indeterminate period of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4)
years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum, and ordered to pay
the amounts of P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, P30,000.00 as moral damages, and
P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. In addition, all monetary awards shall earn
legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum, to be reckoned from the date of
finality of this Resolution until full payment.[3]
Subsequently, the Court issued an Entry of Judgment[4] dated October 14, 2015
declaring that the aforesaid Resolution had already become final and executory.
However, the Court received a Letter[5] dated July 18, 2016 from the Bureau of
Corrections informing us of the death of accused appellant on July 30, 2015, as
evidenced
by
the
Certificate
of
Death[6]
attached
thereto.
In light of the foregoing circumstances, the Court is constrained to reopen the case
despite the finality of the August 3, 2015 Resolution. In Bigler v. People,[7] the
Court explained that it has the power to relax the doctrine of immutability of
judgment if, inter alia, there exists a special or compelling circumstance warranting
the same, viz.:
Under the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment, a decision
that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer
be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous
conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or
by the Highest Court of the land. Any act which violates this principle must
immediately be struck down. NVS.: (a) matters of life, liberty, honor, or property;
(b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (c) the merits of the case;
(d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored
by the suspension of the rules; (e) the lack of any showing that the review sought
is merely frivolous and dilatory; and (j) that the other party will not be unjustly
prejudiced thereby.[8] (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
In this case, Layag's death which occurred prior to the promulgation of the
Resolution dated August 3, 2015 - a matter which the Court was belatedly informed
of - clearly shows that there indeed exists a specfal or compelling circumstance
warranting
the
re-examination
of
the
case
despite
its
finality.
As will be explained hereunder, there is a need to reconsider and set aside said
Resolution and enter a new one dismissing the criminal cases against Layag.
Under prevailing law and jurisprudence, Layag's death prior to his final conviction
by the Court renders dismissible the criminal cases against him. Article 89 (1) of
the Revised Penal Code provides that criminal liability is totally extinguished by
the death of the accused, to wit: