asilo v. people

8/12/2019 asilo v. people

1/22

FIRST DIVISION

PAULINO S. ASILO, JR.,

Petitioner,

-versus-

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and Spouses

VISITACION AND CESAR C.

BOMBASI,

Respondents.

xx

VICTORIA BUETA VDA.DE COMENDADOR, IN

REPRESENTATION OF DEMETRIO T.

COMENDADOR,

!.R. Nos.

"#$%"&"'


2/22

Petitioner,

-versus-

VISITACION C. BOMBASI AND CESAR C.BOMBASI,

Respondents.

!.R. No. "#$%#$

Present:

CORONA, C.J.,

Chairperson

,

CARPIOMORALES,*

VELASCO, JR.,

DEL CASILLO,

and

PERE!,JJ.

Pro"#$%ated:

Ma()* $, +%""

x x

D E C I S I O N


3/22

PERE, J.-

At bench are appeals by certiorari[1] from the Decision[2] of the Fourth

Division of the Sandiganbayan; (1 finding Demetrio !" #omendador[$]

(%ayor#omendador and &aulino S" Asilo' r"[)]guilty beyond reasonable doubt of

violation of Sec" $(e of *epublic Act +o" $,1-; (2 dismissing the cases against

accused Alberto S" Angeles;[.]($ ordering the defendants %unicipality of

+agcarlan' /aguna' Demetrio !" #omendador and &aulino S" Asilo' r" to pay the

plaintiffs no0 respondents isitacion #" ombasi (isitacion and #esar #"

ombasi damages; and () dismissing the cases against the spouses Alida and

!eddy #oro3a[4]and enita and 5sagani #oronado"[6]

!he factual antecedents of the case are7

8n 1. %arch 1-69' &rivate *espondent isitacion:s late mother

%arciana Vda.De #oronado (Vda. De #oronado and the %unicipality of

+agcarlan' /aguna (represented by the then %unicipal %ayor #risostomo &"

%analang entered into a lease contract 0hereby the %unicipality allo0ed the use

and enoyment of property comprising of a lot and a store located at the corner of

#oronado and over the store 0hen her mother died sometime in 1-9)"[-] From then on up to anuary 1--$' isitacion secured the yearly %ayor:s

permits"[1,]

Sometime in 1-94' a fire ra3ed the public mar>et of +agcarlan" @ponisitacion:s reuest for inspection on 1. %ay 1-94' District


4/22

!he store of isitacion continued to operate after the fire until 1. 8ctober

1--$"

8n 1 September 1--$' isitacion received a letter[12]from %ayor

#omendador directing her to demolish her store 0ithin five (. days from

notice" Attached to the letter 0ere copies of Sangguniang Bayan*esolution +o"

1.4[1$]dated $, August 1--$ and a %emorandum issued by Asst" &rovincial

&rosecutor %arianito Sasondoncillo of /aguna"

!he relevant provisos of the *esolution +o" 1.4 states that7

+8C !et; and ($ in case her proposals are not acceptable to %ayor#omendador' for the latter to ust file an unla0ful detainer case against her

pursuant to Sangguniang Bayan*esolution +o" 1.4" &ertinent portions of the letter

read7

= = = Cith all due respect to the resolution of the %unicipal #ouncil and the

opinion rendered by the /aguna Asst" &rovincial &rosecutor' it is my consideredvie0' ho0ever' arrived at after consultation 0ith my legal counsel' that our

e=isting lease contract is still legally binding and in full force and effect" /est 5

appear to be defiant' let me reiterate to you and the council that 0e are 0illing to

vacate the said building provided that a ne0 contract is e=ecuted granting to usthe same space or lot and the same area" 5 believe that our proposal is most

reasonable and fair under the circumstance" 5f you are not amenable to the said

proposal' 5 concur 0ith the position ta>en by the #ouncil for you to file theappropriate action in court for unla0ful detainer to enable our court to finally

thresh out our differences"[1)]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/159017-18.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/159017-18.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/159017-18.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/159017-18.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/159017-18.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/159017-18.htm#_ftn14


5/22

8n 1. September 1--$' Asst" &rovincial &rosecutor Florencio uyser sent a

letter to isitacion ordering her to vacate the portion of the public mar>et she 0as

occupying 0ithin 1. days from her receipt of the letter; else' a court action 0ill be

filed against her"

8n 11 8ctober 1--$' the Sangguniang Bayanof +agcarlan' /aguna issued

*esolution +o" 19$ authori3ing %ayor #omendador to demolish the store being

occupied by isitacion using legal means" !he significant portion of the

*esolution reads7

Kung kaya ang Sangguniang Bayan ay buong pagkakaisang IPINASIYA:

Ang pagbibigay kapangyarihan kay Kgg. Demetrio . !omendador na ipagiba

ang anumang istrakturang nagiging sagaba" sa mabi"is at maayos na

pagbabangon ng pami"ihang bayan.[15]

8n 1) 8ctober 1--$' %unicipal Administrator &aulino S" Asilo' r" (Asilo

also sent a letter[14]to isitacion informing her of the impending demolition of her

store the ne=t day" Cithin the same day' isitacion 0rote a reply letter[16]to Asilo'

alleging that there is no legal right to demolish the store in the absence of a court

order and that the *esolutions did not sanction the demolition of her store but only

the filing of an appropriate unla0ful detainer case against her" She further replied

that if the demolition 0ill ta>e place' appropriate administrative' criminal and civil

actions 0ill be filed against %ayor #omendador' Asilo and all persons 0ho 0ill

ta>e part in the demolition"

8n 1. 8ctober 1--$' %ayor #omendador relying on the strength

of Sangguniang Bayan*esolution +os" 19$ and 1.4 authori3ed the demolition of

the store 0ith Asilo and Angeles supervising the 0or>"


6/22

1" *no0n as the AntiEBraft and #orrupt &ractices ActG before the

8ffice of the 8mbudsman" 8n 22 February 1--4' an 5nformation[22]against

%ayor #omendador' Asilo and Angeles 0as filed' 0hich reads7

!hat on or about 8ctober 1.' 1--$' at +agcarlan' /aguna' &hilippines' and

0ithin the urisdiction of this onorable #ourt' the aboveEnamed accused' allpublic officers' accused Demetrio !" #omendador' being then the %unicipal

%ayor' accused &aulino S" Asilo' r" being then the %unicipal Administrator and

accused Alberto S" Angeles being then the %unicipal &lanning and Development

#oordinator' all of the %unicipality of +agcarlan' /aguna' committing the crimeherein charged in relation to' 0hile in the performance and ta>ing advantage of

their official functions' conspiring and confederating 0ith each other' and 0ith

evident bad faith' manifest partiality or through gross ine=cusable negligence' didthen and there 0illfully' unla0fully' criminally cause the demolition of a public

mar>et stall leased by the municipal government in favor of one isitacion

#oronadoEombasi 0ithout legal or ustifiable ground therefor' thus' causing


7/22

undue inury to the latter in the amount of &


8/22

8n 29 April 2,,$' the Sandiganbayan rendered a decision' the dispositive

portion of 0hich reads as follo0s7

Cet stalls from 0hich they cannot

be validly eected 0ithout ust cause' the complaint against them is

dismissed" !he complaint against defendant spouses enita and 5sagani#oronado is li>e0ise dismissed' it appearing that they are similarly situated as thespouses #oro3a" %ean0hile' plaintiff isitacion ombasi is given the option to

accept mar>et space being given to her by the municipality' subect to her

payment of the appropriate rental and permit fees"

!he prayer for inunctive relief is denied' the same having become moot and

academic"

!he compulsory counterclaim of defendant #omendador is li>e0ise denied

for lac> of merit"[24]

Cithin the same day' Asilo' through his counsel' filed a %otion for

*econsideration[26]of the Decision alleging that there 0as only an error of

udgment 0hen he complied 0ith and implemented the order of his superior'

%ayor #omendador" e li>e0ise alleged that there is no liability 0hen a public

officer commits in good faith an error of udgment" !he Sandiganbayan' on its
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/159017-18.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/159017-18.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/159017-18.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/159017-18.htm#_ftn27


9/22

*esolution[29]dated 21 uly 2,,$ denied the %otion for *econsideration on the

ground that good faith cannot be argued to support his cause in the face of the

court:s finding that bad faith attended the commission of the offense charged" !he

#ourt further e=plained that the invocation of compliance 0ith an order of a

superior is of no moment for the demolition [order] cannot be described as having

the semblance of legality inasmuch as it 0as issued 0ithout the authority and

therefore the same 0as patently illegal"G[2-]

!he counsel for the late %ayor also filed its %otion for

*econsideration[$,]on 12 %ay 2,,$ alleging that the death of the late %ayor had

totally e=tinguished both his criminal and civil liability" !he Sandiganbayan on its

*esolution[$1]granted the %otion insofar as the e=tinction of the criminal liability

is concerned and denied the e=tinction of the civil liability holding that the civil

action is an independent civil action"

ence' these &etitions for *evie0 on !ertiorari"[$2]

&etitioner Asilo argues that in order to sustain conviction under Sec" $(e of

*epublic Act +o" $,1- or !he AntiEBraft and #orrupt &ractices Act'G the public

officer must have acted 0ith manifest partiality' evident bad faith or gross

negligence" e also contended that he and his coEaccused acted in good faith in

the demolition of the mar>et and' thereby' no liability 0as incurred"

8n the other hand' &etitioner ictoria argues that the death of %ayor

#omendador prior to the promulgation of the decision e=tinguished NOT

ONLY%ayor #omendador:s criminal liability but also his civil liability" She also

asserted good faith on the part of the accused public officials 0hen they performed

the demolition of the mar>et stall" /astly' she contended that

assuming arguendothat there 0as indeed liability on the part of the accused public

officials' the actual amount of damages being claimed by the Spouses ombasi has

no basis and 0as not duly substantiated"

Liability of the accused public officials

under Republic Act No. 3019

Se&tion '(e) o Rep#+$i& A&t No. ' pro/ides:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/159017-18.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/159017-18.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/159017-18.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/159017-18.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/159017-18.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/159017-18.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/159017-18.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/159017-18.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/159017-18.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/159017-18.htm#_ftn32


10/22

In addition to a&ts or o"issions o p#+$i& oi&ers a$read0 pena$i1ed +0 e2istin% $a3, the

o$$o3in% sha$$ &onstit#te &orr#pt pra&ti&es o an0 p#+$i& oi&er and are here+0 de&$ared to

+e #n$a3#$:

2 2 2 2

(e) Ca#sin% an0 #nd#e in4#r0 to an0 part0, in&$#din% the 5o/ern"ent, o(%i/in% an0

pri/ate part0 an0 #n3arranted +eneits, ad/anta%e or preeren&e in the dis&har%e o his

oi&ia$, ad"inistrati/e or 4#di&ia$ #n&tions *(ou/*"aniest partia$it0, e/ident +ad

aith o(%ross ine2sa+$e ne%$i%en&e. his pro/ision sha$$ app$0 to oi&ers and

e"p$o0ees o oi&es or %o/ern"ent &orporations &har%ed 3ith the %rant o $i&enses or

per"its or other &on&essions.

he e$e"ents o the oense are as o$$o3s: () that the a&sed arep#+$i& oi&ers or pri/ate persons &har%ed in &onspira&0 3ith the"6 (7) thatsaid p#+$i& oi&ers &o""it the prohi+ited a&ts d#rin% the peror"an&e otheir oi&ia$ d#ties or in re$ation to their p#+$i& positions6 (') that the0&a#sed #nd#e in4#r0 to an0 part0, 3hether the 5o/ern"ent or a pri/atepart06 (8) OR that s#&h in4#r0 is &a#sed +0 %i/in% #n3arranted +eneits,ad/anta%e or preeren&e to the other part06 and (9) that the p#+$i& oi&ersha/e a&ted 3ith "aniest partia$it0, e/ident +ad aith or %ross ine2sa+$ene%$i%en&e.'';

Ce sustain the Sandiganbayan in its finding of criminal and civil liabilities

against petitioner Asilo and petitioner %ayor #omendador as here represented by

his 0ido0 ictoria ueta"

Ce agree 0ith the Sandiganbayan that it is undisputable that the first t0o

reuisites of the criminal offense 0ere present at the time of the commission of the

complained acts and that' as to the remaining elements' there is sufficient amountof evidence to establish that there 0as an undue inury suffered on the part of the

Spouses ombasi and that the public officials concerned acted 0ith evident bad

faith 0hen they performed the demolition of the mar>et stall"

#ausing undue inury to any party' including the government' could only

mean actual injury or damage which must be established by evidence[$)]


11/22

In 4#rispr#den&e, et stall cannot be considered as a nuisanceper sebecause as

found out by the #ourt' the buildings had not been affected by the 1-94 fire" !his


12/22

finding 0as certified to by Supervising #ivil e its predecessor la0'[)2]the present /ocal Bovernment

#ode

[)$]

does not e=pressly provide for the abatement of nuisance"

[))]

And evenassuming that the po0er to abate nuisance is provided for by the present code' the

accused public officials 0ere under the facts of this case' still devoid of any po0er

to demolish the store" A closer loo> at the contested resolutions reveals that %ayor

#omendador 0as only authori3ed to file an unla0ful detainer case in case of

resistance to obey the order or to demolish the building using legal

means" #learly' the act of demolition 0ithout legal order in this case 0as not

among those provided by the resolutions' as indeed' it is a legally impossible

provision"

Furthermore' the %unicipality of +agcarlan' /aguna' as represented by thethen %ayor #omendador' 0as placed in estoppe"after it granted yearly business

permits[).]in favor of the Spouses ombasi" Art" 1)$1 of the +e0 #ivil #ode

provides that' through estoppe"' an admission or representation is rendered

conclusive upon the person ma>ing it' and cannot be denied or disproved as against

the person relying thereon" !herepresentation made by the municipality that the

Spouses ombasi had the right to continuously operate its store binds the

municipality" 5t is utterly unust for the %unicipality to receive the benefits of the

store operation and later on claim the illegality of the business"

!he bad faith of the petitioners completes the elements of the criminal

offense of violation of Sec" $(e of *epublic Act +o" $,1-" !he same bad faith

serves as the source of the civil liability of Asilo' Angeles' and %ayor

#omendador"
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/159017-18.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/159017-18.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/159017-18.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/159017-18.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/159017-18.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/159017-18.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/159017-18.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/159017-18.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/159017-18.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/159017-18.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/159017-18.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/159017-18.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/159017-18.htm#_ftn45


13/22

5t must be noted that 0hen Angeles died on 14 +ovember 1--6' a motion to

drop him as an accused 0as filed by his counsel 0ith no obection on the part of

the prosecution" !he Sandiganbayan acted favorably on the motion and issued an

8rder dismissing all the cases filed against Angeles" 8n the other hand' 0hen

%ayor #omendador died and an adverse decision 0as rendered against him 0hich

resulted in the filing of a motion for reconsideration by %ayor #omendador:s

counsel' the prosecution opposed the %otion specifying the ground that the civil

liability did not arise fromde"ict' hence' survived the death of the accused" !he

Sandiganbayan upheld the opposition of the prosecution 0hich disposition 0as not

appealed"

Ce note' first off' that the death of Angeles and of %ayor #omendador

during the pendency of the case e=tinguished their criminal liabilities"

e no3 ho$d, as did the Sandi%an+a0an that the &i/i$ $ia+i$it0 oMa0or Co"endador s#r/i/ed his death6 and that o An%e$es &o#$d ha/e$i?e3ise s#r/i/ed had it not +een or the a&t that the reso$#tion o theSandi%an+a0an that his death e2tin%#ished the &i/i$ $ia+i$it0 3as not#estioned and $apsed into ina$it0.

e $aid do3n the o$$o3in% %#ide$ines inPeople v. Bayotas:8;

Death o the a&sed pendin% appea$ o his &on/i&tion e2tin%#ishes his &ri"ina$

$ia+i$it0 as 3e$$ as the &i/i$ $ia+i$it0 +ased so$e$0 thereon. As opined +0 J#sti&e Re%a$ado,

in this re%ard, the death o the a&sed prior to ina$ 4#d%"ent ter"inates his &ri"ina$

$ia+i$it0 and on$0 the &i/i$ $ia+i$it0 dire&t$0 arisin% ro" and +ased so$e$0 on the oense

&o""itted, i.e., &i/i$ $ia+i$it0 ex delictoin senso strictiore.

Coro$$ari$0, the &$ai" or &i/i$ $ia+i$it0 s#r/i/es not3ithstandin% the death o (the)

a&sed, i the sa"e "a0 a$so +e p(ed0)aed on a sou()e o1 o230/a0on o*e(

*an delict. Arti&$e 9F o the Ci/i$ Code en#"erates these other so#r&es o o+$i%ation

ro" 3hi&h the &i/i$ $ia+i$it0 "a0 arise as a res#$t o the sa"e a&t or o"ission:

a4 La5

+) Contra&ts
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/159017-18.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/159017-18.htm#_ftn46


14/22

&) G#asi-&ontra&ts

d) A&ts or o"issions p#nished +0 $a36 and

e) G#asi-de$i&ts. (E"phasis o#rs)

here the &i/i$ $ia+i$it0 s#r/i/es, as e2p$ained a+o/e;, an a&tion or re&o/er0

thereore "a0 +e p#rs#ed +#t on$0 +0 3a0 o i$in% a separate &i/i$ a&tion 8F;and s#+4e&t to

Se&tion , R#$e o the H9 R#$es on Cri"ina$ Pro&ed#re as a"ended. his separate

&i/i$ a&tion "a0 +e enor&ed either a%ainst the e2etorad"inistrator or the estate o the

a&sed, dependin% on the so#r&e o o+$i%ation #pon 3hi&h the sa"e is +ased as

e2p$ained a+o/e.

ina$$0, the pri/ate oended part0 need not ear a oreit#re o his ri%ht to i$e this

separate &i/i$ a&tion +0 pres&ription, in &ases 3here d#rin% the prosetion o the &ri"ina$

a&tion and prior to its e2tin&tion, the pri/ate-oended part0 instit#ted to%ether there3ith

the &i/i$ a&tion. In s#&h &ase, the stat#te o $i"itations on the &i/i$ $ia+i$it0 is dee"ed

interr#pted d#rin% the penden&0 o the &ri"ina$ &ase, &onor"a+$0 3ith pro/isions o

Arti&$e 99 o the Ne3 Ci/i$ Code, 3hi&h sho#$d there+0 a/oid an0 apprehension on a

possi+$e pri/ation o ri%ht +0 pres&ription.

>pon death o the a&sed pendin% appea$ o his &on/i&tion, the &ri"ina$ a&tion is

e2tin%#ished inas"#&h as there is no $on%er a deendant to stand as the a&sed6 the

&i/i$ a&tion instit#ted therein or re&o/er0 o &i/i$ $ia+i$it0 ex delictois ipso

factoe2tin%#ished, %ro#nded as it is on the &ri"ina$.8H;

!he +e0 #ivil #ode provisions under the #hapter' uman *elations' 0ere

cited by the prosecution to substantiate its argument that the civil action based

therein is an independent one' thus' 0ill stand despite the death of the accused

during the pendency of the case"

8n the other hand' the defense invo>ed Section ) of &residential Decree +o"

14,4' as amended by *epublic Act +o" 92)-' in support of its argument that the


15/22

civil action 0as dependent upon the criminal action' thus' 0as e=tinguished upon

the death of the accused" !he la0 provides that7

Any provision of la0 or the *ules of #ourt to the contrary

not0ithstanding'the criminal action and the corres%onding civil action !or the

recovery o! civil liability arising !rom the o!!ense charged shall at all times besimultaneously instituted with& and jointly determined in the same

%roceeding by& the Sandiganbayan& the filing of the criminal action being

deemed to necessarily carry 0ith it the filing of the civil action' and no right toreserve the filing of such action shall be recogni3ed" (


16/22

a&tion sha$$ pro&eed independent$0 o an0 &ri"ina$ prosetion (i the $atter +e instit#ted),

and "a0 +e pro/ed +0 a preponderan&e o e/iden&e.

As he$d inAberca v. Ver:

It is o+/io#s that the p#rpose o the a+o/e &oda$ pro/ision Art. '7 o the Ne3

Ci/i$ Code; is to pro/ide a san&tion to the deep$0 &herished ri%hts and reedo"s

enshrined in the Constit#tion. Its "essa%e is &$ear6 no "an "a0 see? to /io$ate those

sa&red ri%hts 3ith i"p#nit0. 2 2 2. 9;

Indeed, the +asi& a&ts o this &ase point s#are$0 to the app$i&a+i$it0

o the $a3 on h#"an re$ations. irst, the &o"p$aint or &i/i$ $ia+i$it0 3as i$ed3a0 AKEAD o the inor"ation on the Anti-5rat La3. And, the &o"p$aintor da"a%es spe&ii&a$$0 in/o?ed deendant Ma0or Co"endadorBs /io$ationo p$aintiBs ri%ht to d#e pro&ess. h#s:

2 2 2 2

In &a#sin% or doin% the or&i+$e de"o$ition o the store in #estion, the indi/id#a$

nat#ra$ deendants did not on$0 a&t 3ith %ra/e a+#se o a#thorit0 +#t #s#rped a po3er

3hi&h +e$on%s to o#r &o#rts o 4#sti&e6 s#&h a&t#ations 3ere done 3ith "a$i&e or in +ad

aith and &onstit#te an in/asion o the propert0 ri%hts o p$ainti(s) 3itho#t d#e pro&ess o

$a3.

2 2 2 2

he Co#rt is in one 3ith the prosetion that there 3as a /io$ation othe ri%ht to pri/ate propert0 o the Spo#ses @o"+asi. he a&sed p#+$i&

oi&ia$s sho#$d ha/e a&&orded the spo#ses the d#e pro&ess o $a3%#aranteed +0 the Constit#tion and Ne3 Ci/i$ Code. he SangguniangBayanReso$#tions as asserted +0 the deense 3i$$ not, as a$read0 sho3n,

4#sti0 de"o$ition o the store 3itho#t &o#rt order. his Co#rt in a n#"+er ode&isions9;he$d that e/en i there is a$read0 a 3rit o e2etion, there "#ststi$$ +e a need or a spe&ia$ order or the p#rpose o de"o$ition iss#ed +0the &o#rt +eore the oi&er in &har%e &an destro0, de"o$ish or re"o/e


17/22

i"pro/e"ents o/er the &ontested propert0. 97; he pertinent pro/isions arethe o$$o3in%:

@eore the re"o/a$ o an i"pro/e"ent "#st ta?e p$a&e, there "#st +e a spe&ia$

order, hearin% and reasona+$e noti&e to re"o/e. Se&tion (d), R#$e ' o the R#$es o

Co#rt pro/ides:

(d) Re"o/a$ o i"pro/e"ents on propert0 s#+4e&t o e2etion. hen the propert0

s#+4e&t o e2etion &ontains i"pro/e"ents &onstr#&ted or p$anted +0 the 4#d%"ent

o+$i%or or his a%ent, the oi&er sha$$ not destro0, de"o$ish or re"o/e said i"pro/e"ents

e2&ept #pon spe&ia$ order o the &o#rt, iss#ed #pon "otion o the 4#d%"ent o+$i%ee ater

d#e hearin% and ater the or"er has ai$ed to re"o/e the sa"e 3ithin a reasona+$e ti"e

i2ed +0 the &o#rt.

he a+o/e-stated r#$e is &$ear and needs no interpretation. I de"o$ition is ne&essar0,

there "#st +e a hearin% on the "otion i$ed and 3ith d#e noti&es to the parties or the

iss#an&e o a spe&ia$ order o de"o$ition.9';

his spe&ia$ need or a &o#rt order e/en i an e4e&t"ent &ase has

s#&&ess#$$0 +een $iti%ated, #nders&ores the independent +asis or &i/i$$ia+i$it0, in this &ase, 3here no &ase 3as e/en i$ed +0 the "#ni&ipa$it0.

!he reuirement of a special order of demolition is based on the rudiments

of ustice and fair play" 5t fro0ns upon arbitrariness and oppressive conduct in the

e=ecution of an other0ise legitimate act" 5t is an amplification of the provision of

the #ivil #ode that every person must' in the e=ercise of his rights and in the

performance of his duties' act 0ith ustice' give everyone his due' and observe

honesty and good faith"

[.)]

+otably' the fact that a separate civil action precisely based on due process

violations 0as filed even ahead of the criminal case' is complemented by the fact

that the deceased plaintiff #omendador 0as substituted by his 0ido0' herein

petitioner ictoria 0ho specified in her petition that she has substituted him as

petitioner in the above captioned case"G Section 1' *ule 555 of the 1-9. *ules in


18/22

#riminal &rocedure mentioned inBayotasis' therefore' not applicable" !ruly' the

Sandiganbayan 0as correct 0hen it maintained the separate doc>eting of the civil

and criminal cases before it although their consolidation 0as erroneously based on

Section ) of &residential Decree +o" 14,4 0hich deals 0ith civil liability arising

from the offense charged"G

e "#st, ho3e/er, &orre&t the a"o#nt o da"a%es a3arded to theSpo#ses @o"+asi.

o see? re&o/er0 o a&t#a$ da"a%es, it is ne&essar0 to pro/e thea&t#a$ a"o#nt o $oss 3ith a reasona+$e de%ree o &ertaint0, pre"ised #pon

&o"petent proo and on the +est e/iden&e o+taina+$e.99;

In this &ase, theCo#rt inds that the on$0 e/iden&e presented to pro/e the a&t#a$ da"a%esinrred 3as the ite"i1ed $ist o da"a%ed and $ost ite"s9;prepared+0 En%ineer Ca+re%a, an en/0nee( )o660ss0oned 27 *e SpousesBo62as0 o es06ae *e )oss.

As he$d +0 this Co#rt in ari!ina Auto "ine #ransport Corporation v.People of t$e P$ilippines,9F;

= = = [C]e agree 0ith the contention of petitioners that respondents failed to

prove that the damages to the terrace caused by the incident amounted

to &1,,',,,",," The only evidence adduced by res%ondents to %rove actual

damages claimed by %rivate res%ondent were the summary com%utation o!

damage made by 'ngr (esus ) )egal& (r amounting to *+,+&-../0 and the

recei%t issued by the 11 2onstruction and Steel 3abricator to %rivate

res%ondent !or *45&----- re%resenting cost !or car%entry wor6s& masonry&

welding& and electrical wor6s*espondents failed to present *egal to testify on

his estimation" 5n its fiveEpage decision' the trial court a0arded &1.,',,,",, as

actual damages to private respondent but failed to state the factual basis for sucha0ard" 5ndeed' the trial court merely declared in the decretal portion of its

decision that the Ksum of &1.,',,,",, as reasonable compensation sustained by

plaintiff for her damaged apartment"K !he appellate court' for its part' failed toe=plain ho0 it arrived at the amount of &1,,',,,",, in its threeEpage decision"

!hus' the appellate court merely declared7


19/22

Cith respect to the civil liability of the appellants' they contend that there

0as no urgent necessity to completely demolish the apartment in uestion

considering the nature of the damages sustained as a result of the accident"#onseuently' appellants continue' the a0ard of &1.,',,,",, as

compensation sustained by the plaintiffEappellee for her damaged

apartment is an unconscionable amount"

#rther, in one &ase,9H;this Co#rt he$d *a *e a6oun )3a06ed 27*e (esponden)3a06an8s 50ness as o *e a)ua3 a6oun o1da6a/es 9s*ou3d 2e ad60ed 50* ex(e6e )au0on )ons0de(0n/ *a,2e)ause 0 5as a 2a(e asse(0on, 0 s*ou3d 2e suppo(ed 270ndependen e:0den)e.; T*e Cou( 1u(*e( sa0d *a 5*ae:e( )3a06*e (esponden 50ness 5ou3d a33e/e 6us 2e app(e)0aed 0n)ons0de(a0on o1 *0s pa(0)u3a( se310ne(es.9; here "#st sti$$ +e a

need or the e2a"ination o the do"entar0 e/iden&e presented +0 the&$ai"ants to s#pport its &$ai" 3ith re%ard to the a&t#a$ a"o#nt oda"a%es.

he pri&e #otation "ade +0 En%ineer Ca+re%a presented as ane2hi+it;parta?es o the nat#re o hearsa0 e/iden&e &onsiderin% that theperson 3ho iss#ed the" 3as not presented as a 3itness.; An0 e/iden&e,

3hether ora$ or do"entar0, is hearsa0 i its pro+ati/e /a$#e is not +ased

on the persona$ ?no3$ed%e o the 3itness +#t on the ?no3$ed%e o anotherperson 3ho is not on the 3itness stand. Kearsa0 e/iden&e, 3hethero+4e&ted to or not, has no pro+ati/e /a$#e #n$ess the proponent &an sho3that the e/iden&e a$$s 3ithin the e2&eptions to the hearsa0 e/iden&e r#$e.7;#rther, e2hi+its do not a$$ #nder an0 o the e2&eptions pro/ided #nderSe&tions 'F to 8F o R#$e ' o the R#$es o Co#rt.

!hough there is no sufficient evidence to a0ard the actual damages claimed'

this #ourt grants temperate damages for &2,,',,,",, in vie0 of the loss suffered

by the Spouses ombasi" !emperate damages are a0arded in accordance 0ith Art"

222) of the +e0 #ivil #ode 0hen the court finds that some pecuniary loss has

been suffered but its amount cannot' from the nature of the case' be proven 0ith

certainty" !he amount of temperate or moderated damages is usually left to the

discretion of the courts but the same should be reasonable' bearing in mind that the

temperate damages should be more than nominal but less than compensatory"


20/22

[4$] Cithout a doubt' the Spouses ombasi suffered some form of pecuniary loss in

the impairment of theirstore" ased on the record of the case'[4)]the demolished

store 0as housed on a t0oEstory building located at the mar>et:s commercial area

and its concrete 0alls remained strong and not affected by the fire" o0ever' due

to the failure of the Spouses ombasi to prove the e=act amount of damage in

accordance 0ith the *ules of


21/22

7' 2ON2:);

RENATO C. CORONA

#hief ustice

#hairperson

CONCHITA CAPIO MORALES

Asso&iate J#sti&e

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Asso&iate J#sti&e

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Asso&iate J#sti&e


22/22

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

P#rs#ant to Se&tion ', Arti&$e VIII o the Constit#tion, I &erti0 that

the &on&$#sions in the a+o/e De&ision had +een rea&hed in &ons#$tation+eore the &ase 3as assi%ned to the 3riter o the opinion o the Co#rtBs

Di/ision.

RENATO C. CORONA

Chie J#sti&e

L Additional member in lieu of Associate ustice !eresita " /eonardoEDe #astro per raffle dated 6 %arch 2,11"[1] @nder*ule ). of the 1--6 *ules of #ivil &rocedure"[2] !he Decision dated 29 April 2,,$ 0as penned by Associate ustice *odolfo B" &alattao 0ith Associate

ustices Bregory S" 8ng and %a" #ristina B" #orte3E

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	xquisited
View:	242 times
Download:	0 times

asilo v. people

Documents