You are on page 1of 2


People v. Dela Cruz (2012 Perez, J.)

Total Extinction (Art 89) FACTS:
1. Death of Convict  Accused Jose Brillantes and Saturnino Dela Cruz were convicted for
People v. Bayotas (1994 Romero, J.) violating RA 9165 (Dangerous Drugs Act).
FACTS: o They had in their possession 1 plastic sachet of shabu.
 Rogelio Bayotas was charged with Rape. Pending appeal of his o Brilliantes was charged separately for the illegal sale and
conviction, he died at the National Bilibid Hospital due to cardio illegal possession of shabu.
respiratory arrest.  Brilliantes appealed the decision. Dela Cruz did not.
 The SC dismissed the criminal aspect of the accused’s appeal.  While his case was pending appeal, Brilliantes died while committed
 The SolGen expressed that Bayotas’ death did not extinguish his civil as the Bureau of Corrections.
liability, and that the appeal should still be resolved. ISSUE: W/N the criminal and pecuniary liabilities of the accused are
 Accused’s counsel opposed the SolGen, arguing that Bayotas’ death extinguished resulting from his death.
during the pendency of the appeal extinguishes bot his criminal and HELD: YES.
civil penalties. He contends that civil obligation takes root in criminal  According to People v. Bayotas:
liability, and the former is extinguished if the accused dies before final 1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction
judgment is rendered. extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based
ISSUE: W/N the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction solely thereon.
extinguishes his civil liability. 2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding
HELD: YES. the death of accused, if the same may also be predicated on a
 Art 89 of RPC source of obligation other than delict.
o Criminal liability is totally extinguished:  There is no civil liability involved in violations of
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. No private
and as to the pecuniary penalties liability therefor is offended party is involved as there is in fact no reference to civil
extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs liability in the decision of the trial court.
before final judgment;
 The term “final judgment” refers to a judgment which is final and 3. Amnesty
executory. It means judgment beyond recall. People v. Casido (1997 Davide, Jr., J.)
 Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction FACTS:
extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability  The Court ruled in a previous Resolution that the conditional pardons
based solely thereon. granted to accused William Casido and Franklin Alcorin are void for
 Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the having been extended during the pendency of their appeal.
death of accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of o In an effort to seek their release at the soonest possible time,
obligation other than delict. the accused applied for pardon before the Presidential
 In pursuing recovery of civil liability arising from crime, the final Committee on the Grant of Bail, Release or Pardon
determination of the criminal liability is a condition precedent to the (PCGBRP), as well as for amnesty before the National
prosecution of the civil action, such that when the criminal action is Amnesty Commission (NAC). The PCGBRP was constituted
extinguished by the demise of accused-appellant pending appeal in line with the confidence-building measures of the
thereof, said civil action cannot survive. government. Thereafter, accused-appellants were granted
 The claim for civil liability springs out of and is dependent upon facts conditional pardon.
which, if true, would constitute a crime. Such civil liability is an o The NAC granted the accused’s application for amnesty.
inevitable consequence of the criminal liability and is to be declared  The OSG commented that the amnesty granted to the accused
and enforced in the criminal proceeding. rendered the pardon moot and academic since amnesty may be
 It is different from Art 30 of CC, since it is not a separate civil action.
granted before or after the institution of the criminal prosecution and Oximana from performing his duties as president of BBWU
sometimes even after conviction. and to have a new election held for a new president.
 The Court held that the release of the accused were valid solely on o BBWU was also made party respondent.
the ground of amnesty.  The President of the PH granted Oximana full, absolute, and plenary
… pardon for his crime. His civil and political rights were restored.
 The complaints against Oximana was dismissed since the pardon
Pardon is granted by the Chief Executive and as such it is a private act erased all the ill effects of his conviction and had restored to him all
which must be pleaded and proved by the person pardoned because the his rights and privileges as a citizen as if he had not committed the
courts take no notice thereof; while amnesty by the Proclamation of the crime at all.
Chief Executive with the concurrence of Congress, and it is a public act of  The petitioner assails the dismissal of the complaint.
which the courts should take judicial notice. Pardon is granted to one ISSUE: W/N the complaint against Oximana should be dismissed on the
after conviction; while amnesty is to classes of persons or communities ground of his pardon.
who may be guilty of political offenses, generally before or after the HELD:
institution of the criminal prosecution and sometimes after conviction. 
Pardon looks forward and relieves the offender from the consequences of
an offense of which he has been convicted, that is, it abolishes or
forgives the punishment, and for that reason it does not work the
restoration of the rights to hold public office, or the right of suffrage,
unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon, and
it in no case exempts the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity
imposed upon him by the sentence. While amnesty looks backward and
abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself, it so overlooks and
obliterates the offense with which he is charged that the person released
by amnesty stands before the law precisely as though he had committed
no offense.

While the pardon in this case was void for having been extended during
the pendency of the appeal or before conviction by final judgment and,
therefore, in violation of the first paragraph of Sec. 19, Art. VII of the
Constitution, the grant of amnesty, for which accused-appellants
voluntarily applied under Proclamation No. 347 was valid.
This Proclamation was concurred in by both Houses of Congress.

4. Absolute Pardon (Arts 23, 344)

Flora v. Oximana (1964 Bautista Angelo, J.)
 Vicente Oximana was the president of the Benguet-Balatoc Workers
Union (BBWU) and has been elected continuously as president and
has performed his duties without interruption.
 Oximana was convicted of abusos deshonestos (sexual abuse) and
was sentence to 3 years 6 mos and 25 days.
o As a result, a complaint was filed against him by a prosecutor
of the Court of Industrial Relations, seeking to restrain