675 Phil. 205
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
That on or about the 21st day of August 2004, in the City of Las Pinas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating with one alias Rena, Victor Catulong, Roland Baroga and alias Roger, whose true identities and whereabouts are still unknown and all of them mutually helping and aiding one another, accused OLACO being the housemaid of Ruben Vinluan y Torno, and as such enjoying the trust and confidence reposed upon her by her aforementioned employer, with intent to gain and without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof and with grave abuse of confidence, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal, and carry away the following items, to wit:
ITEMS AMOUNT Three (3) Men's Necklace Two (2) Gold Necklaces P120,000.00 One (1) White Gold Necklace 60,000.00 Three (3) Men's Bracelet Two (2) Gold Bracelets 50,000.00 One (1) Two-tone Bracelet (Gold and White Gold) 45,000.00 Ashworth Bracelet (brown) 10,000.00 US Dollar 1,000 cash, in peso equivalent 55,000.00 One Men's White Gold with 8 diamond (20K) 120,000.00 One (1) set Earring and Pendant Egg shape South Sea Pearl with diamonds 60,000.00 One (1) GUCCI Ladies Watch 250,000.00 One (1) DKNY Ladies Watch 15,000.00 One (1) Cartier Ladies Watch 35,000.00 One (1) set of Necklace & Bracelet 24K Gold 40,000.00 One (1) Solid Gold 24K Necklace 25,000.00 One (1) Pendant with 3 diamonds each .51K 25,000.00 One (1) Gold 18K Chain 10,000.00 One (1) 18K Gold Chain with Pendant Blessed Virgin 18,000.00 One (1) Bracelet 24K twisted design 12,000.00 One (1) 18K Gold Chain 18 inches long With 18K Cross Pendant 20,000.00 One (1) Bundle New Bills P20 denominator 2,000.00 One (1) bag of coins P1.00 100.00
belonging to Ruben Vinluan y Torno to the damage and prejudice of the aforenamed owner thereof in the total amount of P972,100.00.[3]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds the accused JULIET OLACO y POLER GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Theft as defined and penalized under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, and hereby sentences said accused to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. She is likewise ordered to indemnify the offended party in the sum of Nine Hundred Seventy-two Thousand One Hundred Pesos (Php972,100.00) representing the total value of the cash and jewelry taken by the accused without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, with costs.[4]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 05 March 2007 of the Regional Trial Court of Las Pinas City, Branch 198 in Crim. Case No. 04-0746 finding accused-appellant Juliet Olaco y Poler guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Theft under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that accused-appellant is hereby ordered to pay private complainant Ruben Vinluan the reduced amount of Php200,000.00, as actual damages.[6]
Applying the foregoing provision, we laid down the following guidelines in People v. Bayotas[11]:
- 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.
- 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."
- Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of [the] 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
x x x x
e) Quasi-delicts- Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above, an action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. This 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 as explained above.
- 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 [the] provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil Code, that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible privation of right by prescription.[12]