People of the Philippines v. Gerry Lipata | G.R. No. 200302 |J.

Carpio | April 20, 2016 |

Jurisdiction Over Person
PETITIONERS: People of the Philippines
RESPONDENTS: Gerry Lipata y Ortiza
(Note: In this case the facts are not that important to the syllabus topic, nevertheless I included them just in case)

BUZZWORDS / PHRASES

ANTECEDENT FACTS
● The accused was charged for the murder of Ronaldo Cueno (stabbing with bladed
weapons)
● Accused was assisted in the attack by two unknown persons. They made use of a
broken Red Horse Bottle and Tres Cantos (looks like a short sword), and an Ice pick.
● Witnesses for the prosecution claimed that they saw the accused with two other
persons assault the victim.
● The victim tried to fought back but ultimately failed due to the numerous injuries he
sustained.
● The victim was rushed to a hospital but was declared Dead on Arrival.

CRIME: ARTICLE 248, RPC: Murder

ARRAIGNMENT PROCEDURE
 (Not that important but might be asked)
 Accused was arraigned on October 11, 2005.
 Pre-trial conference ended on October 26,2005.

RTC: Prosecution filed a Murder charge against the accused.

Ruling: Accused is Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder

PROSECUTION  DEFENSE
 Had two witnesses. (Sister-in-law of  Sole witness was the accused. He
victim & the daughter). stated that he merely responded to
 They saw how the victim was the calls of his brothers who were
assaulted by the three men and how under attack by Cueno (victim).
the victim managed to get the Tres  He admitted that he did inflict damage
Cantos to defend himself. to Cueno
 The victim collapsed due to the  The accused claims he acted in
injuries he sustained. defense of a relative.
CA: The appeal was based on the RTC not considering the claim of Defense of a Relative
Ruling: Ruled in favor of the prosecution. The claim of defense of relative must fail. There was
no actual threat on the life of the appellant or brothers. The victim was outnumbered three to
one.

PROSECUTION DEFENSE
●

IMPORTANT!!!
 The Public Attorney’s Office filed a notice of appeal on June 10, 2011.
 HOWEVER, the accused died (February 13, 2011) prior to the release of the Final
Judgement of the CA.

SC: The Court asked for the comment of PAO regarding the civil liability of the deceased
appellant.
PROSECUTION PAO/DEFENSE
 ● Considering that the civil liability is
based on the act of murder, the same
does not survive the death of the
deceased-appellant.
● In light of this, the death of the
appellant extinguished both the
criminal liability and civil liability.

ISSUE: W/N the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his
civil liability – NO.

RATIO
 Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability
as well as the civil liability thereon.
 The claim of for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of the accused, if the
same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than a delict.
 When the civil liability survives (as mentioned above), a separate civil action
may be filed subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court (NOW:
SECTION 4 of RULE 111)
 The separate civil action proceeds independently of the criminal proceedings
and requires only a preponderance of evidence.
 However, in this case, there was no separate civil case filed prior to the criminal case.
Neither was there a reservation for filing a separate civil case fot the cause of action
arising from quasi0delict
  Under the present Rules, the heirs of Cueno should file for a civil case for them to
recover financial retribution for their loss.
 The lack of a separate civil case leads us to conclude that,….his heirs cannot recover
even a centavo from the amounts awarded by the CA.

WHEREFORE, we SET ASIDE the Decision promulgated on 31 May 2011 by the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CRH.C. No. 04461. The criminal and civil liabilities ex delicto of appellant
Gerry Lipata y Ortiza are declared EXTINGUISHED by his death prior to final judgment.