ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 164327. February 9, 2005]

FRANCO vs. PEOPLE

Gentlemen:

Qouted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 9 2005 .

G.R. No. 164327 (SERVANO FRANCO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES .)

Can a counsel for an accused who has been convicted by the trial court, still have the information against his client quashed and his client cleared of all liability on the ground that the accused died after his appeal has been denied?

This case came to us via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 from a decision of the Court of Appeals, ^[1] cralaw which affirmed petitioner Servando Franco's conviction for estafa by the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan. ^[2] cralaw

On September 20, 2004, we resolved to DENY Servando Franco's petition on the grounds that the issues raised therein were factual and that petitioner failed to show a reversible error. ^[3] cralaw

On October 15, 2004, nearly a month after we denied the petition, counsel for petitioner filed a manifestation dated October 11, 2004 stating that petitioner had passed away on October 1, 2004. ^[4] cralaw This was evidenced by the deceased petitioner's death certificate. ^[5] cralaw

On November 5, 2004, petitioner's counsel filed a motion to quash the information. The motion stated that "in view of the death of the accused during the pendency of his appeal from his conviction and hence, before the judgment against him has become final, it is respectfully submitted that both his criminal liability as well as the civil liability arising from the offense charged against him have been extinguished by his death" and prayed for the quashal of the information and the dismissal of the case against the late Servando Franco. ^[6] cralaw

On November 11, 2004, counsel for the petitioner filed yet another manifestation reiterating the fact of petitioner's death and enumerating his legal representatives, namely Leonor S. Franco, Nelia S. Franco, Lilia S. Franco-Lopez and Melissa S. Franco-Israel with address at No. 17 Maligaya Street, Bagong Nayon, Baliwag, Bulacan. ^[7] cralaw

On November 22, 2004, we resolved to NOTE WITHOUT ACTION the manifestation filed by counsel for petitioner to the effect that petitioner had died "considering that the petition for review on certiorari had already been denied in the resolution of September 20, 2004."

Counsel for petitioner premises his motion to quash on the fact that petitioner died while the appeal of his conviction was pending. He is asking that the case against petitioner be dismissed. Were we to grant this motion, we would extinguish his criminal and his civil liabilities arising from the delict.

We deny the motion for the reasons stated below.

First, Section 1 of Rule 117 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure is categorical as to when a motion to quash may be filed:

SECTION 1. Time to move to quash. - At any time before entering his plea, the accused may move to quash the complaint or information.

In this case, not only had a plea been entered, but the entire case had already been prosecuted to its conclusion. To allow a motion to quash at this stage would seriously violate the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Furthermore, we cannot agree with counsel's contention that petitioner died while his case pending appeal because his petition was denied on September 20, 2004 or a full ten (10) days prior to his death. There is nothing on record to show, nor has counsel attempted to show, that notice of the fact of the denial was not received before petitioner's death.

For obvious reasons, petitioner's sentence of imprisonment, ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20) years and one (1) day of reclusion perpetua, as maximum ^[8] cralaw can no longer be implemented. It is solely in this respect that the deceased petitioner can be relieved of liability.

The motion, however, appears to be an underhanded attempt by the petitioner's estate to escape the payment of civil liability to the private complainant in the criminal case. But even assuming for the sake of argument that we could grant counsel's motion to quash, petitioner's estate nonetheless remains liable to private complaint due to the fact that the civil liability of the petitioner was based not only on a delict but also on breach of contract. When petitioner induced the private complaint to sell him rice which he paid for with several bad checks, he entered into a contract with her. ^[9] cralaw

In People vs. Bayotas, ^[10] on the question of civil liability surviving the death of the convict, we said:

xxx

2.� Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of the accused, if the same may 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)                       xxx xxx xxx

e)                       Quasi-delicts

xxx (underscoring ours)

We reiterated this doctrine in the more recent case of People vs. Abungan ^[11] where we said "It must be added, though, that his civil liability may be based on sources of obligation other than delict. For this reason, the victims may file a separate civil action against his estate, as may be warranted by law and procedural rules."

WHEREFORE, the motion to quash is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO

Asst. Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw CA Decision dated February 27, 2004 in C.A. G.R. CR No. 26335, penned by Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza and concurred in by Associate Justice B.A. Adefuin-de la Cruz and Eliezer R. de los Santos of the Ninth Division, Rollo, pp. 67-85.

^[2] cralaw Decision dated January 30, 2002 in Criminal Case No. 3631-M-93, penned by Judge Aurora Santiago-Lagman of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Branch 77.

^[3] cralaw Rollo, p. 271

^[4] cralaw Rollo, pp. 272-275.

^[5] cralaw Rollo, p. 276.

^[6] cralaw Rollo, pp. 278-282.

^[7] cralaw Rollo, p. 253.

^[8] cralaw Rollo, pp. 84-85.

^[9] cralaw Rollo, pp. 8-26.

^[10] cralaw G.R. No. 102007, 2 September 1994, 236 SCRA 239.

^[11] cralaw G.R. No. 136843, 28 September 2000, 341 SCRA 258.

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011