People v. Jao

IV — Effect of Death on Civil Actions

Subject Home

16px

←Previous: People v. AntidoPrevious case

Next: People v. DimaalaNext case→

Case DigestWeek 4 - Rule 111 - Prosecution of Civil Action

People v. Jao

G.R. No. 225634 · June 7, 2017 · First Division

IV — Effect of Death on Civil Actions

Petitioner: People of the PhilippinesRespondent: Allan Jao y Calonia and Rogelio Catigtig y Cobio

Core Doctrine

Death of one of several co-accused, occurring pending appeal and before conviction becomes final as to him, extinguishes only his own criminal liability under Art. 89(1), RPC — it has no effect on the criminal liability of his co-accused, whose conviction, if otherwise supported by the evidence, remains fully affirmed and enforceable. Because Illegal Delivery and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs (RA 9165) are offenses against public order, with no private offended party, the Bayotas civil-liability-extinguishment discussion has, once again, no factual predicate to operate upon — there being no ex delicto civil liability generated by such offenses in the first place.

ℹ️ Assigned Topic/Subtopic

IV. Effect of Death on Civil Actions

⚡ GR-number discrepancy (Playbook Rule 4 — flagged and RESOLVED)

The case file supplied in the working archive is named "People_vs._Jao, GR_225631, June_7, 2017," and the archive's own unique.csv mapping likewise lists 225631. However, the decision's own header — reproduced at the top of the Supreme Court E-Library copy of this case — states unambiguously: "[ G.R. No. 225634, June 07, 2017 ]." The compendium (the authoritative source for this Week's case list) also states 225634. Per the Codal Anchoring Rule (a decision's own text controls over a secondary filename or index), this digest uses the verified, correct citation — G.R. No. 225634 — and flags the archive filename's "225631" as the erroneous figure.

ℹ️ Distinct nuance: only one of two co-accused dies

As in People v. Dionaldo in this same cluster, this case involves two co-accused (Jao and Catigtig), only one of whom (Catigtig) died pending appeal. Jao's conviction is affirmed in full; only the criminal cases against Catigtig are dismissed. This further confirms that Bayotas's extinguishment rule operates individually, not collectively, across co-accused.

Facts

On 2 June 2008 in Barangay Maslog, Sibulan, Negros Oriental, acting on information that Allan Jao y Calonia was selling shabu, a PDEA-affiliated police team ran a buy-bust at the Four Queens Motel. An informant-poseur ordered ₱800 worth; Jao delivered one sachet, was arrested, and a search incidental yielded six more.
Jao then cooperated voluntarily, naming Rogelio Catigtig y Cobio as his source and helping arrange his arrest. He called Catigtig to order ten more sachets; when Catigtig arrived that evening and handed them to poseur-buyer SPO2 Germodo, he was arrested and searched, yielding one more sachet.
Four Informations were filed under Sections 5 and 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — Illegal Delivery (Jao: Crim. Case No. 19189; Catigtig: 19187) and Illegal Possession (Jao: 19190; Catigtig: 19188). Both refused to plead, and not guilty was entered for them.
Both alleged frame-up and mauling; the RTC rejected the defences, finding a valid buy-bust and an unbroken chain of custody.
On 25 August 2011 the RTC of Dumaguete City, Branch 30, convicted both — life imprisonment and ₱500,000 for delivery, 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and ₱400,000 for possession.
On 28 October 2015 the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto.
By letter dated 9 February 2016 the Bureau of Corrections informed the CA that Catigtig had died on 7 August 2015 — before the CA's own Decision — and the CA referred the letter to the Supreme Court on 8 June 2016. Only one of the two accused died; that is the case's distinguishing fact.
On 7 June 2017 the First Division, through Justice Perlas-Bernabe, affirmed Jao's conviction and dismissed the cases against Catigtig.

Issue

Where one of two co-accused convicted of Illegal Delivery and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs dies pending appeal, what is the effect on his own criminal liability, on any civil liability said to arise from the offence, and on his surviving co-accused?

Secondary issue. Whether Jao's guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling

CATIGTIG'S LIABILITY EXTINGUISHED; JAO'S UNTOUCHED. Applying Article 89(1) and People v. Egagamao's restatement of Bayotas: "Thus, upon Catigtig's death pending appeal of his conviction, his criminal liability is extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused. As such, the criminal cases against him should be dismissed and declared closed and terminated." No civil-liability question arose at all — the prosecution having no private complainant.

Secondary issue. YES. "Jao himself delivered a plastic sachet containing 0.01 gram of shabu to the informant during a legitimate buy-bust operation," and six more sachets were validly seized on arrest, with an unbroken chain of custody through SI Manzanaris to the Crime Laboratory.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated October 28, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01393 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS as follows:

(a) In CRIMINAL CASE NO. 19189, accused-appellant Allan Jao y Calonia is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Delivery of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, and accordingly, sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00;

(b) In CRIMINAL CASE NO. 19190, accused-appellant Allan Jao y Calonia is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs defined and penalized under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, and accordingly, sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum term to fourteen (14) years as maximum and to pay a fine in the amount of P400,000.00; and

(c) CRIMINAL CASE NOS. 19187 and 19188 are hereby DISMISSED and DECLARED CLOSED and TERMINATED in view of the death of accused-appellant Rogelio Catigtig y Cobio.

SO ORDERED.

Ratio

The Court decided Jao's merits first, applying the elements of Illegal Delivery and Illegal Possession and the chain-of-custody rule, and finding both satisfied — necessary background to see why only Catigtig's cases were dismissed.
It then applied Article 89(1) and Egagamao exclusively to Catigtig, whose death pending appeal totally extinguished his criminal liability.
No ex delicto civil liability existed to extinguish — dangerous-drugs offences have no private offended party, a point stated expressly in the companion case People v. Toukyo.
And the fallo was structured to keep the two fates apart, affirming Jao's conviction and sentence in full while dismissing only the specific case numbers pertaining to Catigtig.

Doctrine

Death extinguishes only the decedent's own liability. The death of one co-accused pending appeal extinguishes his criminal liability under Article 89(1), leaving the surviving co-accused's conviction — if otherwise supported — fully undisturbed and enforceable. And dangerous-drugs offences generate no ex delicto civil liability to begin with, there being no private offended party, so the civil action question simply does not arise.

The death of one co-accused pending appeal extinguishes his criminal liability under Article 89(1), leaving the surviving co-accused's conviction — if otherwise supported — fully undisturbed and enforceable.
And dangerous-drugs offences generate no ex delicto civil liability to begin with, there being no private offended party, so the civil action question simply does not arise.

Limits.

The absence of a civil question is a feature of the offence, not of the death rule — in a crime with an offended party the same death would leave a surviving non-delictual liability enforceable against the estate.
Compare People v. Dionaldo, the same individualised extinguishment where the co-accused were solidarily liable for damages — there the death removed an obligor without reducing what the survivors owe; here there was nothing to owe.
Note also that the death preceded even the CA's Decision and surfaced only on appeal to this Court — the recurring pattern across this cluster, where the operative date is always the death, never the discovery. Note the citation defect flagged on this page: the working archive names the docket G.R. No. 225631; the Decision itself reads G.R. No. 225634.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Gist

Classification: DIRECT. The Decision applies Bayotas's extinguishment rule individually to one of two co-accused, in the context of a dangerous-drugs prosecution generating no private civil liability — a doctrinally clean, if repetitive, application of this Topic's core framework.
Allan Jao y Calonia and Rogelio Catigtig y Cobio were separately charged, in four Informations, with Illegal Delivery and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs (Secs. 5 and 11, Art. II, RA 9165) arising from a PDEA buy-bust operation in Dumaguete City in which Jao delivered and was found in possession of shabu, and — after cooperating with police — facilitated Catigtig's own arrest for delivering additional shabu. The RTC convicted both; the CA affirmed in full.
While the appeal was pending before the Supreme Court, the CA received a letter from the Bureau of Corrections informing it that Catigtig had died on 7 August 2015 — a fact referred to the Supreme Court for consideration.
The Supreme Court denied Jao's appeal, affirming his conviction on both counts (Illegal Delivery and Illegal Possession) with modification only as to the enumeration of the specific criminal case numbers in the dispositive portion, finding the prosecution had established an unbroken chain of custody and a valid buy-bust operation. As to Catigtig, however, applying Art. 89(1), RPC and People v. Egagamao's restatement of Bayotas, the Court held that his death pending appeal extinguished his criminal liability, and dismissed the criminal cases against him, declaring them closed and terminated.

Facts

2 June 2008, Barangay Maslog, Sibulan, Negros Oriental: Acting on information that Allan Jao y Calonia was selling shabu, a PDEA-CAR-affiliated police team conducted a buy-bust operation at the Four Queens Motel. An informant, acting as poseur-buyer, ordered ₱800 worth of shabu from Jao, who delivered one plastic sachet; upon the pre-arranged signal, Jao was arrested, and a search incidental to his arrest yielded six more plastic sachets of shabu.
Following his arrest, Jao voluntarily cooperated, disclosing that Rogelio Catigtig y Cobio was his source and agreeing to help facilitate Catigtig's arrest. Jao called Catigtig to order ten more sachets; when Catigtig arrived at the motel that evening and handed over the sachets to a poseur-buyer (SPO2 Germodo), he was arrested and searched, yielding one additional sachet.
Both accused were charged, in four separate (later consolidated) Informations, with Illegal Delivery (Jao: Crim. Case No. 19189; Catigtig: Crim. Case No. 19187) and Illegal Possession (Jao: Crim. Case No. 19190; Catigtig: Crim. Case No. 19188) of Dangerous Drugs under Secs. 5 and 11, Art. II, RA 9165. Both refused to enter a plea at arraignment, and a plea of "not guilty" was entered for both on all charges.
Both accused denied the charges, alleging frame-up and mauling by the arresting officers; the RTC rejected these defenses, finding a valid buy-bust operation and an unbroken chain of custody.
25 August 2011: The RTC of Dumaguete City, Branch 30, rendered a Joint Judgment finding both accused guilty as charged, sentencing each, for Illegal Delivery, to life imprisonment and a ₱500,000 fine, and, for Illegal Possession, to an indeterminate term of 12 years and 1 day to 14 years plus a ₱400,000 fine.
Both accused appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
28 October 2015: The CA affirmed both convictions in toto, finding the elements of both offenses established and the chain of custody unbroken.
Meanwhile, after the accused-appellants filed their Notice of Appeal, the CA received a letter dated 9 February 2016 from the Bureau of Corrections stating that Catigtig had already died on 7 August 2015 — before the CA's own 28 October 2015 Decision was even promulgated. The CA referred this letter to the Supreme Court via a Resolution dated 8 June 2016.
7 June 2017: The Supreme Court (Perlas-Bernabe, J., First Division) rendered the Decision under digest.

Arguments of the Parties

A. Accused-Appellant Jao.

Denied the charges, claiming he was lured to the motel under false pretenses (to meet a woman) and was instead mauled and framed by police; denied having called Catigtig, insisting a police officer made the call.

B. Accused-Appellant Catigtig (through the fact of his death, as raised via the Bureau of Corrections' notice).

Likewise denied the charges on the merits (mooted as to him by his death); no separate argument was made regarding the effect of his death, which was raised procedurally by the Bureau of Corrections' notice rather than by either party.

C. Plaintiff-Appellee (People, through the OSG).

Maintained that both the buy-bust operations and the chain of custody were fully and properly established for both accused, warranting affirmance of both convictions.

Issue

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

Where one of two co-accused convicted of Illegal Delivery/Possession of Dangerous Drugs dies pending appeal, what is the effect of his death on his own criminal liability, on any civil liability that might otherwise be said to arise from the offense, and on the liability of his surviving co-accused?

B. Secondary Issues.

Whether the prosecution proved, beyond reasonable doubt, Jao's guilt for Illegal Delivery and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs.

Ruling

MAIN ISSUE — Catigtig's criminal liability extinguished by his death; no civil liability existed to extinguish; Jao's liability wholly unaffected. Applying Art. 89(1), RPC and People v. Egagamao's restatement of Bayotas: "Thus, upon Catigtig's death pending appeal of his conviction, his criminal liability is extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused. As such, the criminal cases against him should be dismissed and declared closed and terminated." As with the companion case People v. Toukyo, no private complainant existed in this dangerous-drugs prosecution, so no civil-liability question arose as to Catigtig at all. Jao's liability, criminal or otherwise, was entirely unaffected by his co-accused's death.
SECONDARY ISSUE — YES, Jao's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found the RTC and CA had correctly established, through positive testimony and an unbroken chain of custody (SI Manzanaris's sole custody of the seized items through to the Crime Laboratory), that "Jao himself delivered a plastic sachet containing 0.01 gram of shabu to the informant during a legitimate buy-bust operation" and that six more sachets were validly seized upon his arrest.

Dispositive portion (verbatim):

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated October 28, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01393 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS as follows:

(a) In CRIMINAL CASE NO. 19189, accused-appellant Allan Jao y Calonia is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Delivery of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, and accordingly, sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00;

(b) In CRIMINAL CASE NO. 19190, accused-appellant Allan Jao y Calonia is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs defined and penalized under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, and accordingly, sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum term to fourteen (14) years as maximum and to pay a fine in the amount of P400,000.00; and

(c) CRIMINAL CASE NOS. 19187 and 19188 are hereby DISMISSED and DECLARED CLOSED and TERMINATED in view of the death of accused-appellant Rogelio Catigtig y Cobio.

SO ORDERED.

Ratio

Step 1 — The Court first resolved the merits question as to Jao, applying the standard elements of Illegal Delivery and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs and the chain-of-custody rule, and finding both fully satisfied — a Secondary issue outside this Topic's core focus but necessary background to understand why only Catigtig's (not Jao's) case was dismissed.
Step 2 — The Court then applied Art. 89(1), RPC and People v. Egagamao's restatement of Bayotas specifically and exclusively to Catigtig, given his supervening death pending appeal, holding his criminal liability totally extinguished.
Step 3 — The Court implicitly confirmed (by omission of any contrary discussion) that no ex delicto civil liability existed as to Catigtig in the first place, consistent with People v. Toukyo's express holding that dangerous-drugs offenses generate no private civil liability absent an offended party.
Step 4 — The Court structured its dispositive portion to treat each co-accused's fate entirely independently, affirming Jao's conviction (with sentence) in full while separately dismissing only the specific criminal case numbers pertaining to Catigtig.

Doctrine

B. Doctrines/Rules/Principles.

1. Death of one co-accused pending appeal extinguishes only his own criminal liability under Art. 89(1), RPC, leaving his surviving co-accused's conviction (if otherwise supported by the evidence) fully undisturbed and enforceable.
2. Dangerous-drugs offenses under RA 9165, having no private offended party, generate no ex delicto civil liability to begin with — reinforcing the principle first articulated in People v. Toukyo within this same cluster.

C. Distinctions/Limitations/Qualifications.

The Topic-relevant holding (extinguishment as to Catigtig) is genuinely dispositive and load-bearing as to him, even though it forms only part of a Decision whose larger substantive focus (Jao's guilt) lies outside this Topic — justifying DIRECT rather than INCIDENTAL classification, since the death-of-accused ruling independently and completely resolves Catigtig's fate, not merely providing background color.

D. Topic/Subtopic Integration (Mandatory).

Classification: DIRECT. As to accused-appellant Catigtig, the Decision squarely and completely applies the "Effect of Death on Civil Actions" doctrine; this sub-holding is a genuine, independent basis for part of the Decision's dispositive portion, not an incidental aside.

Separate Opinions

None. Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo, and Caguioa, 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 applied where one of several accused dies.

"Criminal liability is totally extinguished: 1. By the death of the convict … and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment."

Extinguishment is personal. It operates on the accused who died and on nobody else, so the case continues in full against the surviving co-accused.

That is why the Court here disposed of the death as to one appellant and then went on to decide the merits — the elements of illegal delivery and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, and the chain of custody — as to the rest.

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 aspect, and how it is severed for one accused only.

"The death of the accused after arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal action shall extinguish the civil liability arising from the delict."

Civil liability ex delicto falls as to the deceased. Where liability is solidary among co-accused, the survivors remain liable for the whole, and the offended party loses only the deceased's share of contribution.

The section's exception still operates: a claim against the deceased's estate on another source of obligation may be brought separately.

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 civil action was in the case at all, and what that means in a drugs prosecution.

"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.

In a drugs prosecution there is usually no private offended party and no civil liability to recover — the offense is against the State. So the civil half of the doctrine has little to operate on.

Which makes the case a clean illustration of the criminal half in isolation: death terminates the case as to the deceased, and the prosecution proceeds against everyone else.

Related notes:

People v. Toukyo — companion dangerous-drugs case establishing that such offenses generate no private ex delicto civil liability.
People v. Dionaldo — companion case with an identical "one of several co-accused dies" pattern.
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://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph (People v. Jao, G.R. No. 225634, June 7, 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 applied where one of several accused dies.

Extinguishment is personal. It operates on the accused who died and on nobody else, so the case continues in full against the surviving co-accused.

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 aspect, and how it is severed for one accused only.

"The death of the accused after arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal action shall extinguish the civil liability arising from the delict."

The section's exception still operates: a claim against the deceased's estate on another source of obligation may be brought separately.

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 civil action was in the case at all, and what that means in a drugs prosecution.

Which makes the case a clean illustration of the criminal half in isolation: death terminates the case as to the deceased, and the prosecution proceeds against everyone else.

Full entry below ↓

ℹ️ Assigned Topic/Subtopic

IV. Effect of Death on Civil Actions

⚡ GR-number discrepancy (Playbook Rule 4 — flagged and RESOLVED)

ℹ️ Distinct nuance: only one of two co-accused dies

Facts

On 2 June 2008 in Barangay Maslog, Sibulan, Negros Oriental, acting on information that Allan Jao y Calonia was selling shabu, a PDEA-affiliated police team ran a buy-bust at the Four Queens Motel. An informant-poseur ordered ₱800 worth; Jao delivered one sachet, was arrested, and a search incidental yielded six more.
Jao then cooperated voluntarily, naming Rogelio Catigtig y Cobio as his source and helping arrange his arrest. He called Catigtig to order ten more sachets; when Catigtig arrived that evening and handed them to poseur-buyer SPO2 Germodo, he was arrested and searched, yielding one more sachet.
Four Informations were filed under Sections 5 and 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — Illegal Delivery (Jao: Crim. Case No. 19189; Catigtig: 19187) and Illegal Possession (Jao: 19190; Catigtig: 19188). Both refused to plead, and not guilty was entered for them.
Both alleged frame-up and mauling; the RTC rejected the defences, finding a valid buy-bust and an unbroken chain of custody.
On 25 August 2011 the RTC of Dumaguete City, Branch 30, convicted both — life imprisonment and ₱500,000 for delivery, 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and ₱400,000 for possession.
On 28 October 2015 the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto.
By letter dated 9 February 2016 the Bureau of Corrections informed the CA that Catigtig had died on 7 August 2015 — before the CA's own Decision — and the CA referred the letter to the Supreme Court on 8 June 2016. Only one of the two accused died; that is the case's distinguishing fact.
On 7 June 2017 the First Division, through Justice Perlas-Bernabe, affirmed Jao's conviction and dismissed the cases against Catigtig.

Issue

Secondary issue. Whether Jao's guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated October 28, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01393 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS as follows:

(a) In CRIMINAL CASE NO. 19189, accused-appellant Allan Jao y Calonia is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Delivery of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, and accordingly, sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00;

(b) In CRIMINAL CASE NO. 19190, accused-appellant Allan Jao y Calonia is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs defined and penalized under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, and accordingly, sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum term to fourteen (14) years as maximum and to pay a fine in the amount of P400,000.00; and

(c) CRIMINAL CASE NOS. 19187 and 19188 are hereby DISMISSED and DECLARED CLOSED and TERMINATED in view of the death of accused-appellant Rogelio Catigtig y Cobio.

SO ORDERED.

Ratio

The Court decided Jao's merits first, applying the elements of Illegal Delivery and Illegal Possession and the chain-of-custody rule, and finding both satisfied — necessary background to see why only Catigtig's cases were dismissed.
It then applied Article 89(1) and Egagamao exclusively to Catigtig, whose death pending appeal totally extinguished his criminal liability.
No ex delicto civil liability existed to extinguish — dangerous-drugs offences have no private offended party, a point stated expressly in the companion case People v. Toukyo.
And the fallo was structured to keep the two fates apart, affirming Jao's conviction and sentence in full while dismissing only the specific case numbers pertaining to Catigtig.

Doctrine

The death of one co-accused pending appeal extinguishes his criminal liability under Article 89(1), leaving the surviving co-accused's conviction — if otherwise supported — fully undisturbed and enforceable.
And dangerous-drugs offences generate no ex delicto civil liability to begin with, there being no private offended party, so the civil action question simply does not arise.

Limits.

The absence of a civil question is a feature of the offence, not of the death rule — in a crime with an offended party the same death would leave a surviving non-delictual liability enforceable against the estate.
Compare People v. Dionaldo, the same individualised extinguishment where the co-accused were solidarily liable for damages — there the death removed an obligor without reducing what the survivors owe; here there was nothing to owe.
Note also that the death preceded even the CA's Decision and surfaced only on appeal to this Court — the recurring pattern across this cluster, where the operative date is always the death, never the discovery. Note the citation defect flagged on this page: the working archive names the docket G.R. No. 225631; the Decision itself reads G.R. No. 225634.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Gist

Classification: DIRECT. The Decision applies Bayotas's extinguishment rule individually to one of two co-accused, in the context of a dangerous-drugs prosecution generating no private civil liability — a doctrinally clean, if repetitive, application of this Topic's core framework.
Allan Jao y Calonia and Rogelio Catigtig y Cobio were separately charged, in four Informations, with Illegal Delivery and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs (Secs. 5 and 11, Art. II, RA 9165) arising from a PDEA buy-bust operation in Dumaguete City in which Jao delivered and was found in possession of shabu, and — after cooperating with police — facilitated Catigtig's own arrest for delivering additional shabu. The RTC convicted both; the CA affirmed in full.
While the appeal was pending before the Supreme Court, the CA received a letter from the Bureau of Corrections informing it that Catigtig had died on 7 August 2015 — a fact referred to the Supreme Court for consideration.
The Supreme Court denied Jao's appeal, affirming his conviction on both counts (Illegal Delivery and Illegal Possession) with modification only as to the enumeration of the specific criminal case numbers in the dispositive portion, finding the prosecution had established an unbroken chain of custody and a valid buy-bust operation. As to Catigtig, however, applying Art. 89(1), RPC and People v. Egagamao's restatement of Bayotas, the Court held that his death pending appeal extinguished his criminal liability, and dismissed the criminal cases against him, declaring them closed and terminated.

Facts

2 June 2008, Barangay Maslog, Sibulan, Negros Oriental: Acting on information that Allan Jao y Calonia was selling shabu, a PDEA-CAR-affiliated police team conducted a buy-bust operation at the Four Queens Motel. An informant, acting as poseur-buyer, ordered ₱800 worth of shabu from Jao, who delivered one plastic sachet; upon the pre-arranged signal, Jao was arrested, and a search incidental to his arrest yielded six more plastic sachets of shabu.
Following his arrest, Jao voluntarily cooperated, disclosing that Rogelio Catigtig y Cobio was his source and agreeing to help facilitate Catigtig's arrest. Jao called Catigtig to order ten more sachets; when Catigtig arrived at the motel that evening and handed over the sachets to a poseur-buyer (SPO2 Germodo), he was arrested and searched, yielding one additional sachet.
Both accused were charged, in four separate (later consolidated) Informations, with Illegal Delivery (Jao: Crim. Case No. 19189; Catigtig: Crim. Case No. 19187) and Illegal Possession (Jao: Crim. Case No. 19190; Catigtig: Crim. Case No. 19188) of Dangerous Drugs under Secs. 5 and 11, Art. II, RA 9165. Both refused to enter a plea at arraignment, and a plea of "not guilty" was entered for both on all charges.
Both accused denied the charges, alleging frame-up and mauling by the arresting officers; the RTC rejected these defenses, finding a valid buy-bust operation and an unbroken chain of custody.
25 August 2011: The RTC of Dumaguete City, Branch 30, rendered a Joint Judgment finding both accused guilty as charged, sentencing each, for Illegal Delivery, to life imprisonment and a ₱500,000 fine, and, for Illegal Possession, to an indeterminate term of 12 years and 1 day to 14 years plus a ₱400,000 fine.
Both accused appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
28 October 2015: The CA affirmed both convictions in toto, finding the elements of both offenses established and the chain of custody unbroken.
Meanwhile, after the accused-appellants filed their Notice of Appeal, the CA received a letter dated 9 February 2016 from the Bureau of Corrections stating that Catigtig had already died on 7 August 2015 — before the CA's own 28 October 2015 Decision was even promulgated. The CA referred this letter to the Supreme Court via a Resolution dated 8 June 2016.
7 June 2017: The Supreme Court (Perlas-Bernabe, J., First Division) rendered the Decision under digest.

Arguments of the Parties

A. Accused-Appellant Jao.

Denied the charges, claiming he was lured to the motel under false pretenses (to meet a woman) and was instead mauled and framed by police; denied having called Catigtig, insisting a police officer made the call.

B. Accused-Appellant Catigtig (through the fact of his death, as raised via the Bureau of Corrections' notice).

Likewise denied the charges on the merits (mooted as to him by his death); no separate argument was made regarding the effect of his death, which was raised procedurally by the Bureau of Corrections' notice rather than by either party.

C. Plaintiff-Appellee (People, through the OSG).

Maintained that both the buy-bust operations and the chain of custody were fully and properly established for both accused, warranting affirmance of both convictions.

Issue

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

Where one of two co-accused convicted of Illegal Delivery/Possession of Dangerous Drugs dies pending appeal, what is the effect of his death on his own criminal liability, on any civil liability that might otherwise be said to arise from the offense, and on the liability of his surviving co-accused?

B. Secondary Issues.

Whether the prosecution proved, beyond reasonable doubt, Jao's guilt for Illegal Delivery and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs.

Ruling

MAIN ISSUE — Catigtig's criminal liability extinguished by his death; no civil liability existed to extinguish; Jao's liability wholly unaffected. Applying Art. 89(1), RPC and People v. Egagamao's restatement of Bayotas: "Thus, upon Catigtig's death pending appeal of his conviction, his criminal liability is extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused. As such, the criminal cases against him should be dismissed and declared closed and terminated." As with the companion case People v. Toukyo, no private complainant existed in this dangerous-drugs prosecution, so no civil-liability question arose as to Catigtig at all. Jao's liability, criminal or otherwise, was entirely unaffected by his co-accused's death.
SECONDARY ISSUE — YES, Jao's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found the RTC and CA had correctly established, through positive testimony and an unbroken chain of custody (SI Manzanaris's sole custody of the seized items through to the Crime Laboratory), that "Jao himself delivered a plastic sachet containing 0.01 gram of shabu to the informant during a legitimate buy-bust operation" and that six more sachets were validly seized upon his arrest.

Dispositive portion (verbatim):

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated October 28, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01393 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS as follows:

(a) In CRIMINAL CASE NO. 19189, accused-appellant Allan Jao y Calonia is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Delivery of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, and accordingly, sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00;

(b) In CRIMINAL CASE NO. 19190, accused-appellant Allan Jao y Calonia is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs defined and penalized under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, and accordingly, sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum term to fourteen (14) years as maximum and to pay a fine in the amount of P400,000.00; and

(c) CRIMINAL CASE NOS. 19187 and 19188 are hereby DISMISSED and DECLARED CLOSED and TERMINATED in view of the death of accused-appellant Rogelio Catigtig y Cobio.

SO ORDERED.

Ratio

Step 1 — The Court first resolved the merits question as to Jao, applying the standard elements of Illegal Delivery and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs and the chain-of-custody rule, and finding both fully satisfied — a Secondary issue outside this Topic's core focus but necessary background to understand why only Catigtig's (not Jao's) case was dismissed.
Step 2 — The Court then applied Art. 89(1), RPC and People v. Egagamao's restatement of Bayotas specifically and exclusively to Catigtig, given his supervening death pending appeal, holding his criminal liability totally extinguished.
Step 3 — The Court implicitly confirmed (by omission of any contrary discussion) that no ex delicto civil liability existed as to Catigtig in the first place, consistent with People v. Toukyo's express holding that dangerous-drugs offenses generate no private civil liability absent an offended party.
Step 4 — The Court structured its dispositive portion to treat each co-accused's fate entirely independently, affirming Jao's conviction (with sentence) in full while separately dismissing only the specific criminal case numbers pertaining to Catigtig.

Doctrine

B. Doctrines/Rules/Principles.

1. Death of one co-accused pending appeal extinguishes only his own criminal liability under Art. 89(1), RPC, leaving his surviving co-accused's conviction (if otherwise supported by the evidence) fully undisturbed and enforceable.
2. Dangerous-drugs offenses under RA 9165, having no private offended party, generate no ex delicto civil liability to begin with — reinforcing the principle first articulated in People v. Toukyo within this same cluster.

C. Distinctions/Limitations/Qualifications.

The Topic-relevant holding (extinguishment as to Catigtig) is genuinely dispositive and load-bearing as to him, even though it forms only part of a Decision whose larger substantive focus (Jao's guilt) lies outside this Topic — justifying DIRECT rather than INCIDENTAL classification, since the death-of-accused ruling independently and completely resolves Catigtig's fate, not merely providing background color.

D. Topic/Subtopic Integration (Mandatory).

Classification: DIRECT. As to accused-appellant Catigtig, the Decision squarely and completely applies the "Effect of Death on Civil Actions" doctrine; this sub-holding is a genuine, independent basis for part of the Decision's dispositive portion, not an incidental aside.

Separate Opinions

None. Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo, and Caguioa, JJ., concurred per the signature block.