People vs. Paniterce, G.R. No.

186382, April 5, 2010

Facts: In February 11, 2002, Domingo Paniterce was charged by the Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor with four counts of rape of his 10-year old daughter. In two amended information
dated December 3, 2002 included the charge of two counts of rape of his other daughter. The
RTC found Paniterce guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Rape and Acts of
Lasciviousness. On June 4, 2005, Paniterce was committed to the Bureau of Corrections
in Muntinlupa City.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court
with modifications. On 16 September 2008, Paniterce, through counsel, filed a Notice of
Appeal with the Court of Appeals conveying his intention to appeal to the Supreme Court the
aforementioned Decision dated August 22, 2008 of the appellate court. The Court of Appeals
gave due course to Paniterces Notice of Appeal on September 23, 2008. However, in a letter
dated October 12, 2009, Julio A. Arciaga, the Assistant Director for Prisons and Security of
the Bureau of Corrections, informed the Supreme Court that Paniterce had died on August 22,
2009 at the New Bilibid Prison Hospital.
Issue: Whether or not the death of Paniterce pending appeal extinguished his criminal
liabilities.
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.
According to Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is totally
extinguished:
1. 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.
The Supreme Court held that whether or not he was guilty of the crimes charged has
become irrelevant since, following Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code, even
assuming Paniterce had incurred criminal liabilities, they were totally extinguished by
his death. Moreover, because Paniterces appeal was still pending and no final
judgment of conviction had been rendered against him when he died, his civil
liabilities arising from the crimes, being civil liabilities ex delicto, were likewise
extinguished by his death.
People vs. Ayochok, G.R. No. 175784, August 25, 2010
Facts: Jaime Ayochok was charged by the Prosecutor Benedicto Carantes with Murder which
was committed upon the person of SPO1 Claudio Caligtan. After trial on the merits, the
Regional Trial Court rendered a decision dated August 13, 2003 finding Ayochok guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder. Ayochok was then committed at the New
Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa City.
The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review. This was transferred to the
Court Appeals pursuant to the Courts decision in People v. Mateo which modified the
pertinent provisions of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure on direct appeals from the
RTC to the Supreme Court in cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or

life imprisonment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the lower court. Ayochok
filed a Motion for Reconsideration but withdrew the same later on. Ayochok, through
counsel, filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals conveying his intention to appeal
to the Supreme Court. Ayochok then submitted his supplemental briefs. However, in a letter
dated February 16, 2010, Julio A. Arciaga, the Assistant Director for Prisons and Security of
the Bureau of Corrections, informed the Court that Ayochok had died on January 15, 2010 at
the Philippine General Hospital, Manila. A copy of the death report signed by a medical
officer of the New Bilibid Prison Hospital was attached to said letter.
Issue: Whether or not the death of Ayochok pending appeal extinguished his criminal
liability.
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.
According to Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is totally
extinguished:
1. 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.
Ayochoks death on January 15, 2010, during the pendency of his appeal,
extinguished not only his criminal liability for the crime of murder committed against
Senior Police Officer 1 Claudio N. Caligtan, but also his civil liability solely arising
from or based on said crime. This is because Ayochoks appeal was still pending and
no final judgment of conviction had been rendered against him when he died.
People vs. Olaco, G.R. No. 197042, October 17, 2011
Facts: In an Information dated August 24, 2004, Juliet Olaco was charged with Qualified
Theft. Being the housemaid of Ruben Vinluan, and enjoying the trust and confidence reposed
upon her by her employer, she was able to take and steal several items for a total amount
P972,100.00. The Regional Trial Court rendered a Decision on March 5, 2007 finding Olaco
guilty of Qualified Theft. Olaco filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals. This was denied
by the CA and affirmed her conviction by the RTC.
However, in a letter dated January 27, 2011, Rachel D. Ruelo, Superintendent IV of the
Correctional Institution for Women, informed the Court of Appeals that Olaco had died on
February 17, 2010. A photocopy of Olacos Death Certificate was attached to Ruelos letter.
On February 2, 2011, Olacos counsel still filed, on behalf of his deceased client, a Notice of
Appeal, which the Court of Appeals gave due course on February 8, 2011. Accordingly, the
appellate court directed its Judicial Records Division to elevate to the Supreme Court the
original records of the case.
Issue: Whether or not the death of Olaco pending appeal extinguished her criminal liability.
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.
Olacos death on February 17, 2010, during the pendency of her appeal, extinguished not only
her criminal liability for qualified theft committed against private complainant Ruben

Vinluan, but also her civil liability, particularly the award for actual damages, solely arising
from or based on said crime. This ruling was grounded on Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal
Code, where it states that criminal liability is totally extinguished:
1.

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.

Miaque vs. Patag, G.R. No. 170609-13, January 30, 2009

Facts: On January 31, 2000, five Informations for libel were filed in the RTC of Iloilo City,
Branch 26, against petitioner Bernie G. Miaque and three others. In an order dated February
17, 2005 these Informations were quashed for lack of jurisdiction over the offenses charged.
This is due to the failure to allege either that private respondent (therein private complainant)
Vicente Aragona actually held office in Iloilo City at the time of the commission of the
offenses or that the alleged libelous remarks were printed or first published in Iloilo City.
New Informations were filed with added allegations to the earlier quashed Informations that
(1) Aragona, Regional State Prosecutor VI of the Department of Justice, held office at the
Hall of Justice, Iloilo City or (2) the alleged libelous remarks were written, printed and
published in Iloilo City. Petitioner filed his motion not to issue warrants of arrest and to
remand the case for the conduct of Preliminary Investigation. The respondent Judge Patag
denied the said motions alleging that he had not acquired jurisdiction over the person of the
accused.
Petitioner challenges the August 25, 2005 and September 19, 2005 orders of respondent and
contends that the Informations were filed without the mandatory preliminary investigation.
Moreover, the new Informations were filed by one who had no authority to do so because
these were filed by the Iloilo Provincial Prosecutors Office and not the Iloilo City Prosecutors
Office. Jurisdiction over the subject matter supposedly belonged to the latter.
Issue: Whether or not the Iloilo Provincial Prosecutors Office had the authority to file and
sign the new Informations against petitioner when the offenses charged in each of the new
Informations were alleged to have been committed in Iloilo City.
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in the negative.
The Supreme Court held that generally, a direct resort to it in a petition for certiorari is
incorrect for it violates the hierarchy of courts. A regard for judicial hierarchy most certainly
indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level courts should
be filed in the RTC and those against the latter should be filed in the Court of Appeals. This
rule, however, may be relaxed when pure questions of law are raised as in this case.
As to the merits of the case, Sections 9 and 11 of Presidential Decree No. 1275 provide:
SEC. 9. Offices of Provincial Fiscals and City Fiscals Staffing. -- There shall
be in each province and each subprovince; one provincial fiscal and such
number of assistant provincial fiscals as may hereinafter be provided for.

There shall be in each city one city fiscals and such number of assistant city
fiscals as may hereinafter be provided.
xxx
SEC. 11. Provincial Fiscals and City Fiscals; Duties and Functions. The
provincial fiscal or the city fiscal shall:
a)
xxx
b)
Investigate and/or cause to be investigated all charges of
crimes, misdemeanors and violations of all penal laws and
ordinances within their respective jurisdictions and have
the necessary information or complaint prepared or made
against the persons accused. xxx (emphasis supplied)
The Charter of the City of Iloilo provides:
The City Fiscal, now City Prosecutor shall also have charge of the prosecution
of all crimes, misdemeanors and violations of city ordinances, in the Court of
First Instance (now RTC) and in the Municipal Trial Court of the city, and
shall discharge all the duties in respect to criminal prosecutions enjoined by
law upon provincial fiscals.
The city fiscal shall cause to be investigated all charges of crimes,
misdemeanors, and violations of ordinances, and have the necessary
informations or complaints prepared against the persons accused. xxx
The authority to sign and file the new Informations is properly lodged with the Iloilo City
Prosecutors Office. The Iloilo Provincial Prosecutors Office was clearly bereft of authority to
file the new Informations against petitioner. The Informations were then fatally defective.
Having ruled so, there is a jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured and there is no basis for
conviction.