Dimaala

G.R. No. 225054 · July 17, 2017 · Special Third Division

IV — Effect of Death on Civil Actions

Petitioner: People of the PhilippinesRespondent: Agapito Dimaala y Arela

Core Doctrine

Death of the accused-appellant, occurring before a Resolution granting withdrawal of his appeal (and before the resulting Entry of Judgment), totally extinguishes his criminal liability and the civil liability ex delicto — notwithstanding that the case had, by the time of the Court's discovery of the death, already been treated as final and closed through ordinary procedural channels. Civil liability capable of resting on a source other than the delict survives and may be pursued by the victim's family via a separate civil action against the deceased's estate.

ℹ️ Assigned Topic/Subtopic

IV. Effect of Death on Civil Actions

ℹ️ Closes the cluster with its most procedurally unusual variant

This is the tenth and final case in the syllabus's "Effect of Death" cluster, and it presents perhaps the most procedurally striking variant: accused-appellant had withdrawn his own appeal, and the Court had already granted that withdrawal and issued an Entry of Judgment — a formal declaration of finality — before it was informed that he had, in fact, already died prior to the Resolution granting the withdrawal. The Court nonetheless applied the extinguishment rule, treating the death as having preceded (and thus undermined) even its own final-appearing disposition.

Facts

Agapito Dimaala y Arela was charged with and tried for Murder, for the treacherous killing of Rodrigo Marasigan, in the RTC of Calauag, Quezon (Crim. Case No. 4994-C).
On 8 May 2012 the RTC convicted him, imposing reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and ordering payment to the victim's family of ₱75,000 civil indemnity, ₱75,000 moral damages, ₱36,000 actual damages, ₱30,000 exemplary damages and ₱25,000 temperate damages.
On 23 September 2015 the Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of guilt but deleted the temperate damages (CA-G.R. CR No. 05595).
He filed a Notice of Appeal but then decided not to pursue it, moving instead to Withdraw Appeal with Prayer for Immediate Issuance of Entry of Judgment.
On 21 September 2016 the Supreme Court granted that motion, declared the Resolution final, and issued an Entry of Judgment. The case was, to all appearances, closed.
By letter dated 23 February 2017 the Bureau of Corrections informed the Court that Dimaala had died on 23 August 2016 at the New Bilibid Prison Hospital, attaching his Certificate of Death — a month before the Resolution granting his own withdrawal.
On 17 July 2017 the Special Third Division, through Justice Perlas-Bernabe, dismissed the criminal case notwithstanding the Entry of Judgment already on record.

Issue

Where an accused-appellant who has voluntarily withdrawn his own appeal is later shown to have died before the Resolution granting that withdrawal — and before the resulting Entry of Judgment — what is the effect of that antecedent death on his criminal and civil liability, notwithstanding the case's apparent finality?

Secondary issue. Whether the victim's family retains recourse for civil liability grounded on sources other than the delict.

Ruling

BOTH LIABILITIES IPSO FACTO EXTINGUISHED, ENTRY OF JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING. "In view of this development, the criminal action, as well as the civil action for the recovery of the civil liability ex delicto, is ipso facto extinguished." Citing People v. Culas, in turn citing People v. Layag, the Court applied the Bayotas rule to a death preceding the true operative finality of the case.

Secondary issue. YES. "[T]he Court stresses that accused-appellant's civil liability based on sources other than the subject delict survives, and the victim may file a separate civil action against the estate of accused-appellant, as may be warranted by law and procedural rules."

WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to: (a) DISMISS Crim. Case No. 4994-C before the Regional Trial Court of Calauag, Quezon by reason of the death of accused-appellant Agapito Dimaala y Arela; and (b) DECLARE the instant case CLOSED and TERMINATED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Ratio

Article 89(1) supplies the rule — death totally extinguishes criminal liability, pecuniary liability only where death precedes final judgment.
People v. Culas supplies the restatement, confirming the extinguishment of ex delicto liability and the survival of liability from the other Article 1157 sources.
The timing of the death controlled over the apparent finality. Dimaala died 23 August 2016; the Court granted his withdrawal 21 September 2016. He was already deceased when the Court acted on his motion, so that grant — and the finality it produced — rested on a false premise, a living movant, and could not extinguish or moot the more fundamental consequence of his prior death.
Hence the outright dismissal, confirming that an Entry of Judgment procured without knowledge of the movant's prior death does not foreclose later correction once the true facts appear.

Doctrine

Death defeats even an Entry of Judgment.

Where the accused is shown to have died before a Resolution granting his own motion to withdraw his appeal, and before the resulting Entry of Judgment, his criminal and ex delicto civil liability are extinguished, and the Court may dismiss the case notwithstanding the apparent finality already achieved through ordinary procedural channels.
Civil liability from non-delictual sources survives and is pursued by separate action against the estate.

Limits.

The premise is a true prior death, properly established — here by a Certificate of Death transmitted by the Bureau of Corrections; the holding is not a general licence to reopen final judgments.
And note how far the rule reaches. This is the cluster's most procedurally advanced variant: the case had passed through a voluntary withdrawal, a final Resolution, and a formal Entry of Judgment, and the antecedent death still controlled — underscoring that the Bayotas rule displaces ordinary finality principles once a genuinely prior death is shown.
Read across the cluster by how late the death surfaced: People v. Abungan (pending appeal), People v. Culas and People v. Antido (after the Court's Resolution, before entry), and this case (after entry). The doctrine does not change; only the procedural posture does. The civil action instituted with the criminal one falls with it in every variant.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Gist

Classification: DIRECT. The Resolution applies the Bayotas/Culas line of doctrine to a death that, though discovered very late in the case's procedural life (after an Entry of Judgment had already issued), is held to have retroactively undermined that apparent finality once it was established the death preceded even the Resolution granting appeal withdrawal.
Agapito Dimaala y Arela was convicted of Murder for the treacherous killing of Rodrigo Marasigan by the RTC of Calauag, Quezon, sentenced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, and ordered to pay civil indemnity, moral, actual, exemplary, and (at the RTC level) temperate damages; the CA affirmed but deleted the temperate-damages award.
Dimaala filed a Notice of Appeal from the CA's Decision, but later decided not to pursue it, filing instead a Motion to Withdraw Appeal with Prayer for Immediate Issuance of Entry of Judgment — which the Supreme Court granted in a Resolution dated 21 September 2016, after which the Court declared the Resolution final and issued an Entry of Judgment.
The Court subsequently received a letter from the Bureau of Corrections, dated 23 February 2017, informing it that Dimaala had in fact died on 23 August 2016 — a date before the 21 September 2016 Resolution granting his motion to withdraw the appeal.
Applying Art. 89(1), RPC and People v. Culas (citing People v. Layag), the Supreme Court held that the criminal action and the civil action for recovery of ex delicto civil liability were ipso facto extinguished by Dimaala's death, and dismissed the criminal case notwithstanding the Entry of Judgment already on record, clarifying that the victim's family could still pursue any civil liability from sources other than delict via a separate action against Dimaala's estate.

Facts

Agapito Dimaala y Arela was charged with and tried for Murder, for the treacherous killing of Rodrigo Marasigan, before the RTC of Calauag, Quezon (Crim. Case No. 4994-C).
8 May 2012: The RTC found Dimaala guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and ordering him to pay the family of Rodrigo Marasigan ₱75,000 civil indemnity, ₱75,000 moral damages, ₱36,000 actual damages, ₱30,000 exemplary damages, and ₱25,000 temperate damages.
Dimaala appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
23 September 2015: The CA, in a Decision in CA-G.R. CR No. 05595, affirmed the RTC's finding of guilt but deleted the award of temperate damages.
Dimaala filed a Notice of Appeal from the CA's Decision, but subsequently decided not to pursue his appeal, instead filing a Motion to Withdraw Appeal with Prayer for Immediate Issuance of Entry of Judgment.
21 September 2016: The Supreme Court granted Dimaala's motion in a Resolution. Following the closure and termination of the case, the Court declared this Resolution final and issued an Entry of Judgment.
The Court subsequently received a Letter dated 23 February 2017 from the Bureau of Corrections, informing it that accused-appellant had died on 23 August 2016 at the New Bilibid Prison Hospital, as evidenced by his attached Certificate of Death.
The Court noted that this death — 23 August 2016 — preceded the 21 September 2016 Resolution granting his motion to withdraw the appeal, meaning that at the time the Court granted that withdrawal (and later issued the Entry of Judgment), Dimaala had, unbeknownst to the Court, already been deceased.
17 July 2017: The Supreme Court (Perlas-Bernabe, J., Special Third Division) rendered the Resolution under digest.

Arguments of the Parties

No adversarial briefing on the death issue is reflected; the matter arose from the Bureau of Corrections' notice, received nearly five months after the Court had already granted Dimaala's motion to withdraw his appeal and issued an Entry of Judgment.

Issue

A. Main Issue (Topic/Subtopic-Centered).

Where an accused-appellant, having voluntarily withdrawn his own appeal, is later discovered to have already died before the Resolution granting that withdrawal (and the resulting Entry of Judgment) — notwithstanding the case's apparent procedural finality — what is the effect of that antecedent death on his criminal and civil liability?

B. Secondary Issues.

Whether the victim's family retains recourse for civil liability grounded on sources other than the delict itself.

Ruling

MAIN ISSUE — Criminal and ex delicto civil liability ipso facto extinguished, notwithstanding the Entry of Judgment. The Court held plainly: "In view of this development, the criminal action, as well as the civil action for the recovery of the civil liability ex delicto, is ipso facto extinguished." Citing People v. Culas (in turn citing People v. Layag), the Court reiterated the Bayotas doctrine's core holding on extinguishment by death preceding final conviction — treating Dimaala's death as having preceded the true operative finality of his case (the Resolution granting withdrawal), regardless of the Entry of Judgment's formal issuance in the interim before the death was discovered.
SECONDARY ISSUE — YES, civil liability from other sources survives via separate action. "[T]he Court stresses that accused-appellant's civil liability based on sources other than the subject delict survives, and the victim may file a separate civil action against the estate of accused-appellant, as may be warranted by law and procedural rules."

Dispositive portion (verbatim):

WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to: (a) DISMISS Crim. Case No. 4994-C before the Regional Trial Court of Calauag, Quezon by reason of the death of accused-appellant Agapito Dimaala y Arela; and (b) DECLARE the instant case CLOSED and TERMINATED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Ratio

Step 1 — The Court applied Art. 89(1), RPC, establishing that death totally extinguishes criminal liability, with pecuniary liability extinguished only if death precedes final judgment.
Step 2 — The Court applied People v. Culas's restatement of the Bayotas doctrine, confirming both the extinguishment of ex delicto civil liability and the survival of civil liability from other Art. 1157 sources.
Step 3 — The Court treated the timing of Dimaala's death (23 August 2016) as controlling over the apparent, but factually undermined, procedural finality achieved through his own motion to withdraw appeal (granted 21 September 2016) and the subsequent Entry of Judgment — since Dimaala was already deceased at the time the Court acted on his motion, that grant (and the finality it produced) rested on a false premise (a living movant) and could not itself extinguish or moot the more fundamental Bayotas consequence of his prior death.
Step 4 — The Court accordingly dismissed the criminal case outright, notwithstanding the Entry of Judgment already on record — implicitly confirming that an Entry of Judgment procured without knowledge of the movant's prior death does not foreclose the Court's later correction once the true facts are established.

Doctrine

B. Doctrines/Rules/Principles.

1. Death of the accused, shown to have preceded even a Resolution granting his own motion to withdraw his appeal (and the resulting Entry of Judgment), extinguishes his criminal and ex delicto civil liability, and the Court may dismiss the case notwithstanding the apparent finality already achieved through ordinary procedural channels.
2. Civil liability from non-delictual sources survives and may be pursued via a separate civil action against the deceased's estate, consistent with the rest of this cluster's uniform qualification.

C. Distinctions/Limitations/Qualifications.

This Resolution represents the cluster's most procedurally advanced illustration of the "death discovered late" pattern seen throughout Group IV (Lipata, Soria, Toukyo, Paras, Dionaldo, Jao) — here, the case had already passed through a voluntary withdrawal of appeal and a formal Entry of Judgment, yet the antecedent fact of death was still held to control, underscoring how thoroughly the Bayotas doctrine displaces ordinary finality principles once a truly prior death is established.

D. Topic/Subtopic Integration (Mandatory).

Classification: DIRECT. As the concluding case in the syllabus's "Effect of Death" cluster, this Resolution is squarely and exclusively devoted to the Topic, and offers a doctrinally instructive capstone illustration of the doctrine's reach even into ostensibly closed, already-final cases.

Separate Opinions

None. Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, Tijam, and Reyes, Jr., JJ., concurred per the signature block.

Cited Laws & Provisions

Every statute, rule, and issuance the decision turns on — the text as written, and the work it does in this case.

Special Law

Article 89, Revised Penal Code

How criminal liability is totally extinguished

Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815)

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.

2. By service of the sentence.

3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects.

4. By absolute pardon.

5. By prescription of the crime.

6. By prescription of the penalty.

7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in article 344 of this Code.

Why it is cited here

The rule, and the reason its application is so mechanical in this cluster.

"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."

Once the fact of death before finality is established — usually by a certificate of death transmitted by the Bureau of Corrections — the outcome follows without discretion.

There is no weighing, no exception for the gravity of the offense, and no discretion to preserve the conviction for the record. The Court sets aside the judgment and dismisses the case.

Implementing Rules

Section 4, Rule 111, Rules of Court

Effect of death on civil actions

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective 1 December 2000) — Rule 111 (Prosecution of Civil Action)

The death of the accused after arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal action shall extinguish the civil liability arising from the delict. However, the independent civil action instituted under section 3 of this Rule or which thereafter is instituted to enforce liability arising from other sources of obligation may be continued against the estate or legal representative of the accused after proper substitution or against said estate, as the case may be. The heirs of the accused may be substituted for the deceased without requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.

The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice.

A final judgment entered in favor of the offended party shall be enforced in the manner especially provided in these rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of the deceased.

If the accused dies before arraignment, the case shall be dismissed without prejudice to any civil action the offended party may file against the estate of the deceased. (n)

LawPhil posts the text as amended effective 1 December 2000. Later amendments — notably to the bail and preliminary-investigation rules — are not reflected here, so check the date of the decision against the date of the amendment.

Why it is cited here

The civil consequence, stated in the Rule.

"The death of the accused after arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal action shall extinguish the civil liability arising from the delict. However, the independent civil action … may be continued against the estate or legal representative of the accused."

Note the section's opening condition — after arraignment. Death before arraignment ends the case for a different and simpler reason: there was never a valid criminal action to extinguish.

Either way the criminal case ends. The difference is only in how the civil claim is characterised afterwards.

Implementing Rules

Section 1, Rule 111, Rules of Court

Institution of criminal and civil actions

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective 1 December 2000) — Rule 111 (Prosecution of Civil Action)

(a) When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.

The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be made before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation.

When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against the accused by way of moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages without specifying the amount thereof in the complaint or information, the filing fees thereof shall constitute a first lien on the judgment awarding such damages.

Where the amount of damages, other than actual, is specified in the complaint or information, the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon the filing thereof in court.

Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no filing fees shall be required for actual damages.

No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be filed by the accused in the criminal case, but any cause of action which could have been the subject thereof may be litigated in a separate civil action. (1a)

(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed.

Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of the check involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages claimed. Where the complaint or information also seeks to recover liquidated, moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the offended party shall pay additional filing fees based on the amounts alleged therein. If the amounts are not so alleged but any of these damages are subsequently awarded by the court, the filing fees based on the amount awarded shall constitute a first lien on the judgment.

Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal action upon application with the court trying the latter case. If the application is granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance with section 2 of this Rule governing consolidation of the civil and criminal actions. (cir. 57-97)

Why it is cited here

Why the damages awarded below fall with the conviction.

"When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action" unless waived, reserved, or previously instituted.

The civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages a conviction carries are awarded in this deemed-instituted civil action. They rest on Article 100, so they are civil liability ex delicto and share its fate.

The heirs of the victim are therefore left to a separate action against the estate, founded on a different source — with the comfort, from Bayotas's fourth point, that the prescriptive period was interrupted while the criminal case ran.

Related notes:

People v. Culas — the immediate doctrinal source cited by this Resolution.
People v. Antido — companion case decided close in time, citing the same Culas precedent.
People v. Lipata — companion case illustrating the converse scenario, where surviving non-delictual liability existed but was never properly pursued.
Rule 111, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Sec. 4, effect of death on civil actions.
People v. Bayotas — foundational doctrine on the effect of the accused's death on criminal and civil liability.

Source: https://lawphil.net (People v. Dimaala, G.R. No. 225054, July 17, 2017)

Cited laws & provisions

Article 89, Revised Penal Code

Special Law

How criminal liability is totally extinguished

Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815)

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.

2. By service of the sentence.

3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects.

4. By absolute pardon.

5. By prescription of the crime.

6. By prescription of the penalty.

7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in article 344 of this Code.

Why it is cited here

The rule, and the reason its application is so mechanical in this cluster.

Once the fact of death before finality is established — usually by a certificate of death transmitted by the Bureau of Corrections — the outcome follows without discretion.

There is no weighing, no exception for the gravity of the offense, and no discretion to preserve the conviction for the record. The Court sets aside the judgment and dismisses the case.

Full entry below ↓

Section 4, Rule 111, Rules of Court

Implementing Rules

Effect of death on civil actions

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective 1 December 2000) — Rule 111 (Prosecution of Civil Action)

The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to appear and be substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice.

A final judgment entered in favor of the offended party shall be enforced in the manner especially provided in these rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of the deceased.

If the accused dies before arraignment, the case shall be dismissed without prejudice to any civil action the offended party may file against the estate of the deceased. (n)

Why it is cited here

The civil consequence, stated in the Rule.

Note the section's opening condition — after arraignment. Death before arraignment ends the case for a different and simpler reason: there was never a valid criminal action to extinguish.

Either way the criminal case ends. The difference is only in how the civil claim is characterised afterwards.

Full entry below ↓

Section 1, Rule 111, Rules of Court

Implementing Rules

Institution of criminal and civil actions

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective 1 December 2000) — Rule 111 (Prosecution of Civil Action)

Where the amount of damages, other than actual, is specified in the complaint or information, the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon the filing thereof in court.

Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no filing fees shall be required for actual damages.

(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed.

Why it is cited here

Why the damages awarded below fall with the conviction.

Full entry below ↓

ℹ️ Assigned Topic/Subtopic

IV. Effect of Death on Civil Actions

ℹ️ Closes the cluster with its most procedurally unusual variant

Facts

Agapito Dimaala y Arela was charged with and tried for Murder, for the treacherous killing of Rodrigo Marasigan, in the RTC of Calauag, Quezon (Crim. Case No. 4994-C).
On 8 May 2012 the RTC convicted him, imposing reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and ordering payment to the victim's family of ₱75,000 civil indemnity, ₱75,000 moral damages, ₱36,000 actual damages, ₱30,000 exemplary damages and ₱25,000 temperate damages.
On 23 September 2015 the Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of guilt but deleted the temperate damages (CA-G.R. CR No. 05595).
He filed a Notice of Appeal but then decided not to pursue it, moving instead to Withdraw Appeal with Prayer for Immediate Issuance of Entry of Judgment.
On 21 September 2016 the Supreme Court granted that motion, declared the Resolution final, and issued an Entry of Judgment. The case was, to all appearances, closed.
By letter dated 23 February 2017 the Bureau of Corrections informed the Court that Dimaala had died on 23 August 2016 at the New Bilibid Prison Hospital, attaching his Certificate of Death — a month before the Resolution granting his own withdrawal.
On 17 July 2017 the Special Third Division, through Justice Perlas-Bernabe, dismissed the criminal case notwithstanding the Entry of Judgment already on record.

Issue

Secondary issue. Whether the victim's family retains recourse for civil liability grounded on sources other than the delict.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to: (a) DISMISS Crim. Case No. 4994-C before the Regional Trial Court of Calauag, Quezon by reason of the death of accused-appellant Agapito Dimaala y Arela; and (b) DECLARE the instant case CLOSED and TERMINATED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Ratio

Article 89(1) supplies the rule — death totally extinguishes criminal liability, pecuniary liability only where death precedes final judgment.
People v. Culas supplies the restatement, confirming the extinguishment of ex delicto liability and the survival of liability from the other Article 1157 sources.
The timing of the death controlled over the apparent finality. Dimaala died 23 August 2016; the Court granted his withdrawal 21 September 2016. He was already deceased when the Court acted on his motion, so that grant — and the finality it produced — rested on a false premise, a living movant, and could not extinguish or moot the more fundamental consequence of his prior death.
Hence the outright dismissal, confirming that an Entry of Judgment procured without knowledge of the movant's prior death does not foreclose later correction once the true facts appear.

Doctrine

Death defeats even an Entry of Judgment.

Where the accused is shown to have died before a Resolution granting his own motion to withdraw his appeal, and before the resulting Entry of Judgment, his criminal and ex delicto civil liability are extinguished, and the Court may dismiss the case notwithstanding the apparent finality already achieved through ordinary procedural channels.
Civil liability from non-delictual sources survives and is pursued by separate action against the estate.

Limits.

The premise is a true prior death, properly established — here by a Certificate of Death transmitted by the Bureau of Corrections; the holding is not a general licence to reopen final judgments.
And note how far the rule reaches. This is the cluster's most procedurally advanced variant: the case had passed through a voluntary withdrawal, a final Resolution, and a formal Entry of Judgment, and the antecedent death still controlled — underscoring that the Bayotas rule displaces ordinary finality principles once a genuinely prior death is shown.
Read across the cluster by how late the death surfaced: People v. Abungan (pending appeal), People v. Culas and People v. Antido (after the Court's Resolution, before entry), and this case (after entry). The doctrine does not change; only the procedural posture does. The civil action instituted with the criminal one falls with it in every variant.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Gist

Classification: DIRECT. The Resolution applies the Bayotas/Culas line of doctrine to a death that, though discovered very late in the case's procedural life (after an Entry of Judgment had already issued), is held to have retroactively undermined that apparent finality once it was established the death preceded even the Resolution granting appeal withdrawal.
Agapito Dimaala y Arela was convicted of Murder for the treacherous killing of Rodrigo Marasigan by the RTC of Calauag, Quezon, sentenced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, and ordered to pay civil indemnity, moral, actual, exemplary, and (at the RTC level) temperate damages; the CA affirmed but deleted the temperate-damages award.
Dimaala filed a Notice of Appeal from the CA's Decision, but later decided not to pursue it, filing instead a Motion to Withdraw Appeal with Prayer for Immediate Issuance of Entry of Judgment — which the Supreme Court granted in a Resolution dated 21 September 2016, after which the Court declared the Resolution final and issued an Entry of Judgment.
The Court subsequently received a letter from the Bureau of Corrections, dated 23 February 2017, informing it that Dimaala had in fact died on 23 August 2016 — a date before the 21 September 2016 Resolution granting his motion to withdraw the appeal.
Applying Art. 89(1), RPC and People v. Culas (citing People v. Layag), the Supreme Court held that the criminal action and the civil action for recovery of ex delicto civil liability were ipso facto extinguished by Dimaala's death, and dismissed the criminal case notwithstanding the Entry of Judgment already on record, clarifying that the victim's family could still pursue any civil liability from sources other than delict via a separate action against Dimaala's estate.

Facts

Agapito Dimaala y Arela was charged with and tried for Murder, for the treacherous killing of Rodrigo Marasigan, before the RTC of Calauag, Quezon (Crim. Case No. 4994-C).
8 May 2012: The RTC found Dimaala guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and ordering him to pay the family of Rodrigo Marasigan ₱75,000 civil indemnity, ₱75,000 moral damages, ₱36,000 actual damages, ₱30,000 exemplary damages, and ₱25,000 temperate damages.
Dimaala appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
23 September 2015: The CA, in a Decision in CA-G.R. CR No. 05595, affirmed the RTC's finding of guilt but deleted the award of temperate damages.
Dimaala filed a Notice of Appeal from the CA's Decision, but subsequently decided not to pursue his appeal, instead filing a Motion to Withdraw Appeal with Prayer for Immediate Issuance of Entry of Judgment.
21 September 2016: The Supreme Court granted Dimaala's motion in a Resolution. Following the closure and termination of the case, the Court declared this Resolution final and issued an Entry of Judgment.
The Court subsequently received a Letter dated 23 February 2017 from the Bureau of Corrections, informing it that accused-appellant had died on 23 August 2016 at the New Bilibid Prison Hospital, as evidenced by his attached Certificate of Death.
The Court noted that this death — 23 August 2016 — preceded the 21 September 2016 Resolution granting his motion to withdraw the appeal, meaning that at the time the Court granted that withdrawal (and later issued the Entry of Judgment), Dimaala had, unbeknownst to the Court, already been deceased.
17 July 2017: The Supreme Court (Perlas-Bernabe, J., Special Third Division) rendered the Resolution under digest.

Arguments of the Parties

No adversarial briefing on the death issue is reflected; the matter arose from the Bureau of Corrections' notice, received nearly five months after the Court had already granted Dimaala's motion to withdraw his appeal and issued an Entry of Judgment.

Issue

A. Main Issue (Topic/Subtopic-Centered).

Where an accused-appellant, having voluntarily withdrawn his own appeal, is later discovered to have already died before the Resolution granting that withdrawal (and the resulting Entry of Judgment) — notwithstanding the case's apparent procedural finality — what is the effect of that antecedent death on his criminal and civil liability?

B. Secondary Issues.

Whether the victim's family retains recourse for civil liability grounded on sources other than the delict itself.

Ruling

MAIN ISSUE — Criminal and ex delicto civil liability ipso facto extinguished, notwithstanding the Entry of Judgment. The Court held plainly: "In view of this development, the criminal action, as well as the civil action for the recovery of the civil liability ex delicto, is ipso facto extinguished." Citing People v. Culas (in turn citing People v. Layag), the Court reiterated the Bayotas doctrine's core holding on extinguishment by death preceding final conviction — treating Dimaala's death as having preceded the true operative finality of his case (the Resolution granting withdrawal), regardless of the Entry of Judgment's formal issuance in the interim before the death was discovered.
SECONDARY ISSUE — YES, civil liability from other sources survives via separate action. "[T]he Court stresses that accused-appellant's civil liability based on sources other than the subject delict survives, and the victim may file a separate civil action against the estate of accused-appellant, as may be warranted by law and procedural rules."

Dispositive portion (verbatim):

WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to: (a) DISMISS Crim. Case No. 4994-C before the Regional Trial Court of Calauag, Quezon by reason of the death of accused-appellant Agapito Dimaala y Arela; and (b) DECLARE the instant case CLOSED and TERMINATED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Ratio

Step 1 — The Court applied Art. 89(1), RPC, establishing that death totally extinguishes criminal liability, with pecuniary liability extinguished only if death precedes final judgment.
Step 2 — The Court applied People v. Culas's restatement of the Bayotas doctrine, confirming both the extinguishment of ex delicto civil liability and the survival of civil liability from other Art. 1157 sources.
Step 3 — The Court treated the timing of Dimaala's death (23 August 2016) as controlling over the apparent, but factually undermined, procedural finality achieved through his own motion to withdraw appeal (granted 21 September 2016) and the subsequent Entry of Judgment — since Dimaala was already deceased at the time the Court acted on his motion, that grant (and the finality it produced) rested on a false premise (a living movant) and could not itself extinguish or moot the more fundamental Bayotas consequence of his prior death.
Step 4 — The Court accordingly dismissed the criminal case outright, notwithstanding the Entry of Judgment already on record — implicitly confirming that an Entry of Judgment procured without knowledge of the movant's prior death does not foreclose the Court's later correction once the true facts are established.

Doctrine

B. Doctrines/Rules/Principles.

1. Death of the accused, shown to have preceded even a Resolution granting his own motion to withdraw his appeal (and the resulting Entry of Judgment), extinguishes his criminal and ex delicto civil liability, and the Court may dismiss the case notwithstanding the apparent finality already achieved through ordinary procedural channels.
2. Civil liability from non-delictual sources survives and may be pursued via a separate civil action against the deceased's estate, consistent with the rest of this cluster's uniform qualification.

C. Distinctions/Limitations/Qualifications.

This Resolution represents the cluster's most procedurally advanced illustration of the "death discovered late" pattern seen throughout Group IV (Lipata, Soria, Toukyo, Paras, Dionaldo, Jao) — here, the case had already passed through a voluntary withdrawal of appeal and a formal Entry of Judgment, yet the antecedent fact of death was still held to control, underscoring how thoroughly the Bayotas doctrine displaces ordinary finality principles once a truly prior death is established.

D. Topic/Subtopic Integration (Mandatory).

Classification: DIRECT. As the concluding case in the syllabus's "Effect of Death" cluster, this Resolution is squarely and exclusively devoted to the Topic, and offers a doctrinally instructive capstone illustration of the doctrine's reach even into ostensibly closed, already-final cases.

Separate Opinions

None. Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, Tijam, and Reyes, Jr., JJ., concurred per the signature block.