THIRD DIVISION criminal act which is sought to be repaired thru the imposition of the

corresponding penalty and the second is the personal injury caused to the
G.R. Nos. 191370-71, August 10, 2015 victim of the crime which injury is sought to be compensated thru
indemnity, which is civil in nature. (Ramos v. Gonong, 72 SCRA 559) As
early as 1913, this Court in U.S. v. Heery (25 Phil. 600) made it clear that
RODOLFO BASILONIA, LEODEGARIO CATALAN AND JOHN BASILONIA,
the civil liability of the accused is not part of the penalty for the crime
Petitioners, v. HON. DELANO F. VLLLARUZ, ACTING IN HIS CAPACITY AS committed. It is personal to the victim. x x x. Under Article 112 of the RPC,
PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ROXAS CITY, BRANCH 16, civil liability established in Articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of the Code
AND DIXON ROBLETE, Respondents.
_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.
G.R. Nos. 191370-71. August 10, 2015.*

RODOLFO BASILONIA, LEODEGARIO CATALAN and JOHN

490
BASILONIA, petitioners, vs. HON. DELANO F. VILLARUZ, acting
in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Roxas 490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
City, Branch 16, and DIXON ROBLETE, respondents. Basilonia vs. Villaruz
shall be extinguished in the same manner as other obligations, in
Criminal Law; Prescription of Penalties; Tanega v. Masakayan, et al., accordance with the provisions of the Civil Law. Since the Civil Code is the
19 SCRA 564 (1967), expounded on the rule that the culprit should escape governing law, the provisions of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure,
during the term of imprisonment in order for prescription of penalty particularly Section 6, Rule 39 thereof, is applicable. It states: Section
imposed by final sentence to commence to run.As early as 1952, in Infante 6. Execution by motion or by independent action.A final and executory
v. Provincial Warden of Negros Occidental, 92 Phil. 310, the Court already judgment or order may be executed on motion within five (5) years from the
opined that evasion of service of sentence is an essential element of date of its entry. After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the
prescription of penalties. Later, Tanega v. Masakayan, et al., 19 SCRA 564 statute of limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action. The revived
(1967), expounded on the rule that the culprit should escape during the judgment may also be enforced by motion within five (5) years from the
term of imprisonment in order for prescription of penalty imposed by final date of its entry and thereafter by action before it is barred by the statute
sentence to commence to run, thus: x x x The period of prescription of of limitations. (6a)
penalties so the succeeding Article 93 provides shall commence to Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Judgments; Revival of Judgments; An
run from the date when the culprit should evade the service of his sentence. action for revival of judgment is not intended to reopen any issue affecting
Same; Civil Liability; Elementary is the rule that every person the merits of the case or the propriety or correctness of the first judgment.
criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.Elementary is the rule An action for revival of judgment is not intended to reopen any issue
that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. We said affecting the merits of the case or the propriety or correctness of the first
in one case: It bears repeating that an offense as a general rule causes two judgment. The purpose is not to reexamine and retry issues already decided
(2) classes of injuries the first is the social injury produced by the but to revive the judgment; its cause of action is the judgment itself and not
the merits of the original action. However, being a mere right of action, the Same; Criminal Procedure; Judgments; Aside from the civil indemnity
judgment sought to be revived is subject to defenses and counterclaims like arising from the crime, costs and incidental expenses of the suit are part of
matters of jurisdiction and those arising after the finality of the first the judgment and it is incumbent upon the prevailing party in whose favor
judgment or which may have arisen subsequent to the date it became they are awarded to submit forthwith the itemized bill to the clerk of court.
effective such as prescription, payment, or counterclaims arising out of Aside from the civil indemnity arising from the crime, costs and incidental
transactions not connected with the former controversy. expenses of the suit are part of the judgment and it is incumbent upon the
Same; Same; Same; Writ of Execution; Once a judgment becomes final, prevailing party in whose favor they are awarded to submit forthwith the
the prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to a writ of execution the itemized bill to the clerk of court. Manifestly, the heirs of Atty. Roblete
issuance of which is the trial courts ministerial duty, compellable by failed to do so. Their indifference, if not negligence, is indicative of lack of
mandamus.Once a judgment becomes final, the prevailing party is interest in executing the decision rendered in their favor. To remind, the
entitled as a matter of right to a writ of execution the issuance of which is purpose of the law in prescribing time limitations for executing judgments
the trial courts ministerial duty, compellable by mandamus. Yet, a writ or orders is to prevent obligors from sleeping on their rights. Indeed,
issued after the expiration of the period is null and void. The limitation that inaction may be construed as a waiver.
a judgment be enforced by execution within the stated period, otherwise it Same; Same; Same; It is opportune to remind judges that once a
loses efficacy, goes to the very jurisdiction of the court. Failure to object to judgment of conviction becomes final and executory, the trial court has the
a writ issued after such period does not validate it, for the reason that ministerial duty to immediately execute the penalty of imprisonment and/or
jurisdiction of courts is solely conferred by law and not by express or pecuniary penalty (fine). A motion to execute judgment of conviction is not
implied will of the parties. Nonetheless, jurisprudence is replete with necessary.It is opportune to remind judges that once a judgment of
conviction becomes final and executory, the trial court has the ministerial
duty to immediately execute the penalty of imprisonment and/or pecuniary
penalty (fine). A motion to execute judgment of conviction is not necessary.
491 With respect to the penalty of imprisonment, the trial court should cancel
VOL. 765, AUGUST 10, 2015 491 the bail bond and issue a warrant of arrest, if the accused is not yet under
Basilonia vs. Villaruz detention. If the convicted accused is already under detention by virtue of
a number of exceptions wherein the Court, on meritorious grounds, the warrant of arrest issued, the trial court should immediately issue the
allowed execution of judgment despite nonobservance of the time bar. corresponding mittimus or commitment order for the immediate
In Lancita, et al. v. Magbanua, et al., 7 SCRA 42 (1963), it was held: In
computing the time limited for suing out an execution, although there is
492
authority to the contrary, the general rule is that there should not be
included the time when execution is stayed, either by agreement of the 492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
parties for a definite time, by injunction, by the taking of an appeal or writ Basilonia vs. Villaruz
of error so as to operate as a supersedeas, by the death of a party, or transfer of the accused to the National Penitentiary to serve his
otherwise. Any interruption or delay occasioned by the debtor will extend sentence, if the penalty imposed requires the service of sentence in the
the time within which the writ may be issued without scire facias. National Penitentiary. The commitment order should state that an appeal
had been filed, but the same had been withdrawn/dismissed/decided with
finality.
Same; Civil Procedure; Judgments; If aside from the penalty of 493
imprisonment the penalty of fine is likewise imposed, the trial court should VOL. 765, AUGUST 10, 2015 493
issue at once an order requiring the payment of fine within a reasonable Basilonia vs. Villaruz
period of time and, in case of nonpayment and subsidiary imprisonment is
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.
imposed, he should likewise serve the subsidiary imprisonment.If aside
from the penalty of imprisonment the penalty of fine is likewise imposed, The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
the trial court should issue at once an order requiring the payment of fine Cartagena and Associates for petitioners.
within a reasonable period of time and, in case of nonpayment and
subsidiary imprisonment is imposed, he should likewise serve the DECISION
subsidiary imprisonment. If, however, the penalty is only fine and the
judgment has become final and executory, an order should be issued by the PERALTA, J.:
trial court at once for the payment of the fine. And in case of nonpayment,
the bail bond previously issued for his provisional liberty should be The lone issue for resolution in this petition for certiorari under Rule
cancelled and a warrant of arrest should be issued to serve the subsidiary 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules) with prayer
imprisonment, if there is any. for the issuance of preliminary injunction and/or temporary
Same; Criminal Procedure; Judgments; In cases where the accused is restraining order is the applicability of Section 6, Rule 39 of the
a detention prisoner, i.e., those convicted of capital offenses or convicted of Rules in criminal cases. Specifically, does a trial court have
noncapital offenses where bail is denied, or refused to post bail, jurisdiction to grant a motion for execution which was filed almost
a mittimus or commitment order should be immediately issued after the twenty (20) years after the date of entry of judgment? In his
promulgation of judgment by the trial court as long as the penalty imposed Orders dated December 3, 20091 and January 4, 2010,2 respondent
requires the service of sentence in the National Penitentiary.In cases Judge Delano F. Vi11aruz of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Roxas
where the accused is a detention prisoner, i.e., those convicted of capital City, Branch 16, held in the affirmative.3 We sustain in part.
offenses or convicted of noncapital offenses where bail is denied, or refused
to post bail, a mittimus or commitment order should be immediately issued The Facts
after the promulgation of judgment by the trial court as long as the penalty
imposed requires the service of sentence in the National Penitentiary. The On June 19, 1987, a Decision4 was promulgated against petitioners
filing of a motion for reconsideration, motion for new trial, or notice of in Criminal Case Nos. 1773, 1774 and 1775, the dispositive portion
appeal should not stop the lower court from performing its ministerial duty of which states:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
in issuing the commitment order, unless a special order has been issued by
the Court in specific cases to the effect that the convicted accused shall WHEREFORE, and in view of the foregoing considerations, this court
remain under detention in the provincial jail or city jail while the motion is finds the [accused] Rodolfo Basilonia, Leodegario Catalan, and John
being heard or resolved. "Jojo" Basilonia, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, as
principals in Criminal Case No. 1773 for the murder of Atty. Isagani
Roblete on September 15, 1983 in Roxas City, Philippines, defined
under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, On January 23, 1989, the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the
without any aggravating or mitigating circumstance, and sentences appeal for failure of petitioners to file their brief despite extensions
the said [accused] to suffer an indeterminate sentence of 12 years, of time given.7redarclaw
1 month and 1 day of reclusion temporal as minimum, to 20 years,
and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum, and the accessory The Resolution was entered in the Book of Entries of Judgment on
penalties thereto; to pay and [indemnify], jointly and severally, the September 18, 1989.8 Thereafter, the entire case records were
heirs of the deceased Atty. Isagani Roblete the sum of 1!32,100.00 remanded to the trial court on October 4, 1989.9redarclaw
representing funeral expenses, tomb, burial, and expenses for
wake; the sum of 1!30,000.00 as indemnity for the death of Atty. Almost two decades passed from the entry of judgment, on May
Isagani Roblete; the amount of lost income cannot be determined 11, 2009, private respondent Dixon C. Roblete, claiming to be the
as the net income of the deceased cannot be ascertained; and to son of the deceased victim, Atty. Roblete, filed a Motion for
pay the costs of suit. [Accused] Vicente Catalan and Jory Catalan Execution of Judgment.10redarclaw
are ACQUITTED for lack of evidence.
He alleged, among others, that despite his request to the City
In Criminal Case No. 1775 for Frustrated Murder, this court finds Prosecutor to file a motion for execution, the judgment has not
the accused John "Jojo" Basilonia GUlLTY BEYOND REASONABLE been enforced because said prosecutor has not acted upon his
DOUBT of the crime of Frustrated Homicide, as principal, committed request.
against the person of Rene Gonzales on September 15, 1983,
defined under Article 249, in relation to Articles 6 and 50 of the Pursuant to the trial court's directive, the Assistant City Prosecutor
Revised Penal Code and sentences the said accused to suffer an filed on May 22, 2009 an Omnibus Motion for Execution of
indeterminate sentence of 2 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision Judgment and Issuance of Warrant of Arrest.11redarclaw
[correccional] as minimum, to 6 years, and 1 day of prision mayor
as maximum; and to pay the costs. [Accused] Rodolfo Basilonia, On July 24, 2009, petitioners filed before the CA a Petition for Relief
Leodegario Catalan, Vicente Catalan and Jory Catalan are of Judgment praying to set aside the June 19, 1987 trial court
ACQUITTED for lack of evidence. Decision and the January 23, 1989 CA Resolution.12 Further, on
September 1, 2009, they filed before the trial court a Manifestation
In Criminal Case No. 1774 for Illegal Possession of Firearm, all and Supplemental Opposition to private respondent Roblete's
[accused] are ACQUITTED for insufficiency of evidence. motion.13redarclaw

SO ORDERED.5 The trial court granted the motion for execution on December 3,
2009 and ordered the bondsmen to surrender petitioners within ten
Petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal on July 30, 1987, which the trial (10) days from notice of the Order. The motion for
court granted on August 3, 1987.6redarclaw reconsideration14filed by petitioners was denied on January 4,
2010.
Due to petitioners' failure to appear in court after the expiration of
the period granted to their bondsmen, the bail for their provisional ARTICLE 93. Computation of the Prescription of Penalties.- The
liberty was ordered forfeited on January 25, 2010.15 On even date, period of prescription of penalties shall commence to run from the
the sheriff issued the writ of execution.16redarclaw date when the culprit should evade the service of his sentence, and
it shall be interrupted if the defendant should give himself up, be
The Court's Ruling captured, should go to some foreign country with which this
Government has no extradition treaty, or should commit another
The determination of whether respondent trial court committed crime before the expiration of the period of prescription.
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in granting a motion for execution which was filed
As early as 1952, in Infante v. Provincial Warden of Negros
almost twenty (20) years after a judgment in a criminal case
Occidental,18 the Court already opined that evasion of service of
became final and executory necessarily calls for the resolution of
sentence is an essential element of prescription of penalties.
the twin issues of whether the penalty of imprisonment already
Later, Tanega v. Masakayan, et al.19 expounded on the rule that
prescribed and the civil liability arising from the crime already
the culprit should escape during the term of imprisonment in order
extinguished. In both issues, petitioners vehemently assert that
for prescription of penalty imposed by final sentence to commence
respondent trial court has no more jurisdiction to order the
to run, thus:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
execution of judgment on the basis of Section 6, Rule 39 of the
Rules.
x x x The period of prescription of penalties- so the succeeding
Article 93 provides - "shall commence to run from the date when
We consider the issues separately.
the culprit should evade the service of his sentence."
Prescription of Penalty
What then is the concept of evasion of service of sentence? Article
157 of the Revised Penal Code furnishes the ready answer. Says
With respect to the penalty of imprisonment, Act No. 3815, or the
Article 157:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
Revised Penal Code (RPC)17governs. Articles 92 and 93 of which
ART. 157. Evasion of service of sentence. - The penalty of prision
provide:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed
ARTICLE 92. When and How Penalties Prescribe. - The penalties upon any convict who shall evade service of his sentence by
imposed by final sentence prescribe as follows:LawlibraryofCRAlaw escaping during the term of his imprisonment by reason of final
1. Death and reclusion perpetua, in twenty years; judgment. However, if such evasion or escape shall have taken
2. Other afflictive penalties, in fifteen years; place by means of unlawful entry, by breaking doors, windows,
3. Correctional penalties, in ten years; with the exception of the gates, walls, roofs, or floors, or by using picklocks, false keys,
penalty of arresto mayor, which prescribes in five years; disguise, deceit, violence or intimidation, or through connivance
4. Light penalties, in one year. with other convicts or employees of the penal institution, the
penalty shall be prision correccional in its maximum period. significant. What remains reproduced in Article 93 of the Revised
Penal Code is solely "quebrantamiento de Ia condena". And,
Elements of evasion of service of sentence are: (1) the offender is "quebrantamiento" or "evasion" means escape. Reason dictates
a convict by final judgment; (2) he "is serving his sentence which that one can escape only after he has started service of sentence.
consists in deprivation of liberty"; and (3) he evades service of
sentence by escaping during the term of his sentence. This must be Even under the old law, Viada emphasizes, where the penalty
so. For, by the express terms of the statute, a convict evades consists of imprisonment, prescription shall only begin to run when
"service of his sentence" by "escaping during the term of his he escapes from confinement. Says Viada:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
imprisonment by reason of final judgment." That escape should "El tiempo de la prescripcion empieza a contarse desde el dia en
take place while serving sentence, is emphasized by the provisions que ha tenido Iugar la notificacion personal de la sentencia firme al
of the second sentence of Article 157 which provides for a higher reo: el Codigo de 1850 no expresaba que la notificacion hubiese de
penalty if such "evasion or escape shall have taken place by means ser personal, pues en su art. 126 se consigna que el termino de Ia
of unlawful entry, by breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs, prescripcion se cuenta desde que se notifique la sentencia, causa
or floors, or by using picklocks, false keys, disguise, deceit, de la ejecutoria en que se imponga le pena respectiva. Luego
violence or intimidation, or through connivance with other convicts ausente el reo, ya no podra prescribir hoy Ia pena, pues que Ia
or employees of the penal institution, * * *" Indeed, evasion of notificacion personal no puede ser sup/ida por Ia notificacion hecha
sentence is but another expression of the term "jail breaking." en estrados. Dada la imprescindible necesidad del requisito de la
A dig into legal history confirms the views just expressed. The notificacion personal, es obvio que en las penas que consisten en
Penal Code of Spain of 1870 in its Article 134 - from whence privacion de libertad solo podra existir Ia prescripcion
Articles 92 and 93 of the present Revised Penal Code originated- quebrantando el reo Ia condena, pues que si no se hallare ya preso
reads:LawlibraryofCRAlaw preventivamente, debera siempre procederse a su encerrarniento
"Las penas impuestas por sentencia firme prescriben: Las de en el acto de serle notificada personalmente la sentencia."
muerte y cadena perpetua, a los veinte aos. We, therefore, rule that for prescription of penalty of imprisonment
imposed by final sentence to commence to run, the culprit should
*** escape during the term of such imprisonment.20

Las leves, al ao. Following Tanega, Del Castillo v. Hon. Torrecampo21 held that one
who has not been committed to prison cannot be said to have
El tiempo de esta prescripcion comenzara a correr desde el dia en escaped therefrom. We agree with the position of the Solicitor
que se notifique personalmente al reo la sentencia firme, o desde el General that "escape" in legal parlance and for purposes of Articles
quebrantamiento de la condena, si hubiera esta comenzado a 93 and 157 of the RPC means unlawful departure of prisoner from
cumplirse. * * *" Note that in the present Article 93 the words the limits of his custody.
"desde el dia en que se notifique personalmente al reo la sentencia
firme", written in the old code, were deleted. The omission is Of more recent vintage is Our pronouncements in Pangan v. Hon.
Gatbalite,22 which cited Tanega and Del Castillo, that the accused is not part of the penalty for the crime committed. It
prescription of penalties found in Article 93 of the RPC applies only is personal to the victim. x x x.
to those who are convicted by final judgment and are serving
sentence which consists in deprivation of liberty, and that the Under Article 112 of the RPC, civil liability established in Articles
period for prescription of penalties begins only when the convict 100,25 101,26 102,27 and 10328 of the Code shall be extinguished in
evades service of sentence by escaping during the term of his the same manner as other obligations, in accordance with the
sentence. provisions of the Civil Law. Since the Civil Code is the governing
law, the provisions of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure,
Applying existing jurisprudence in this case, the Court, therefore, particularly Section 6, Rule 39 thereof, is applicable. It
rules against petitioners. For the longest time, they were never states:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
brought to prison or placed in confinement despite being sentenced
to imprisonment by final judgment. Prescription of penalty of Section 6. Execution by motion or by independent action. - A final
imprisonment does not run in their favor. Needless to state, and executory judgment or order may be executed on motion
respondent trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in within five (5) years from the date of its entry. After the lapse of
assuming jurisdiction over the motion for execution and in such time, and before it is barred by the statute of limitations, a
eventually granting the same. judgment may be enforced by action. The revived judgment may
also be enforced by motion within five (5) years from the date of its
Extinction of Civil Liability entry and thereafter by action before it is barred by the statute of
limitations. (6a)
The treatment of petitioners' civil liability arising from the offense Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules must be read in conjunction with
committed is different.
Articles 1144 (3) and 1152 of the Civil Code, which
Elementary is the rule that every person criminally liable for a provide:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
felony is also civilly liable.23 We said in one
case:LawlibraryofCRAlaw Art. 1144. The following actions must be brought within ten years
from the time the right of action accrues:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
It bears repeating that "an offense as a general rule causes two (2)
classes of injuries - the first is the social injury produced by the xxxx
criminal act which is sought to be repaired thru the imposition of
the corresponding penalty and the second is the personal injury (3) Upon a judgment
caused to the victim of the crime which injury is sought to be
compensated thru indemnity, which is civil in nature." (Ramos v. Art. 1152. The period for prescription of actions to demand the
Gonong, 72 SCRA 559). As early as 1913, this Court in US. v. fulfillment of obligations declared by a judgment commences from
Heery (25 Phil. 600) made it clear that the civil liability of the the time the judgment became final.
 limitation that a judgment be enforced by execution within the
Based on the foregoing, there are two (2) modes of enforcing a stated period, otherwise it loses efficacy, goes to the very
final and executory judgment or order: through motion or by jurisdiction of the court. Failure to object to a writ issued after such
independent action. period does not validate it, for the reason that jurisdiction of courts
is solely conferred by law and not by express or implied will of the
These two modes of execution are available depending on the parties.35redarclaw
timing when the judgment creditor invoked its right to enforce the
court's judgment. Execution by motion is only available if the Nonetheless, jurisprudence is replete with a number of exceptions
enforcement of the judgment was sought within five (5) wherein the Court, on meritorious grounds, allowed execution of
years from the date of its entry. On the other hand, execution judgment despite non-observance of the time bar. In Lancita, et al.
by independent action is mandatory if the five-year prescriptive v. Magbanua, et al.36 it was held:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
period for execution by motion had already elapsed. However, for
execution by independent action to prosper - the Rules impose ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
another limitation - the action must be filed before it is barred by
the statute of limitations which, under the Civil Code, is ten (10) In computing the time limited for suing out an execution, although
years from the finality of the judgment.29 there is authority to the contrary, the general rule is that there
should not be included the time when execution is stayed, either by
An action for revival of judgment is not intended to reopen any agreement of the parties for a definite time, by injunction, by the
issue affecting the merits of the case or the propriety or taking of an appeal or writ of error so as to operate as a
correctness of the first judgment.30 The purpose is not to re- supersedeas, by the death of a party, or otherwise. Any
examine and re-try issues already decided but to revive the interruption or delay occasioned by the debtor will extend the time
judgment; its cause of action is the judgment itself and not the within which the writ may be issued without scire facias. x x x.37
merits of the original action.31 However, being a mere right of
action, the judgment sought to be revived is subject to defenses Thus, the demands of justice and fairness were contemplated in the
and counterclaims like matters of jurisdiction and those arising following instances: dilatory tactics and legal maneuverings of the
after the finality of the first judgment or which may have arisen judgment obligor which redounded to its benefit;38 agreement of
subsequent to the date it became effective such as prescription, the parties to defer or suspend the enforcement of the
payment, or counterclaims arising out of transactions not judgment;39 strict application of the rules would result in injustice
connected with the former controversy.32redarclaw to the prevailing party to whom no fault could be attributed but
relaxation thereof would cause no prejudice to the judgment obligor
Once a judgment becomes final, the prevailing party is entitled as a who did not question the judgment sought to be executed;40 and
matter of right to a writ of execution the issuance of which is the the satisfaction of the judgment was already beyond the control of
trial court's ministerial duty, compellable by mandamus.33 Yet, a the prevailing party as he did what he was supposed to
writ issued after the expiration of the period is null and void.34 The do.41 Essentially, We allowed execution even after the prescribed
period elapsed when the delay is caused or occasioned by actions indifference, if not negligence, is indicative of lack of interest in
of the judgment debtor and/or is incurred for his benefit or executing the decision rendered in their favor. To remind, the
advantage.42redarclaw purpose of the law in prescribing time limitations for executing
judgments or orders is to prevent obligors from sleeping on their
In the instant case, it is obvious that the heirs of Atty. Roblete did rights.46 Indeed, inaction may be construed as a waiver.47redarclaw
not file a motion for execution within the five-year period or an
action to revive the judgment within the ten-year period. Worse, To close, the Court cannot help but impress that this case could
other than the bare allegation that the judgment has not been have been averted had the lower court been a competent dispenser
enforced because the public prosecutor has not acted on the of justice. It is opportune to remind judges that once a judgment of
request to file a motion for execution, no persuasive and compelling conviction becomes final and executory, the trial court has the
reason was presented to warrant the exercise of Our equity ministerial duty to immediately execute the penalty of
jurisdiction. Unfortunately for private respondent Roblete, the imprisonment and/or pecuniary penalty (fine). A motion to execute
instant case does not fall within the exceptions afore-stated. It judgment of conviction is not necessary. With respect to the
cannot be claimed that the delay in execution was entirely beyond penalty of imprisonment, the trial court should cancel the bail bond
their control or that petitioners have any hand in causing the and issue a warrant of arrest, if the accused is not yet under
same.43 As regards the civil aspect of a criminal case is concerned, detention. If the convicted accused is already under detention by
it is apt to point that virtue of the warrant of arrest issued, the trial court should
immediately issue the corresponding mittimus or commitment
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary order for the immediate transfer of the accused to the National
Litigants represented by counsel should not expect that all they Penitentiary to serve his sentence, if the penalty imposed requires
need to do is sit back and relax, and await the outcome of their the service of sentence in the National Penitentiary. The
case. They should give the necessary assistance to their counsel, commitment order should state that an appeal had been filed, but
for at stake is their interest in the case. While lawyers are expected the same had been withdrawn/dismissed/decided with finality.
to exercise a reasonable degree of diligence and competence in
handling cases for their clients, the realities of law practice as well If aside from the penalty of imprisonment the penalty of fine is
as certain fortuitous events sometimes make it almost physically likewise imposed, the trial court should issue at once an order
impossible for lawyers to be immediately updated on a particular requiring the payment of fine within a reasonable period of time
client's case.44 and, in case of nonpayment and subsidiary imprisonment is
imposed, he should likewise serve the subsidiary imprisonment. If,
Aside from the civil indemnity arising from the crime, costs and however, the penalty is only fine and the judgment has become
incidental expenses of the suit are part of the judgment and it is final and executory, an order should be issued by the trial court at
incumbent upon the prevailing party in whose favor they are once for the payment of the fine. And in case of non-payment, the
awarded to submit forthwith the itemized bill to the clerk of bail bond previously issued for his provisional liberty should be
court.45 Manifestly, the heirs of Atty. Roblete failed to do so. Their cancelled and a warrant of arrest should be issued to serve the
subsidiary imprisonment, if there is any.
In cases where the accused is a detention prisoner, i.e., those
convicted of capital offenses or convicted of non-capital offenses
where bail is denied, or refused to post bail, a mittimus or
commitment order should be immediately issued after the
promulgation of judgment by the trial court as long as the penalty
imposed requires the service of sentence in the National
Penitentiary. The filing of a motion for reconsideration, motion for
new trial, or notice of appeal should not stop the lower court from
performing its ministerial duty in issuing the commitment order,
unless a special order has been issued by the Court in specific
cases - to the effect that the convicted accused shall remain under
detention in the provincial jail or city jail while the motion is being
heard or resolved.

In so far as the civil liability arising from the offense is concerned, a

motion for execution should be filed in accordance with Section 6,
Rule 39 of the Rules and existing jurisprudence.

WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the instant petition

for certiorari is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Orders dated
December 3, 2009 and January 25, 2010 of Presiding Judge Delano
F. Villaruz, Regional Trial Court, Roxas City, Branch 16,
are AFFIRMED IN PART only insofar as to the execution of the
penalty of imprisonment is concerned. Let the records of this case
be REMANDED to the trial court for the immediate issuance
of mittimus, pursuant to OCA Circular No. 40-2013, in relation to
OCA Circular No. 4-92-A.

The Office of the Court Administrator is hereby DIRECTED to

conduct an investigation on the possible culpability of those
responsible for the unreasonable delay in the execution of the
judgment of conviction.

SO ORDERED.cralawlawlibrary