CRIMPRO: Rule 111, Sec.

4
PEOPLE V LIPATA
46 [Effect of Death on Civil Actions]
G.R. No. 200302 April 20, 2016 CARPIO, J. By: Raymond Campo
Petitioners: Respondents:

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES GERRY LIPATA y ORTIZA

Recit Ready Summary

Lipata was charged and was found guilty of murder in the RTC. He appealed with the CA but was denied.
He later appealed with the SC. While such appeal was pending, Lipata died. The PAO, which represented
the estate of Lipata claimed that considering that the civil liability in the instant case arose from and is
based solely on the act complained of, the same does not survive the death of the deceased, and thus
the estate of Lipata no longer has civil liabilities.

The SC ruled that the civil liability ex delicto of Lipata is extinguished, but other liabilities which arise from
other sources of obligations still exist. However, since the offended party did not there was no separate
civil case instituted prior the criminal case and absence of any reservation for filing a separate civil case
barred the heirs of the offended party to recover any amount from the state of Lipata

Facts

1. Gerry Lipata was charged with the crime of Murder for the killing of Ronaldo Cueno. During trial,
Lipata invoked self-defense.

2. The RTC found him guilty of murder and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. The ruling also contained an award of Php 50,000.00 representing civil indemnity ex
delicto of the accused.

3. Lipata filed a notice of appeal in the CA on 6 April 2010. But the CA dismissed the appeal and
affirmed the decision of the RTC. Lipata then filed a notice of appeal with the SC on 10 June
2011.

4. On 30 June 2011, the SC, responding on the notice of appeal, ordered the CA for the immediate
elevation of the records of the case. It also required the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) to confirm
the confinement of Lipata. The BuCor, in a letter dated 26 July 2012, informed the SC that there
is no record of confinement of Lipata as of date.

5. The SC on 10 September 2012 required the Quezon City Jail Warden to transfer Lipata to the
New Bilibid Prison. But the Quezon City Jail Warden informed the SC that Lipata already passed
away on 13 February 2011.

6. The SC ordered the PAO to substitute the legal representatives of the estate of the deceased
and to comment on the civil liability of Lipata. The PAO filed its Manifestation stating that that the
relatives of Lipata failed to communicate with the PAO despite its efforts. The PAO also stated
that considering that the civil liability in the instant case arose from and is based solely on the
act complained of, i.e. murder, the same does not survive the death of the deceased.
Procedural History

1. RTC found Lipata guilty of Murder.

2. Lipata filed an appeal with CA but was denied.

 3. Lipata filed an appeal with the SC, but while appeal was pending, Lipata died.

4. PAO was ordered to represent the estate of Lipata in the appeal with the SC. (It was unclear why
the republic in this case was the petitioner)

Point/s of Contention

PAO contends that the estate of Lipata has no more civil liability considering that the same arose from
and is based solely on the act complained of, and that the same does not survive the death of Lipata.
Issues Ruling

1. W/N the estate of Lipata has any civil liabilities. 1. No

Rationale
1. W/N the estate of Lipata has any civil liabilities. – NO

It is well established that death extinguishes criminal liability. But on the issue of civil liability, the
SC reiterated its ruling in the People v Bayotas case:

1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability
as well as the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense
committed.
2. 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 (e.g. Law, Contract,
Quasi-contract, Quasi-delict)
3. Where the civil liability survives, an action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only
by way of filing a separate civil action.
4. Finally, the offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil
action by prescription.

The promulgation of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure in 2000 reflected the rules laid
down in Bayotas.

In this case, Lipata caused damage to Cueno through deliberate acts. Lipata’s civil liability ex
quasi delicto may now be pursued because appellant’s death before the promulgation of final
judgment extinguished both his criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto.

However, despite recognition of the existence of civil liability, the SC ruled that it is required for
the private offended party, or his heirs, to institute a separate civil action to pursue their claims
against the estate of the deceased accused. The civil action which may thereafter be instituted
against the estate or legal representatives of the decedent.

The Court found that there was no separate civil case instituted prior to the criminal case. Neither
was there any reservation for filing a separate civil case for the cause of action arising from
quasi-delict. The lack of a separate civil case for the cause of action arising from quasi delict
leads to the conclusion that, a decade after Cueno’s death, his heirs cannot recover even a
centavo from the amounts awarded by the CA.

Disposition
Petition denied. The criminal and civil liabilities ex delicto of appellant Gerry Lipata are declared
EXTINGUISHED by his death prior to final judgment.

The SC however referred to the Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Court for study and
recommendation to the Court En Banc appropriate amendments to the Rules for a speedy and
inexpensive resolution of such similar cases with the objective of indemnifying the private offended
party or his heirs in cases where an accused dies after conviction by the trial court but pending appeal
due to possibility of miscarriage of justice.