FIRST DIVISION PAULINO S. ASILO, JR., Petitioner, !.R. Nos.

"#$%"& "'

-versus-

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and Spouses VISITACION AND CESAR C. BOMBASI, Respondents.

VICTORIA BUETA VDA. DE COMENDADOR, IN REPRESENTATION OF DEMETRIO T. COMENDADOR,

Petitioner,

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

Present: -versusCORONA, C.J., Chairperson , VISITACION BOMBASI, C. BOMBASI Respondents. AND CESAR C. CARPIO MORALES,* VELASCO, JR., DEL CAS ILLO, and PERE!, JJ.

Pro"#$%ated:

Ma()* $, +%"" x x

DECISION

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 1isitacion #" 2ombasi (1isitacion and #esar #" 2ombasi damages; and () dismissing the cases against the spouses Alida and !eddy #oro3a[4] and 2enita and 5sagani #oronado"[6] !he factual antecedents of the case are7 8n 1. %arch 1-69' &rivate *espondent 1isitacion: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 en;oyment of property comprising of a lot and a store located at the corner of #oronado and <" Fernande3 Sts" at &oblacion' +agcarlan' /aguna' in favor of the respondent:s mother for a period of t0enty (2, years beginning on 1. %arch 1-69 until 1. %arch 1--9' e=tendible for another 2, years"[9] !he lease contract provided that the late Vda. De #oronado could build a fire0all on her rented property 0hich must be at least as high as the store; and in case of modification of the public mar>et' she or her heir?s 0ould be given preferential rights" 1isitacion too> over the store 0hen her mother died sometime in 1-9)" From then on up to (anuary 1--$' 1isitacion secured the yearly %ayor:s permits"[1,]
[-]

Sometime in 1-94' a fire ra3ed the public mar>et of +agcarlan" @pon 1isitacion:s reAuest for inspection on 1. %ay 1-94' District <ngineer %arcelino 2" Borospe (<ngineer Borospe of the then %inistry of &ublic Cor>s and Digh0ays'[11] *egional 8ffice +o" 51EA' found that the store of 1isitacion remained intact and stood strong" !his finding of <ngineer Borospe 0as contested by the %unicipality of +agcarlan"

!he store of 1isitacion continued to operate after the fire until 1. 8ctober 1--$" 8n 1 September 1--$' 1isitacion 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 !D<*<F8*<' be it *<S8/1<D' as it hereby resolved to authori3e Don" Demetrio !" #omendador to enforce and order the #oronado:s to demolish the building constructed on the space previously rented to them in order to give 0ay for the construction of a ne0 municipal mar>et building" *<S8/1<D F@*!D<*' to authori3e Demetrio !" #omendador' Donorable %ayor of +agcarlan to file an @nla0ful Detainer #ase 0ith damages for the e=penses incurred due to the delay in the completion of the pro;ect if the #oronado:s continuously resists the order"

8n $ September 1--$' 1isitacion 0rote a reply letter to %ayor #omendador saying that7 (1 the lease contract 0as still e=isting and legally binding; (2 she 0as 0illing to vacate the store as long as same place and area 0ould be given to her in the ne0 public mar>et; and ($ 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 considered vie0' 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 us the 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 the appropriate action in court for unla0ful detainer to enable our court to finally thresh out our differences"[1)]

8n 1. September 1--$' Asst" &rovincial &rosecutor Florencio 2uyser sent a letter to 1isitacion ordering her to vacate the portion of the public mar>et she 0as occupying 0ithin 1. days from her receipt of the letter; else' a court action 0ill be filed against her" 8n 11 8ctober 1--$' the Sangguniang Bayan of +agcarlan' /aguna issued *esolution +o" 19$ authori3ing %ayor #omendador to demolish the store being occupied by 1isitacion 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--$' %unicipal Administrator &aulino S" Asilo' (r" (Asilo also sent a letter[14] to 1isitacion informing her of the impending demolition of her store the ne=t day" Cithin the same day' 1isitacion 0rote a reply letter [16] to Asilo' alleging that there is no legal right to demolish the store in the absence of a court order and that the *esolutions did not sanction the demolition of her store but only the filing of an appropriate unla0ful detainer case against her" She further replied that if the demolition 0ill ta>e place' appropriate administrative' criminal and civil actions 0ill be filed against %ayor #omendador' Asilo and all persons 0ho 0ill ta>e part in the demolition" 8n 1. 8ctober 1--$' %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>" <ngineer Cinston #abrega (<ngineer #abrega ' a licensed civil engineer' estimated the cost of the demolished property as amounting to&)$6'-,,",,[19] 8n 1- August 1--)' 1isitacion' together 0ith her husband #esar 2ombasi (Spouses 2ombasi filed 0ith the *egional !rial #ourt of San &ablo #ity' /aguna a #ivil #ase[1-] for damages 0ith preliminary in;unction against the %unicipality of +agcarlan' /aguna' %ayor Demetrio !" #omendador' &aulino S" Asilo' (r"' and Alberto S" Angeles" !he complaint 0as soon after amended to include the Spouses 2enita and 5sagani #oronado and Spouses Alida and !eddy #oro3a as formal defendants because they 0ere then the occupants of the contested area" !he spouses prayed for the follo0ing disposition7

1" *<S!*A5+5+B or <+(85+5+B defendant %unicipality and defendant %unicipal %ayor from leasing the premises sub;ect of lease Anne= FAG hereof' part of 0hich is no0 occupied by &+& 8utpost and by the %unicipal #ollectors: 8ffice' and the eAuivalent ad;acent area thereof' and to cause the removal of said stalls; 2" @&D8/D5+B the right of plaintiffs to occupy the eAuivalent corner area of the leased areas being no0 assigned to other persons by defendants %unicipality and?or by defendant %unicipal %ayor' and to allo0 plaintiffs to construct their stalls thereon; $" %AH5+B the in;unction permanent' after trial; )" 8*D<*5+B defendants to pay plaintiffs' ;ointly and severally' the follo0ing I (a &)$6'-,,",, for loss of building?store and other items therein; (b &2,,',,,",, for e=emplary damages; (c &2,,',,,",, for moral damages; (d &$,'",, for attorney:s fees and &6,,",, for every attendance of counsel in court" ." B*A+!5+B further reliefs upon plaintiffs as ;ustice and eAuity may 0arrant in the premises"[2,]

Spouses 2ombasi' thereafter' filed a criminal complaint [21] against %ayor #omendador' Asilo and Angeles for violation of Sec" $(e of *epublic Act +o" $,1- other0ise >no0n as the FAntiEBraft and #orrupt &ractices ActG before the 8ffice of the 8mbudsman" 8n 22 February 1--4' an 5nformation[22] against %ayor #omendador' Asilo and Angeles 0as filed' 0hich reads7
!hat on or about 8ctober 1.' 1--$' at +agcarlan' /aguna' &hilippines' and 0ithin the ;urisdiction of this Donorable #ourt' the aboveEnamed accused' all public 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 crime herein 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' did then and there 0illfully' unla0fully' criminally cause the demolition of a public mar>et stall leased by the municipal government in favor of one 1isitacion #oronadoE2ombasi 0ithout legal or ;ustifiable ground therefor' thus' causing

undue in;ury to the latter in the amount of &<S8S7 F8@* D@+D*<D !D5*!J S<1<+ !D8@SA+D A+D +5+< D@+D*<D 8+/J (&)$6'-,,",, "

@pon their arraignments' all the accused entered their separate pleas of F+ot Builty"G 8n ) %arch 1--6' the Sandiganbayan promulgated a *esolution ordering the consolidation of #ivil #ase +o" S&E),4) (-) [2$] 0ith #riminal #ase +o" 2$246 pending before the !hird Division pursuant to Section )' &residential Decree +o" 14,4' 0hich pertinently reads7
Any provision of la0 or *ules of #ourt to the contrary not0ithstanding' the criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall at all times be simultaneously instituted 0ith' and ;ointly determined in the same proceeding by the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate courts' the filing of the criminal action being deemed to necessarily carry 0ith it the filing of the civil action' and no right to reserve the filing of such civil action separately from the criminal action shall be recogni3ed; &rovided' ho0ever' that 0here the civil action had heretofore been filed separately but ;udgment therein has not yet been rendered' and the criminal case is hereafter filed 0ith the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court' said civil action shall be transferred to the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court as the case may be' for consolidation and ;oint determination 0ith the criminal action' other0ise the separate civil action shall be deemed abandoned"[2)]

During the pendency of the case' Alberto S" Angeles died on 14 +ovember 1--6" Accordingly' the counsel of Angeles filed a motion to drop accused Angeles" 8n 22 September 1---' the !hird Division of Sandiganbayan issued an 8rder[2.] DISMISSING the case against Angeles" !he germane portion of the 8rder reads7
5n vie0 of the submission of the death certificate of accused?defendant Alberto S" Angeles' and there being no ob;ection on the part of the &ublic &rosecutor' cases against deceased accused?defendant Angeles only' are hereby D5S%5SS<D"

!he death of %ayor #omendador follo0ed on 16 September 2,,2" As a result' the counsel of the late %ayor filed on $ %arch 2,,$ a %anifestation before the Sandiganbayan informing the court of the fact of %ayor #omendador:s death"

8n 29 April 2,,$' the Sandiganbayan rendered a decision' the dispositive portion of 0hich reads as follo0s7
CD<*<F8*<' premises considered' ;udgment is hereby rendered as follo0s7 5n #riminal #ase +o" 2$246' the court finds accused Demetrio !" #omendador and &aulino S" Asilo' (r" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sec" $(e of *epublic Act" +o" $,1- as amended' and in the absence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances' applying the 5ndeterminate Sentence /a0' said accused are sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months imprisonment as minimum to 1, years and 1 day as ma=imum" !he order of the court dated September 22' 1--- dismissing the cases against the accused Alberto S" Angeles' 0ho died on +ovember 14' 1--6 is hereby reiterated" 5n #ivil #ase +o" ),4)' defendants %unicipality of +agcarlan' /aguna' Demetrio !" #omendador and &aulino S" Asilo' (r" are hereby ordered ;ointly and severally to pay plaintiff &)$6'-,,",, as actual damages for the destruction of the store; &1,,',,,",, as moral damages; &$,',,,",, as attorney:s fees' and to pay the cost of the suit" !he prayer for e=emplary damages is denied as the court found no aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime" 5n vie0 of this court:s finding that the defendant spouses Alida and !eddy #oro3a are la0ful occupants of the sub;ect mar>et stalls from 0hich they cannot be validly e;ected 0ithout ;ust cause' the complaint against them is dismissed" !he complaint against defendant spouses 2enita and 5sagani #oronado is li>e0ise dismissed' it appearing that they are similarly situated as the spouses #oro3a" %ean0hile' plaintiff 1isitacion 2ombasi is given the option to accept mar>et space being given to her by the municipality' sub;ect to her payment of the appropriate rental and permit fees" !he prayer for in;unctive 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" De li>e0ise alleged that there is no liability 0hen a public officer commits in good faith an error of ;udgment" !he Sandiganbayan' on its

*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 Fdemolition [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" Dence' 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 F!he AntiEBraft and #orrupt &ractices Act'G the public officer must have acted 0ith manifest partiality' evident bad faith or gross negligence" De 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 1ictoria 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 arguendo that there 0as indeed liability on the part of the accused public officials' the actual amount of damages being claimed by the Spouses 2ombasi 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:

In addition to a&ts or o"issions o* p#+$i& o**i&ers a$read0 pena$i1ed +0 e2istin% $a3, the *o$$o3in% sha$$ &onstit#te &orr#pt pra&ti&es o* an0 p#+$i& o**i&er and are here+0 de&$ared to +e #n$a3*#$:

2222

(e) Ca#sin% an0 #nd#e in4#r0 to an0 part0, in&$#din% the 5o/ern"ent, o( %i/in% an0 pri/ate part0 an0 #n3arranted +ene*its, ad/anta%e or pre*eren&e in the dis&har%e o* his o**i&ia$, ad"inistrati/e or 4#di&ia$ *#n&tions .*(ou/* "ani*est partia$it0, e/ident +ad *aith o( %ross ine2&#sa+$e ne%$i%en&e. his pro/ision sha$$ app$0 to o**i&ers and e"p$o0ees o* o**i&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 o**ense are as *o$$o3s: (-) that the a&&#sed are p#+$i& o**i&ers or pri/ate persons &har%ed in &onspira&0 3ith the"6 (7) that said p#+$i& o**i&ers &o""it the prohi+ited a&ts d#rin% the per*or"an&e o* their o**i&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/ate part06 (8) OR that s#&h in4#r0 is &a#sed +0 %i/in% #n3arranted +ene*its, ad/anta%e or pre*eren&e to the other part06 and (9) that the p#+$i& o**i&ers ha/e a&ted 3ith "ani*est partia$it0, e/ident +ad *aith or %ross ine2&#sa+$e ne%$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 1ictoria 2ueta" Ce agree 0ith the Sandiganbayan that it is undisputable that the first t0o reAuisites 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 amount of evidence to establish that there 0as an undue in;ury suffered on the part of the Spouses 2ombasi and that the public officials concerned acted 0ith evident bad faith 0hen they performed the demolition of the mar>et stall" #ausing undue in;ury to any party' including the government' could only mean actual injury or damage which must be established by evidence [$)]

In 4#rispr#den&e, <#nd#e in4#r0= is &onsistent$0 interpreted as <a&t#a$.= >nd#e has +een de*ined as <"ore than ne&essar0, not proper, :or; i$$e%a$6= and in4#r0 as <an0 3ron% or da"a%e done to another, either in his person, ri%hts, rep#tation or propert0 :that is, the; in/asion o* an0 $e%a$$0 prote&ted interest o* another.= A&t#a$ da"a%e, in the &onte2t o* these de*initions, is a?in to that in &i/i$ $a3. :'9;

It is e/ident *ro" the re&ords, as &orre&t$0 o+ser/ed +0 the Sandi%an+a0an, that Asi$o and Ma0or Co"endador as a&&#sed +e$o3 did not den0 that there 3as indeed da"a%e &a#sed the Spo#ses @o"+asi on a&&o#nt o* the de"o$ition. Ae a**ir" the *indin% that:

222. C$ear$0, the de"o$ition o* p$ainti**Bs store 3as &arried o#t 3itho#t a &o#rt order, and not3ithstandin% a restrainin% order 3hi&h the p$ainti** 3as a+$e to o+tain. he de"o$ition 3as done in the e2er&ise o* o**i&ia$ d#ties 3hi&h apparent$0 3as attended +0 e/ident +ad *aith, "ani*est partia$it0 or %ross ine2&#sa+$e ne%$i%en&e as there is nothin% in the t3o (7) reso$#tions 3hi&h %a/e the herein a&&#sed the a#thorit0 to de"o$ish p$ainti**Bs store.

F<vident bad faithG connotes not only bad ;udgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliAuity or conscious 0rongdoing for some perverse motive or ill 0ill"[$4] [5t] contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating 0ith furtive design or 0ith some motive or selfE interest or ill 0ill or for ulterior purposes"[$6] 5t is Auite evident in the case at bar that the accused public officials committed bad faith in performing the demolition" #irst$ there can be no merit in the contention that respondents: structure is a public nuisance" !he abatement of a nuisance 0ithout ;udicial proceedings is possible if it is nuisance per se"[$9] +uisance per se is that 0hich is nuisance at all times and under any circumstance' regardless of location and surroundings" [$-] 5n this case' the mar>et stall cannot be considered as a nuisance per se because as found out by the #ourt' the buildings had not been affected by the 1-94 fire" !his

finding 0as certified to by Supervising #ivil <ngineer Cilfredo A" Sambrano of the /aguna District <ngineer 8ffice"[),] !o Auote7
An inspection has been made on the building (a commercial establishment cited above and found out the follo0ing7 1" 2" $" )" 5t is a t0oEstorey building' s>etch of 0hich is attached" 5t is located 0ithin the mar>et site" The building has not been a!!ected by the recent !ire The concrete wall"s# does not even show signs o! being e$%osed to !ire [)1]

Second$ the Sangguniang Bayan resolutions are not enough to ;ustify demolition" @nli>e its predecessor la0'[)2] the present /ocal Bovernment #ode[)$] does not e=pressly provide for the abatement of nuisance" [))] And even assuming 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 the then %ayor #omendador' 0as placed in estoppe" after it granted yearly business permits[).] in favor of the Spouses 2ombasi" 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 2ombasi had the right to continuously operate its store binds the municipality" 5t is utterly un;ust 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"

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 ob;ection 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" Ae no3 ho$d, as did the Sandi%an+a0an that the &i/i$ $ia+i$it0 o* Ma0or 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* the Sandi%an+a0an that his death e2tin%#ished the &i/i$ $ia+i$it0 3as not C#estioned and $apsed into *ina$it0.

Ae $aid do3n the *o$$o3in% %#ide$ines in People v. Bayotas::8D;

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, Ethe 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$0 on the o**ense &o""itted, i.e., &i/i$ $ia+i$it0 ex delicto in senso strictiore.E

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$so +e p(ed0)a.ed on a sou()e o1 o230/a.0on o.*e( .*an delict. Arti&$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

&) 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)

Ahere the &i/i$ $ia+i$it0 s#r/i/es, as e2p$ained :a+o/e;, an a&tion *or re&o/er0 there*ore "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 en*or&ed either a%ainst the e2e&#torIad"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.

Jina$$0, the pri/ate o**ended part0 need not *ear a *or*eit#re o* his ri%ht to *i$e this separate &i/i$ a&tion +0 pres&ription, in &ases 3here d#rin% the prose&#tion o* the &ri"ina$ a&tion and prior to its e2tin&tion, the pri/ate-o**ended 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, &on*or"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 $on%er a de*endant to stand as the a&&#sed6 the &i/i$ a&tion instit#ted therein *or re&o/er0 o* &i/i$ $ia+i$it0 ex delicto is ipso facto e2tin%#ished, %ro#nded as it is on the &ri"ina$.:8H;

!he +e0 #ivil #ode provisions under the #hapter' Duman *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

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 be simultaneously 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 to reserve the filing of such action shall be recogni3ed" (<mphasis ours

Ae a%ree 3ith the prose&#tion. Death o* Ma0or Co"endador d#rin% the penden&0 o* the &ase &o#$d ha/e e2tin%#ished the &i/i$ $ia+i$it0 i* the sa"e arose dire&t$0 *ro" the &ri"e &o""itted. Ko3e/er, in this &ase, the &i/i$ $ia+i$it0 is +ased on another so#r&e o* o+$i%ation, the $a3 on h#"an re$ations. :8.; he pertinent arti&$es *o$$o3:

Art. '- o* the Ci/i$ Code states:

Ahen the &i/i$ a&tion is +ased on an o+$i%ation not arisin% *ro" the a&t or o"ission &o"p$ained o* as a *e$on0, s#&h &i/i$ a&tion "a0 pro&eed independent$0 o* the &ri"ina$ pro&eedin%s and re%ard$ess o* the res#$t o* the $atter.

And, Art. '7(D) states:

Any public officer or employee' or any private individual' 0ho directly or indirectly obstructs' defeats' violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the follo0ing rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages7
(D) he ri%ht a%ainst depri/ation o* propert0 3itho#t d#e pro&ess o* $a36 2222 In an0 o* the &ases re*erred to in this arti&$e, 3hether or not the de*endantLs a&t or o"ission &onstit#tes a &ri"ina$ o**ense, the a%%rie/ed part0 has a ri%ht to &o""en&e an entire$0 separate and distin&t &i/i$ a&tion *or da"a%es, and *or other re$ie*. S#&h &i/i$

a&tion sha$$ pro&eed independent$0 o* an0 &ri"ina$ prose&#tion (i* the $atter +e instit#ted), and "a0 +e pro/ed +0 a preponderan&e o* e/iden&e.

As he$d in Aberca 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 sC#are$0 to the app$i&a+i$it0 o* the $a3 on h#"an re$ations. Jirst, the &o"p$aint *or &i/i$ $ia+i$it0 3as *i$ed 3a0 AKEAD o* the in*or"ation on the Anti-5ra*t La3. And, the &o"p$aint *or da"a%es spe&i*i&a$$0 in/o?ed de*endant Ma0or Co"endadorBs /io$ation o* p$ainti**Bs ri%ht to d#e pro&ess. h#s:

2222

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

2222

he Co#rt is in one 3ith the prose&#tion that there 3as a /io$ation o* the ri%ht to pri/ate propert0 o* the Spo#ses @o"+asi. he a&&#sed p#+$i& o**i&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 Sangguniang BayanReso$#tions as asserted +0 the de*ense 3i$$ not, as a$read0 sho3n, 4#sti*0 de"o$ition o* the store 3itho#t &o#rt order. his Co#rt in a n#"+er o* de&isions:9-; he$d that e/en i* there is a$read0 a 3rit o* e2e&#tion, there "#st sti$$ +e a need *or a spe&ia$ order *or the p#rpose o* de"o$ition iss#ed +0 the &o#rt +e*ore the o**i&er in &har%e &an destro0, de"o$ish or re"o/e

i"pro/e"ents o/er the &ontested propert0. :97; the *o$$o3in%:

he pertinent pro/isions are

@e*ore 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* e2e&#tion. M Ahen the propert0 s#+4e&t o* e2e&#tion &ontains i"pro/e"ents &onstr#&ted or p$anted +0 the 4#d%"ent o+$i%or or his a%ent, the o**i&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+$i%ee a*ter d#e hearin% and a*ter the *or"er has *ai$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 reAuirement 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 1ictoria 0ho specified in her petition that she has Fsubstituted him as petitioner in the above captioned case"G Section 1' *ule 555 of the 1-9. *ules in

#riminal &rocedure mentioned in Bayotas is' 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 Farising from the offense charged"G

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

o see? re&o/er0 o* a&t#a$ da"a%es, it is ne&essar0 to pro/e the a&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, the Co#rt *inds that the on$0 e/iden&e presented to pro/e the a&t#a$ da"a%es in&#rred 3as the ite"i1ed $ist o* da"a%ed and $ost ite"s :9D; prepared +0 En%ineer Ca+re%a, an en/0nee( )o660ss0oned 27 .*e Spouses Bo62as0 .o es.06a.e .*e )os.s.

As he$d +0 this Co#rt in People of t$e P$ilippines,:9F;

ari!ina Auto "ine #ransport Corporation v.

= = = [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 such a0ard" 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 to e=plain ho0 it arrived at the amount of &1,,',,,",, in its threeEpage decision" !hus' the appellate court merely declared7

Cith respect to the civil liability of the appellants' they contend that there 0as no urgent necessity to completely demolish the apartment in Auestion considering the nature of the damages sustained as a result of the accident" #onseAuently' appellants continue' the a0ard of &1.,',,,",, as compensation sustained by the plaintiffEappellee for her damaged apartment is an unconscionable amount"

J#rther, in one &ase,:9H; this Co#rt he$d .*a. .*e a6oun. )3a06ed 27 .*e (esponden. )3a06an.8s 50.ness as .o .*e a).ua3 a6oun. o1 da6a/es 9s*ou3d 2e ad60..ed 50.* ex.(e6e )au.0on )ons0de(0n/ .*a., 2e)ause 0. 5as a 2a(e asse(.0on, 0. s*ou3d 2e suppo(.ed 27 0ndependen. e:0den)e.; T*e Cou(. 1u(.*e( sa0d .*a. 5*a.e:e( )3a06 .*e (esponden. 50.ness 5ou3d a33e/e 6us. 2e app(e)0a.ed 0n )ons0de(a.0on o1 *0s pa(.0)u3a( se31 0n.e(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 o* da"a%es.

he pri&e C#otation "ade +0 En%ineer Ca+re%a presented as an e2hi+it parta?es o* the nat#re o* hearsa0 e/iden&e &onsiderin% that the person 3ho iss#ed the" 3as not presented as a 3itness. :D-; 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* another person 3ho is not on the 3itness stand. Kearsa0 e/iden&e, 3hether o+4e&ted to or not, has no pro+ati/e /a$#e #n$ess the proponent &an sho3 that the e/iden&e *a$$s 3ithin the e2&eptions to the hearsa0 e/iden&e r#$e. :D7; J#rther, e2hi+its do not *a$$ #nder an0 o* the e2&eptions pro/ided #nder Se&tions 'F to 8F o* R#$e -', o* the R#$es o* Co#rt.
:D,;

!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 2ombasi" !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"

[4$]

Cithout a doubt' the Spouses 2ombasi suffered some form of pecuniary loss in the impairment of their store" 2ased 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" Do0ever' due to the failure of the Spouses 2ombasi to prove the e=act amount of damage in accordance 0ith the *ules of <vidence'[4.] this court finds that &2,,',,,",, is the amount ;ust and reasonable under the circumstances" 78')'3O)'& the instant appeal is D'NI'D" Accordingly' the Decision of the Sandiganbayan dated 29 April 2,,$ is hereby 933I)M'D 7IT8 MODI3I29TION !he #ourt affirms the decision finding the accused &aulino S" Asilo' (r" and Demetrio !" #omendador guilty of violating Section $(e of *epublic Act +o" $,1-" Ce declare the finality of the dismissal of both the criminal and civil cases against Alberto S" Angeles as the same 0as not appealed" 5n vie0 of the death of Demetrio !" #omendador pending trial' his criminal liability is e=tinguished; but his civil liability survives" !he %unicipality of +agcarlan' &aulino Asilo and Demetrio !" #omendador' as substituted by 1ictoria 2ueta 1da" De #omendador' are hereby declared solidarily liable to the Spouses 2ombasi for temperate damages in the amount of &2,,',,,",, and moral damages in the amount of&1,,',,,",," #osts against the petitionersEappellants"

SO ORDERED.

JOSE PORTU!AL PERE, Asso&iate J#sti&e

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

CERTIFICATION

P#rs#ant to Se&tion -', Arti&$e VIII o* the Constit#tion, I &erti*0 that the &on&$#sions in the a+o/e De&ision had +een rea&hed in &ons#$tation +e*ore 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
[1] [2]

Additional member in lieu of Associate (ustice !eresita (" /eonardoEDe #astro per raffle dated 6 %arch 2,11"

[$] [)] [.] [4] [6] [9] [-]

@nder *ule ). of the 1--6 *ules of #ivil &rocedure" !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<strada' concurring" %o""o (B"*" +o" 1.-,16E19 ' pp" ),E61" %unicipal %ayor of +agcarlan' /aguna" %unicipal Administrator of +agcarlan' /aguna" %unicipal &lanning and Development #oordinator of +agcarlan' /aguna" &resent occupants of the premises being claimed by Spouses #esar and 1isitacion 2ombasi" 5d" Kasu"atan ng Kasunduan. !S+' 11 August 1--6' p" 2)"