GR No 123936

Ronald Soriano vs Court of Appeals

GR No 123936        March 4, 1999

Facts:

          Soriano was convicted of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide, serious physical injuries, and damage to property. His application for probation was granted, and among the terms and conditions imposed by the trial court are that: 1) he shall meet his family responsibilities; 2) he shall devote himself to a specific employment and shall not change employment without prior notice to the supervising officer, or pursue a prescribed secular study or vocational training; and 3) indemnify the heirs of the victim Daluyong.

          A month after, Assistant Prosecutor Fadera filed a motion to cancel the probation of Soriano due to his failure to satisfy his civil liability to the heirs of the victim, and as he also committed another crime which was pending at the time. The Zambales Parole and Probation Office filed a comment that recommended Soriano to be allowed to continue with his probation and be required instead to submit a program of payment for his civil liability. However, Soriano questioned the constitutionality of the condition for probation.

Issue:

          WON the revocation Soriano’s probation is lawful and proper.

Held:

          The Court held that the same was lawful and proper. Soriano’s refusal to comply with said orders cannot be anything but deliberate. He had notice of the orders, but up to the time being, he refused to comply with the same.

          Contrary to Soriano’s contention, the requirement is not violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The payment of the civil liability was not made a condition precedent to probation. Satisfaction of his civil liability was not made a requirement before he could avail of probation but was a condition for his continued enjoyment of the same.

          The trial court could not have done away with imposing payment of civil liability as a condition for probation. This is not an arbitrary imposition but one required by law. It is a consequence of Soriano’s having been convicted of a crime, and he is bound to satisfy this obligation regardless of whether or not he is in probation.

        The conditions set forth were not whims of the trial court but are requirement laid down by the statute. They are among the conditions that the trial court is empowered to impose and the probationer is required to follow. Only by satisfying these conditions may the purposes of probation be fulfilled. These include promoting the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by providing him with individualized treatment, and providing opportunity for the reformation of the penitent offender which might be less probable if he were to serve a prison sentence. Failure to comply will result in the revocation of the order granting probation, pursuant to Probation Law.

GR No 139930

Republic of the Philippines vs Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr., et al

GR No 139930        April 17, 2006

Facts:

Respondent Lobregat, together with the other respondents, was charged with the violation of Section 3 of RA No 3019 in the Office of the Ombudsman in her capacity as a member of the Board of Directors of the UCPB and UNICOM allegedly because these transactions allowed the other respondents unwarranted benefits and were grossly disadvantageous to the government.

During the pendency of this case, however, Lobregat died due to multi-organ failure. Counsel moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the death of Lobregat extinguishes both her criminal as well as civil liability based solely on the act complained of.

OSG opposed the motion on the ground that said death does not extinguish her civil liability because the same is not solely based on the offense committed. It maintained, under Bayotas rule, that while respondent’s death extinguishes her criminal liability, the same cannot be made to apply with regard to her civil liability. As a director of UCPB and UNICOM, she had duties and liabilities under the law and in accordance with her employment contract.

The heirs of the respondent counter that the same could not be applied in the present case because herein respondent was a mere respondent in a complaint which the Office of the Ombudsman had dismissed. They explained that even assuming Bayotas rule applies, the death of respondent extinguished her civil liability, if any, since the same could only be based on delict.

Issue:

          WON the civil liability of accused be extinguished upon her death.

Held:

         Yes. Paragraph 1 of Article 89 of the RPC specifically provides that one of the grounds for the total extinguishment of criminal, as well as civil liability, if any, is the death of a party to the case.

In the present case, the death of respondent Lobregat, which occurred during the pendency of the case and before final judgment is rendered, extinguishes whatever criminal liability she might be held responsible for as the same is purely personal to her. Consequently, the civil liability arising from whatever criminal liability may be adjudged against her is perforce extinguished.