Scribd
Upload
316 views2 pages

144 People v. Lipata

The appellant Gerry Lipata y Ortiza and another person repeatedly stabbed and killed Rolando Cuenco in 2005. Lipata was found guilty of murder by the trial court and ordered to pay damages. However, Lipata passed away in 2011 while his appeal was pending. The Supreme Court ruled that [1] Lipata's criminal liability for murder was extinguished by his death prior to a final judgment, and [2] his civil liability ex delicto or arising from the crime was also extinguished. [3] The victim's heirs can file a separate civil case for damages, but it cannot be based on the criminal case and must have another source of obligation.

Uploaded by

bantucin davoo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
316 views2 pages

144 People v. Lipata

The appellant Gerry Lipata y Ortiza and another person repeatedly stabbed and killed Rolando Cuenco in 2005. Lipata was found guilty of murder by the trial court and ordered to pay damages. However, Lipata passed away in 2011 while his appeal was pending. The Supreme Court ruled that [1] Lipata's criminal liability for murder was extinguished by his death prior to a final judgment, and [2] his civil liability ex delicto or arising from the crime was also extinguished. [3] The victim's heirs can file a separate civil case for damages, but it cannot be based on the criminal case and must have another source of obligation.

Uploaded by

bantucin davoo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Topic: Extinction and Survival of Civil Liability

G.R. No. 200302

April 20, 2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

vs.

GERRY LIPATA y ORTIZA, Appellant.

Facts:

Upon arriving home from work on September 1, 2005 at around 6 PM, Rolando Cuenco
immediately went to the house of her aunt, Mercelinda Valzado. Her house was only a block away from
his house. He was to ask for malunggay leaves. Larry Lipata, appellant, and a certain Rudy attacked
Rolando Cuenco by repeatedly stabbing him using a tres cantos, an ice pick and a broken piece of glass
from a Red Horse bottle.

The victim managed to take the knife away from Larry Lipata and waved this at the assailants.
Mercelinda Valzado, sister-in-law of the victim shouted for help and pleaded the assailants to stop, but
they did not stop stabbing the victim. Thereafter, the victim fell on the ground. Upon seeing the victim
fall, appellant and the other assailants left the scene.

Through the help of some neighbors, Mercelinda rushed the victim to a hospital but he was
pronounced dead on arrival. The RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Murder and to pay the heirs of the Rolando Cueno for damages. Appellant, through the Public
Attorney’s Office (PAO), filed a notice of appeal. The Quezon City Jail Warden, in a letter dated 22
October 2012, informed this Court that appellant passed away on 13 February 2011.

Issue:

Does the appellant’s death extinguish his criminal and civil liability?

Ruling:

The criminal and civil liabilities ex delicto of appellant Gerry Lipata y Ortiza are declared extinguished by
his death prior to final judgment. In 1994, this Court, in People v. Bayotas, reconciled the differing
doctrines on the issue of whether the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction
extinguishes his civil liability. The Court concluded that upon death of the accused pending appeal of his
conviction, the criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the
accused; the civil action instituted therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto
extinguished, grounded as it is on the criminal. The Court also ruled that if the private offended party,
upon extinction of the civil liability ex delicto desires to recover damages from the same act or omission
complained of, he must file a separate civil action, this time predicated not on the felony previously
charged but on other sources of obligation. The source of obligation upon which the separate civil action
is premised determines against whom the same shall be enforced.

You might also like