G.R. No.

133347 October 15, 2008

ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, EUGENIO LOPEZ, JR., AUGUSTO ALMEDA-

LOPEZ, and OSCAR M. LOPEZ, petitioners,
vs.
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO, EXEQUIEL B. GARCIA, MIGUEL V.
*

GONZALES, and SALVADOR (BUDDY) TAN, respondent.

*

FACTS:
On April 18 and 26, 1994, petitioners Eugenio Jr., Oscar and Augusto Lopez, on
behalf of ABS-CBN, executed separate affidavits charging private respondents
of Execution of Deeds by Means of Violation or Intidmidation, Estafa, Theft,
Robbery, Occupation of Real Property or Usurpation of Real Rights in Property,
and Other Deceits.

On April 5, 1999 and June 13, 2000, the respective counsel for respondents Tan
and Benedicto informed the Court of their clients’ demise. Benedicto’s counsel
filed a Notice of Death with Prayer for Dismissal moving that Benedicto be
dropped as respondent in the case for the reason that the pending criminal
cases are actions which do not survive the death of the party accused.

Petitioners opposed the move to drop Benedicto as respondent citing Torrijos

v. CA which held that “civil liability of the accused survives his death: because
death is not a valid cause for the extinguishment of civil obligations.”
ISSUE:
Whether or not the death of an accused extinguishes civil liabilities
RULING:
Death of an accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal
liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice
Regalado, in this regard, “the death of the accused prior to final judgment
terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly arising from
and based solely on the offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso
strictiore.”

Corollarily, 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. Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these other sources of
obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a result of the same act or
omission:

a) Law

b) Contracts
c) Quasi-contracts

d) x x x

e) Quasi-delicts

Where the civil liability survives, an action for recovery therefor may be
pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Sec. 1,
Rule 11 of the 1985 ROC. The separate civil action may be enforced either
against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused, depending on
the source of obligation upon which the same is based.

Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file
this separate civil action by prescription, in cases where during the prosecution
of the criminal action and prior to its extinction, the private-offended party
instituted together therewith the civil action. In such case, the statute of
limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of
the criminal case, conformably with provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil Code,
that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible deprivation of right
by prescription.”

Applying the foregoing rules, ABS-CBN’s insistence that the case at bench
survives because the civil liability of the respondents subsists is stripped of
merit.

To begin with, there is no criminal case as yet against the respondents. The
Ombudsman did not find probable cause to prosecute respondents for various
felonies in the RPC. As such, the rule that a civil action is deemed instituted
along with the criminal action unless the offended party: (a) waives the civil
action, (b) reserves the right to institute it separately, or (c) institutes the civil
action prior to the criminal action, is not applicable.

In any event, the death of the accused necessarily calls for the dismissal of the
criminal case against him, regardless of the institution of the civil case with it.
The civil action which survives the death of the accused must hinge on other
sources of obligation provided in Article 1157 of the Civil Code. In such a case, a
surviving civil action against the accused founded on other sources of
obligation must be prosecuted in a separate civil action. In other words, civil
liability based solely on the criminal action is extinguished, and a different
civil action cannot be continued and prosecuted in the same criminal action.