RULE 120, SECTION 2, ROC Issue: Whether or not the death of one of the
defendants, Mario Navoa, will extinguish his civil
Section 2. Contents of the judgment. — If the
judgment is of conviction, it shall state (1) the
legal qualification of the offense constituted by
the acts committed by the accused and the
aggravating or mitigating circumstances which
attended its commission; (2) the participation of
the accused in the offense, whether as principal,
accomplice, or accessory after the fact; (3) the
penalty imposed upon the accused; and (4) the
civil liability or damages caused by his wrongful
act or omission to be recovered from the accused
by the offended party, if there is any, unless the
enforcement of the civil liability by a separate civil
action has been reserved or waived.
In case the judgment is of acquittal, it shall state
whether the evidence of the prosecution
absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused
or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. In either case, the judgment
shall determine if the act or omission from which
the civil liability might arise did not exist.
PEOPLE VS. NAVOA
Parties: Mario and Rafael Navoa and Ricardo Sitchon
(accused of killing Tomas Izon) and Heirs of Izon
Facts of the Case: Mario and Rafael Navoa and
Ricardo Sitchon allegedly shot and killed Tomas Izon.
Premise of Criminal Case: Heirs of Izon filed with the
CFI of Bataan a criminal complaint against Navoa for
the crime of murder.
Trial Court Decision: found the accused guilty of
murder and sentenced each to suffer imprisonment of
17 years and an indemnity, jointly and solidarily, of
Php. 20,000.
Premise of Appeal: thus, they filed an appeal with the
Court of Appeals.
Court of Appeals Decision: affirmed the trial court
judgment and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment
of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the
victim, jointly and solidarily, Php. 30,000.
Premise of MR: thus, they filed a MR.
Defense of MR: One of the two assigned errors is "that
defendant-appellant Mario Navoa's death on June 14,
1984 properly manifested before the Intermediate
Appellate Court on June 20, 1984, had not been
accorded proper legal consideration in the Decision.
liability even if the decision by the Court has already
been promulgated.
Held: No. When counsel for the accused manifested
that fact (the death of Mario Navoa) before the
Appellate Court on June 20, 1984, he was unaware
that the latter had already certified the case to this
Court, which, in turn, promulgated its Decision on July
31, 1984 unaware of appellant Mario Navoa's death.
The judgment of conviction will thus have to be set
aside as against him. However, the plea for
extinguishment of the deceased's civil and criminal
liability is without merit. Only his criminal liability is
extinguished by his death but the civil liability remains.
PEOPLE VS. BADEO
Parties: Manuel Badeo (son of Esperidion), Esperidion
Badeo (father of Manuel), Rogelio Badeo (at large) and
Bonifacio Tangpus (at large) (accused of killing
Cresenciano Gernames, 42 years old) and the heirs of
Cresenciano.
Facts of the Case: Eñega Abrio, at around six o’clock
in the evening was walking on her way home.
Cresenciano Germanes was walking ahead of her.
Near the house of Esperidion Badeo, four men using
bolos attacked and killed Cresenciano.
Uldarico Germanes, a nephew of Cresenciano,
believed that his uncle was killed by the four because
Cresenciano was instrumental in dividing the land
being tenanted by Manuel into two portions. One
portion was to be retained by Manuel while the other
half would be tenanted by him (Uldarico). Manuel did
not like the arrangement because according to him, he
could still work on the whole area.
Manuel Badeo admitted having hacked Cresenciano
(on the skull, left temporal area) but averred that he did
so in self-defense. Manuel stated in court that Enega
Abreo testified against him because her husband,
Sabino, was the first suspect in the killing of
Cresenciano as there was “bad blood”between Sabino
and Cresenciano.
Esperidion Badeo, on the other hand, denied being at
the scene when the killing occurred. He was then in the
mountain in Saransang making a kaingin.
Premise of Criminal Case: thus, the heirs of
Cresencio filed a complaint with the RTC of Leyte,
Branch XV.
Defense of Manuel: As he was cutting the grass in his
lawn, Sagino Abrio (sic), the husband of Iñiga (Eñega),
approached him and intimated to him that he had a big
problem because Iñiga and Cresenciano were having
an illicit relationship. Sagino said that the relationship
downgraded his honor because it was known to
Page 1 of 3
everyone their place. Sagino vowed that something
would happen to Cresenciano.
Later, when Manuel arrived at his mother's house to
get kerosene, his mother, Maria Badeo, Estelita
Tangpuz (sic), Elena Borja, Cresencio (sic) Germanes
and Sagino Abrio were drinking liquor. As Manuel was
about to leave, Germanes forced him to drink liquor.
After taking one glass, Manuel turned to leave but
Germanes grabbed his shirt. Sagino then followed
Germanes, hacked him "many times". Upon seeing
that Germanes had a firearm tucked in his waist,
Sagino ordered Manuel to get it. Manuel and
Germanes grappled for possession of the firearm and
as soon as Manuel took hold of it, Sagino told him to
surrender it to the police.
Trial Court Decision: found Manuel and Esperidion
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder and
sentence the two accused to reclusion perpetua and
ordered them to indemnify the heirs of Cresencio, Php.
30,000.
Premise of CA Case: father and son Esperidion and
Manuel Badeo appealed the RTC decision.
Dismissal of Case Against Esperidion in CA:
Esperidion died of cardio-respiratory arrest secondary
to pulmonary tuberculosis at the prison hospital in
Muntinlupa, Metro Manila. Inasmuch as no final
judgment had as yet been rendered, in the resolution
of August 21, 1991, the case against Esperidion was
dismissed with costs de oficio and entry of judgment
was made on August 22, 1991.
Premise of MR: The Sol Gen filed a motion for
reconsideration.
Argument of Solicitor General: while the criminal
liability of appellant is extinguished by his death,
pursuant to Art. 89, RPC, his civil liability arising from
the criminal offense subsisted in accordance with Art.
112 of the RPC.
Issue: whether or not Esperidion is still liable for any
civil liabilities even if he has already passed.
Held: Yes. Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code
provides that criminal liability is totally extinguished 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.
As every crime gives rise to a penal or criminal action
for the punishment of the guilty party, and also to a civil
action for the restitution of the thing, repair of the
damage and indemnification for the losses whether the
particular act or omission is done intentionally or
negligently or whether or not punishable by law,
subsequent decisions of the Court held that while the
criminal liability of an appellant is extinguished by his
death, his civil liability subsists. In such case, the heirs
of the deceased appellant are substituted as parties in
the criminal case and his estate shall answer for his
civil liability.
PEOPLE VS. BAYOTAS
Parties: Rogelio Bayotas (deceased, accused of rape)
Facts of the Case: Rogelio Bayotas, accused and
charged with Rape, died on February 4, 1992 due to
cardio respiratory arrest. The Solicitor General then
submitted a comment stating that the death of the
accused does not excuse him from his civil liability
(supported by the Supreme Court’s decision in People
vs Sendaydiego). On the other hand, the counsel of the
accused claimed that in the Supreme Court’s decision
in People vs Castillo, civil liability is extinguished if
accused should die before the final judgement is
rendered.
Issue: Whether or not the death of the accused
pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his civil
liability.
Held: Yes. In the Castillo case, the Court said that civil
liability is extinguished only when death of the accused
occurred before the final judgement. Judge Kapunan
further stated that civil liability is extinguished because
there will be “no party defendant” in the case. There will
be no civil liability if criminal liability does not exist.
Further, the Court stated “it is, thus, evident that… the
rule established was that the survival of the civil liability
depends on whether the same can be predicated on
the sources of obligations other than delict.
In the Sendaydiego case, the Court issued Resolution
of July 8, 1977 where it states that civil liability will only
survive if death came after the final judgement of the
CFI of Pangasinan. However, Article 30 of the Civil
Code could not possibly lend support to the ruling in
Sendaydiego. Civil liability ex delicto is extinguished by
the death of the accused while his conviction is on
appeal.
CALANG & PHILTRANCO VS. PEOPLE
Parties: Rolito Calang (driver of a Philtranco Bus),
Philtranco. v
Facts of the Case: Rolito Calang was driving
Philtranco Bus No. 7001, owned by Philtranco along
Daang Maharlika Highway in Barangay Lambao, Sta.
Margarita, Samar when its rear left side hit the front left
portion of a Sarao jeep coming from the opposite
direction. As a result of the collision, Cresencio
Pinohermoso, the jeeps driver, lost control of the
vehicle, and bumped and killed Jose Mabansag, a
bystander who was standing along the highways
shoulder. The jeep turned turtle three (3) times before
finally stopping at about 25 meters from the point of
impact. Two of the jeeps passengers, Armando Nablo
Page 2 of 3
and an unidentified woman, were instantly killed, while
the other passengers sustained serious physical
injuries.

Premise of Criminal Case: The prosecution charged

Calang with multiple homicide, multiple serious
physical injuries and damage to property thru reckless
imprudence before the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 31, Calbayog City.

Decision of RTC: found Calang guilty beyond

reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting to
multiple homicide, multiple physical injuries and
damage to property, and sentenced him to suffer an
indeterminate of penalty of thirty days of arresto menor.
Also, the Court ordered Calang and Philtranco, jointly
and severally, to pay P50,000.00 as death indemnity to
the heirs of Armando; P50,000.00 as death indemnity
to the heirs of Mabansag; and P90,083.93 as actual
damages to the private complainants.

Issue: Whether or not Philtranco may be held joint and

severally liable with Calang?

Held: No. Calang was charged criminally before the

RTC. Undisputedly, Philtranco was not a direct party in
this case. Since the cause of action against Calang
was based on delict, both the RTC and the CA erred in
holding Philtranco jointly and severally liable with
Calang, based on quasi-delict under Articles 2176 and
2180 of the Civil Code. Articles 2176 and 2180 of the
Civil Code pertain to the vicarious liability of an
employer for quasi-delicts that an employee has
committed. Such provision of law does not apply to civil
liability arising from delict.

However, the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on

subsidiary liability Articles 102 and 103 are deemed
written into the judgments in cases to which they are
applicable. Thus, in the dispositive portion of its
decision, the trial court need not expressly pronounce
the subsidiary liability of the employer. Thus,
Philtranco’s liability may only be subsidiary.

Page 3 of 3