PERLITA RODRIGUEZ VS. LAURA ELORDE
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 226859
- Promulgated: 2024-11-04
- Ponente: ROSARIO, J.
Doctrine
## Facts of the Case A criminal Information for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code was filed against Perlita Rodriguez (Rodriguez) by Laura Elorde (Elorde). The case, docketed as Criminal Case No. 15-1124, was initially assigned to RTC Branch 257, which dismissed it for lack of probable cause. Elorde filed an Entry of Appearance with Motion for Reconsideration and a Motion to Inhibit, leading to the re-raffle of the case to RTC Branch 196. Judge Luna of RTC Branch 196 granted Elorde's Motion for Reconsideration, ordered the continuation of litigation, and directed the issuance of an arrest warrant for Rodriguez. Rodriguez filed an Omnibus Motion seeking reconsideration of the December 7, 2015 Order and to quash the Information, arguing that the facts charged did not constitute an offense. This motion was denied by RTC Branch 196. Rodriguez then filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in finding probable cause, especially since she claimed ownership of the property and did not receive money in trust or commission. She also argued that Elorde's Motion for Reconsideration was filed beyond the reglementary period. The CA dismissed Rodriguez's Petition for Certiorari, ruling that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion and that a Petition for Certiorari was an improper remedy against the denial of a motion to quash. Rodriguez's subsequent motion for reconsideration with the CA was denied. Rodriguez then filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the petition before the Supreme Court, Rodriguez died. ## Issues 1. Whether the criminal case against Perlita Rodriguez for estafa should be dismissed due to her death, which occurred during the pendency of the petition. 2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Rodriguez's Petition for Certiorari challenging the RTC's denial of her Motion to Quash the Information. ## Decision / Rationale **Issue 1:** The criminal case against Perlita Rodriguez is **DISMISSED** due to her death. The Court noted that Rodriguez's death occurred during the pendency of the petition, rendering the case moot and academic. Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code explicitly states that criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict. Citing **People v. Monroyo** and **People v. Culas**, the Court reiterated that the death of the accused pending appeal extinguishes criminal liability, as well as civil liability based solely thereon. Since the petition questions the propriety of the criminal case against Rodriguez, her death extinguishes the criminal action as there is no longer an accused. **Issue 2:** The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing Rodriguez's Petition for Certiorari. The Court agreed with the CA's ruling that Rodriguez resorted to an improper remedy when she filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 to question the denial of her Motion to Quash the Information. Citing **People v. Ramoy**, the Court held that an order denying a Motion to Quash is interlocutory in nature and not appealable. Generally, it cannot be the subject of a special civil action for certiorari due to the availability of other remedies. The proper remedy is for the accused to proceed to trial, and if convicted, to appeal the final judgment and assign the denial of the motion to quash as an error. ## Doctrines - **Extinction of Criminal Liability by Death**: Criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict, especially when it occurs before final judgment. - **Interlocutory Order**: An order denying a motion to quash is an interlocutory order and is generally not appealable nor subject to a special civil action for certiorari, as there are other remedies available in the ordinary course of law. - **Remedy for Denial of Motion to Quash**: The remedy against the denial of a motion to quash is to enter a plea,…
Keywords
Article 315, paragraph 2(a) Revised Penal Code, Rule 137, Section 1 Rules of Court, Article 89 Revised Penal Code, Article 1157 Civil Code, Article 1155 Civil Code, Rule 111, Section 1 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 65 Rules of Court, death of accused extinguishes criminal liability, civil liability ex delicto survives if based on other sources of obligation, estafa, extinction of criminal liability, probable cause, motion to quash, certiorari, interlocutory order, motion for reconsideration, special civil action, moot and academic, final judgment, criminal case dismissed