SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 827 file:///C:/Users/SUE/Desktop/157_files/saved_resource.

html

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

G.R. No. 225634. June 7, 2017.*

 
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
ALLAN JAO y CALONIA and ROGELIO CATIGTIG y
COBIO, accused-appellants.

Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Illegal Delivery of

Dangerous Drugs; Elements of.—For a successful prosecution of
the crime of Illegal Delivery of Dangerous Drugs, it must be
proven that the accused passed on possession of a dangerous drug
to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means; that such
delivery is not authorized by law; and that the accused knowingly
made the delivery. Worthy of note is that the delivery may be
committed even without consideration. On the other hand, in the
crime of Illegal

_______________

*  FIRST DIVISION.

 
 
158

158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Jao

1 of 14 09/08/2019, 10:48 am
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 827 file:///C:/Users/SUE/Desktop/157_files/saved_resource.html

Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution must prove

that the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is
identified as a prohibited drug; that such possession is not
authorized by law; and that the accused freely and consciously
possessed the drug.
Same; Extinction of Criminal Liability; Death of the Accused
Pending Appeal; Upon Catigtig’s death pending appeal of his
conviction his criminal liability is extinguished inasmuch as there
is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused.—While Jao’s
criminal liability remains, the same conclusion cannot be made
with respect to Catigtig in view of his supervening death pending
appeal. As already adverted to, in a letter dated February 9, 2016,
the Bureau of Corrections informed the CA that Catigtig had
already died on August 7, 2015, attaching thereto a duplicate copy
of Catigtig’s Certificate of Death issued by the Office of the Civil
Registrar General. Paragraph 1, Article 89 of the Revised Penal
Code, states: Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally
extinguished.—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. In People v.
Egagamao, 799 SCRA 507 (2016), the Court eloquently summed
up the effects of the death of an accused pending appeal on his
liabilities, as follows: From this lengthy disquisition, we
summarize our ruling herein: 1. Death of the 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.” Thus,
upon Catigtig’s death pending appeal of his conviction, his
criminal liability is extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a
defendant to stand as the accused. As such, the criminal cases
against him should be dismissed and declared closed and
terminated.

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
   The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

 
 
159

VOL. 157, JUNE 7, 2017 159

2 of 14 09/08/2019, 10:48 am
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 827 file:///C:/Users/SUE/Desktop/157_files/saved_resource.html

People vs. Jao

   Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant.

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
 
Before the Court is an ordinary appeal1 filed by accused-
appellants Allan Jao y Calonia (Jao) and Rogelio Catigtig y
Cobio (Catigtig; collectively, accused-appellants) assailing
the Decision2 dated October 28, 2015 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01393, which
affirmed in toto the Joint Judgment3 dated August 25, 2011
of the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, Branch 30
(RTC), convicting accused-appellants of the crimes of Illegal
Delivery and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs,
defined and penalized under Sections 54 and 11,5 Article II
of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165,6

_______________

1  See Notice of Appeal dated December 2, 2015; Rollo, pp. 32-34.

2  Id., at pp. 5-31. Penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, with
Associate Justices Renato C. Francisco and Marie Christine Azcarraga-
Jacob, concurring.
3  CA Rollo, pp. 14-35. Penned by Judge Rafael Crescencio C. Tan, Jr.
4  Pertinent parts of Section 5 of RA No. 9165 read:
SEC. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery,
Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals.—The penalty of life imprisonment to
death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00)
to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person,
who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense,
deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport
any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy
regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in
any of such transactions.
5  Pertinent portions of Section 11 of RA No. 9165 read:
SEC. 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs.—The penalty of life
imprisonment x   x   x shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless
authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following
quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
x x x x

 
 
160

3 of 14 09/08/2019, 10:48 am
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 827 file:///C:/Users/SUE/Desktop/157_files/saved_resource.html

160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Jao
otherwise known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002.”
 
The Facts
 
The instant case stemmed from four (4) separate
Amended Informations all dated September 23, 2008
charging accused-appellants of violations of Sections 5 and
11, Article II of RA 9165, to wit:

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 19189

 
That at about 6:00 o’clock in the evening of June 2, 2008 at
Barangay Maslog, Sibulan, Negros Oriental, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named
accused [Jao], did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, DELIVER AND GIVE AWAY to an informant of law
enforcers, without authority by law, one (1) plastic sachet
containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, locally known as
“shabu,” weighing 0.01 gram, of which he was caught “in flagrante
delicto.”7
 
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 19190
 
That at about 6:00 o’clock in the evening of June 2, 2008 at
Barangay Maslog, Sibulan, Negros Oriental, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable

_______________

(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20)
years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos
(P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the
quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of x   x   x
methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu” x x x.
6   Entitled “AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS
DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE
KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING
FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,” approved on June 7, 2002.
7  Rollo, p. 8.

 
 
161

4 of 14 09/08/2019, 10:48 am
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 827 file:///C:/Users/SUE/Desktop/157_files/saved_resource.html

VOL. 157, JUNE 7, 2017 161

People vs. Jao
Court, the above named accused [Jao], did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously HAVE in his possession,
custody and control, without authority by law, six (6) plastic
sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, locally
known as “shabu,” weighing 0.06 gram which were confiscated as
a result of a search incidental to an arrest.8
 
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 19187
 
That at about 8:00 o’clock in the evening of June 2, 2008 at
Barangay Maslog, Sibulan, Negros Oriental, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named
accused [Catigtig], did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, DELIVER AND GIVE AWAY to [a] law enforcer,
without authority by law, ten (10) plastic sachets containing
methamphetamine hydrochloride, locally known as “shabu,’’
weighing 0.10 gram, of which he was caught “in flagrante
delicto.”9
 
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 19188
 
That at about 8:00 o’clock in the evening of June 2, 2008 at
Barangay Maslog, Sibulan, Negros Oriental, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named
accused [Catigtig], did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously HAVE in his possession, custody and control, without
authority by law, ONE (1) plastic sachet containing
methamphetamine hydrochloride, locally known as “shabu,”
weighing 0.06 gram, three (3) hand-rolled tinfoil and two (2)
empty transparent plastic sachets which were confiscated as a
result of a search incidental to an arrest.10

_______________

8   Id., at pp. 8-9.

9   Id., at p. 9.
10  Id., at pp. 9-10.

 
 
162

162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Jao

5 of 14 09/08/2019, 10:48 am
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 827 file:///C:/Users/SUE/Desktop/157_files/saved_resource.html

On September 26, 2008, accused-appellants were

arraigned but refused to enter a plea. Thus, a plea of “not
guilty” was entered for all the charges against them.11
The prosecution alleged that on June 2, 2008, a police
team planned a buy-bust operation at Four Queens Motel
located at Barangay Maslog, Sibulan, Negros Oriental,
after an informant notified them that Jao was engaged in
the sale of shabu. Pursuant to the plan, four police officers
checked in at Room 6 of the motel at around 5:45 in the
afternoon. Acting as poseur-buyer, the informant called Jao
and ordered shabu worth P800.00 for delivery at Room 6 of
the motel. He then waited outside the room for Jao to
arrive. When the latter arrived, the informant asked for the
shabu and Jao replied by taking a plastic sachet from his
waistband and handing it over to the former. The
informant then executed the prearranged signal, prompting
the policemen to arrest Jao. Thereafter, the arresting
policemen searched Jao and found six (6) more plastic
sachets containing shabu. Special Investigator Marlon
Manzanaris (SI Manzanaris) then marked the plastic
sachets seized from Jao.12 However, when SI Manzanaris
was about to prepare the inventory of the seized items, Jao
suddenly and voluntarily informed the policemen that
Catigtig was his source of contraband and agreed to
cooperate for the latter’s arrest. Special Agent Michael
Dungog then instructed Jao to call Catigtig to order ten
(10) more sachets of shabu, to which the latter agreed to
deliver at around 8 o’clock that evening. Due to this
development, the conduct of the inventory was suspended,
and consequently, the policemen checked out of the motel
and returned to their headquarters. During this time, SI
Manzanaris retained custody of the items seized from
Jao.13

_______________

11  Id., at p. 10.
12  Id., at pp. 11-13.
13  “All this time, SI Manzanaris had custody of the items seized from
the accused Jao which he placed inside a black bag containing their
necessary materials for the conduct of an inventory. Upon

 
 
163

VOL. 157, JUNE 7, 2017 163

6 of 14 09/08/2019, 10:48 am
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 827 file:///C:/Users/SUE/Desktop/157_files/saved_resource.html

People vs. Jao

At around 7:30 in the evening, the policemen went back

to the motel after Jao received a text message from Catigtig
that he was already outside Room 6. Three (3) policemen
then hid inside the bathroom, while Jao acted as an
informant and Senior Police Officer 2 (SPO2) Allen
Germodo (SPO2 Germodo) as the poseur-buyer. When
Catigtig entered the room, Jao introduced SPO2 Germodo
as the buyer of shabu, thus, prompting Catigtig to hand
over a Marlboro cigarette pack containing ten (10) plastic
sachets of shabu to SPO2 Germodo, who in turn, said
“Okay na ni,” signifying that the transaction had already
taken place. The other policemen then rushed into the
scene, arrested Catigtig, and frisked him, resulting in the
discovery of another sachet of shabu. SPO2 Germodo then
marked the sachets seized from Catigtig, and thereafter, he
and SI Manzanaris conducted a formal inventory of the
items seized from both Jao and Catigtig in the presence of
representatives from the media, the DOJ, and the
barangay. While the inventory was on-going, Special
Investigator Nicanor Tagle then took photographs of the
seized items.14
The accused-appellants were then taken to the NBI
office for booking, while SI Manzanaris and SPO2 Germodo
personally delivered the seized items in their respective
custody to the Crime Laboratory. The seized items were
received by PO1 Rex Tan (PO1 Tan), who in turn, handed
them over to the Forensic Chemist, Police Chief Inspector
(PCI) Josephine Llena (PCI Llena), who conducted a
qualitative examination on the same. The examination
revealed that the contents of the seized sachets from
accused-appellants are indeed methamphetamine
hydrochloride, or shabu. 15

_______________

reaching the NBI Office, SI Manzanaris placed the black bag — which
contained all the seized items — inside a steel cabinet of which only he
has the sole key to it.” (CA Rollo, p. 18. See also Rollo, p. 13)
14  Rollo, pp. 13-14.
15  Id., at pp. 14-15. See also CA Rollo, pp. 19-20.

 
 
164

7 of 14 09/08/2019, 10:48 am
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 827 file:///C:/Users/SUE/Desktop/157_files/saved_resource.html

164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Jao
In his defense, Jao denied the charges against him. He
claimed that on the day of his arrest, he was working at his
employer’s house. At around 2 o’clock in the afternoon, he
received a call asking him to go to the motel as there was a
woman waiting for him there. When he arrived at the
motel, men pointed their guns at him and mauled him
inside the motel room. He also denied calling Catigtig,
insisting that one of the police officers called the latter.16
For his part, Catigtig likewise denied the accusations
against him. He asserted that at about past 3 o’clock in the
afternoon of June 2, 2008, Jao called and invited him to go
to the motel to meet a woman. He initially declined but
later on agreed. When Catigtig arrived at the motel,
someone pointed a gun at him and dragged him inside the
room where he was mauled. Catigtig admitted that an
inventory was conducted in his presence but denied
knowledge as to the source of the drugs placed on the table
after his arrest.17
 
 The RTC’s Ruling
 
18
In a Joint Judgment dated August 25, 2011, the RTC
found accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crimes charged, and accordingly, sentenced them as
follows: (a) for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165,
each accused-appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty
of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of
P500,000.00; and (b) for violation of Section 11, Article II of
RA 9165, each accused-appellant was sentenced to suffer
the penalty of
imprisonment for an indeterminate period of twelve (12)
years and one (1) day as minimum term to fourteen (14)
years as maximum and to pay a fine in the amount of
P400,000.00.19

_______________

16  Id., at pp. 15-16.

17  Id., at pp. 16-17.
18  CA Rollo, pp. 14-35.
19  Id., at pp. 33-34.

 
 
165

8 of 14 09/08/2019, 10:48 am
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 827 file:///C:/Users/SUE/Desktop/157_files/saved_resource.html

VOL. 157, JUNE 7, 2017 165

People vs. Jao

The RTC found the prosecution to have established that

accused-appellants were validly arrested in a legitimate
buy-bust operation, and that the searches made on them
were likewise valid as they were made incidental to such
arrests. On the other hand, it did not give credence to
accused-appellants’ defense of denial in light of the positive
testimonies and the credible evidence against them.
Further, the RTC upheld the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items as the policemen properly
complied with the chain of custody rule.20
Aggrieved, accused-appellants appealed to the CA.
 
The CA’s Proceedings
 
21
In a Decision dated October 28, 2015, the CA affirmed
accused-appellants’ respective convictions in toto.22 It held
that: (a) the prosecution had sufficiently established all the
elements of illegal delivery and illegal possession of shabu
against accused-appellants; (b) accused-appellants’ arrests
were made after legitimate buy-bust operations and not by
instigation; and (c) there was no break in the chain of
custody that would have compromised the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items.23 Hence, the instant
appeal.
Meanwhile and after accused-appellants filed their
Notice of Appeal, the CA received a letter24 dated February
9, 2016 from the Bureau of Corrections, stating that
Catigtig had already died on August 7, 2015.25 Thus, the
CA issued a Reso-

_______________

20  Id., at pp. 22-33.

21  Rollo, pp. 5-31.
22  Id., at p. 30.
23  Id., at pp. 18-29.
24   CA Rollo, p. 188. Signed by New Bilibid Prison Superintendent
P/Supt. II Richard W. Schwarzkopf, Jr.
25  See Certificate of Death dated August 10, 2015 signed by Office of
the Civil Registrar General Registration Officer IV Maria Edith B. Ador;
id., at p. 190.

 
 

9 of 14 09/08/2019, 10:48 am
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 827 file:///C:/Users/SUE/Desktop/157_files/saved_resource.html

166

166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Jao

lution26 dated June 8, 2016 which, inter alia, referred the

said letter to the Court for its consideration.
 
The Issue Before the Court
 
The core issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or
not accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of violations of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165.
 
The Court’s Ruling
 
Jao’s appeal must be denied, while the cases against
Catigtig should be dismissed and declared closed and
terminated.
 
I.
 
For a successful prosecution of the crime of Illegal
Delivery of Dangerous Drugs, it must be proven that the
accused passed on possession of a dangerous drug to
another, personally or otherwise, and by any means; that
such delivery is not authorized by law; and that the
accused knowingly made the delivery. Worthy of note is
that the delivery may be committed even without
consideration.27 On the other hand, in the crime of Illegal
Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution must prove
that the accused is in possession of an item or object, which
is identified as a prohibited drug; that such possession is
not authorized by law; and that the accused freely and
consciously possessed the drug.28

_______________

26  Id., at pp. 195-197. Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol,

with Associate Justices Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Pablito A. Perez,
concurring.
27  People v. Maongco, 720 Phil. 488, 502; 708 SCRA 547, 560 (2013).
28  People v. Montevirgen, 723 Phil. 534, 542; 712 SCRA 459, 467-468
(2013), citing People v. Sembrano, 642 Phil. 476, 490-491;  628 SCRA 328,
342-343 (2010).

10 of 14 09/08/2019, 10:48 am
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 827 file:///C:/Users/SUE/Desktop/157_files/saved_resource.html

 
167

VOL. 157, JUNE 7, 2017 167

People vs. Jao

In the instant case, both the RTC and the CA correctly

found that the prosecution had established Jao’s criminal
liability for the aforesaid crimes, considering that: (a) Jao
himself delivered a plastic sachet containing 0.01 gram of
shabu to the informant during a legitimate buy-bust
operation; and (b) upon his arrest, the arresting officers
searched Jao and found six (6) more plastic sachets
containing shabu with an aggregate weight of 0.06 gram.
Similarly, both courts a quo found that there was no break
in the chain of custody of the sachets seized from Jao as SI
Manzanaris had sole possession of such sachets from the
time of Jao’s arrest until he turned them over to PO1 Tan,
who in turn, handed it over to Forensic Chemist PCI Llena
for qualitative examination. It is settled that “[f]actual
findings of the RTC, when affirmed by the CA, are entitled
to great weight and respect by this Court and are deemed
final and conclusive when supported by the evidence on
record.”29 Absent any showing that the trial and the
appellate courts overlooked certain facts and circumstances
that could substantially affect the outcome, their rulings
must be upheld,30 as in this case.
 
II.
 
While Jao’s criminal liability remains, the same
conclusion cannot be made with respect to Catigtig in view
of his supervening death pending appeal. As already
adverted to, in a letter31 dated February 9, 2016, the
Bureau of Corrections informed the CA that Catigtig had
already died on August 7, 2015, attaching thereto a
duplicate copy of Catigtig’s Certificate of Death32 issued by
the Office of the Civil Registrar General.

_______________

29   Guevarra v. People, 726 Phil. 183, 193; 715 SCRA 384, 394-395
(2014), citing Maxwell Heavy Equipment Corporation v. Yu, 653 Phil. 338,
343; 638 SCRA 653, 658 (2010).
30  Id.
31  CA Rollo, p. 188.

11 of 14 09/08/2019, 10:48 am
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 827 file:///C:/Users/SUE/Desktop/157_files/saved_resource.html

32  Id., at p. 190.

 
 
168

168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Jao

Paragraph 1, Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code,

states:

Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished.

—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.

 
In People v. Egagamao,33 the Court eloquently summed
up the effects of the death of an accused pending appeal on
his liabilities, as follows:

From this lengthy disquisition, we summarize our ruling

herein:
1. Death of the 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.”34

 
Thus, upon Catigtig’s death pending appeal of his
conviction, his criminal liability is extinguished inasmuch
as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused.35
As such, the criminal cases against him should be
dismissed and declared closed and terminated.
 WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision
dated October 28, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 01393 is hereby AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATIONS as follows:

_______________

33  G.R. No. 218809, August 3, 2016, 799 SCRA 507.

34  Id., citing People v. Bayotas, G.R. No. 102007, September 2, 1994,

12 of 14 09/08/2019, 10:48 am
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 827 file:///C:/Users/SUE/Desktop/157_files/saved_resource.html

236 SCRA 239, 255-256.

35  Id.

 
 
169

VOL. 157, JUNE 7, 2017 169

People vs. Jao

(a) In CRIMINAL CASE NO. 19189, accused-appellant

Allan Jao y Calonia is found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Delivery of
Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Section
5, Article II of RA 9165, and accordingly, sentenced to
suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine
in the amount of P500,000.00;
(b) In CRIMINAL CASE NO. 19190, accused-appellant
Allan Jao y Calonia is found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Possession of
Dangerous Drugs defined and penalized under Section
11, Article II of RA 9165, and accordingly, sentenced to
suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate
period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum
term to fourteen (14) years as maximum and to pay a
fine in the amount of P400,000.00; and
(c) CRIMINAL CASE NOS. 19187 and 19188 are hereby
DISMISSED and DECLARED CLOSED and
TERMINATED in view of the death of accused-
appellant Rogelio Catigtig y Cobio.
SO ORDERED.

Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Del

Castillo and Caguioa, JJ., concur.

Appeal denied, judgment affirmed with modifications.

Notes.—The death of the accused pending appeal of his

conviction extinguishes his criminal liability, as well as his
civil liability ex delicto. (People vs. Dionaldo, 770 SCRA 350
[2015])
The death of accused extinguishes his criminal liability;
Likewise, the civil liability of the accused arising from his
criminal liability is extinguished upon his death. (Tuano vs.
People, 804 SCRA 319 [2016])
 
——o0o——

13 of 14 09/08/2019, 10:48 am
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 827 file:///C:/Users/SUE/Desktop/157_files/saved_resource.html

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

14 of 14 09/08/2019, 10:48 am