Sei sulla pagina 1di 2

ASILO v.

PEOPLE
G.R. No. 159017-18
March 9, 2011
Art III Sec 1: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of the
law, nor shall any person be denied equal protection of the laws
FACTS:
The instant case concerns petitions for review on Certiorari on the decision of the Sandiganbayan
in favor of respondents Visitacion and Cesar Bombasi (Spouses Bombasi) and denying the motions for
reconsideration of the petitioners Asilo and Comendador .
Private respondents, Spouses Bombasi, filed the Civil Case on August 19, 1994 in the RTC of
San Pablo City Laguna. The mentioned Civil Case for damages with preliminary injunction against the
Municipality of Nagcarlan, Laguna, Mayor Demetrio T. Comendador, Paulino S. Asilo, Jr. (Municipal
Administrator), and Alberto S. Angeles (Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator) was initiated
after the Spouses Bombasis store, located beside the Nagcarlan Market, was demolished for
improvements/ reconstruction on the latter which was razed by a fire in 1986. The basis for the said
demolition was the Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 183 which authorized Mayor Comendador to
demolish the store using legal means.
The leased property was demolished on October 15, 1993 even when the respondents had a valid
lease contract. This lease contract was entered into by the late mother of private respondent Visitacion,
Marciana de Coronado, and the Municipality of Nagcarlan, Laguna. The contract provided for a lease
period of twenty (20) years beginning on 15 March 1978 until 15 March 1998, and was extendible for
another 20 years. Additionally, the contract stated that should there be developments made to the adjacent
public market, Marciana and her heirs would be given preferential rights.
Spouses Bombasi included the subsequent occupants of the disputed area, Spouses Benita and
Isagani Coronado and Spouses Alida and Teddy Coroza, in the said complaint.
Additionally, they filed a criminal complaint against Mayor Comendador, Asilo and Angeles for
violation of Sec. 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act before the Ombudsman.
The complaints (civil and criminal) were consolidated on March 4, 1997.
While the case was pending, Alberto S. Angeles died and the Sandiganbayan dismissed the case
against him. Additionally, Mayor Comendador also died prior to the final decision.
On April 28, 2003, the Sandiganbayan rendered a decision finding accused Demetrio T.
Comendador and Paulino S. Asilo, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sec. 3(e) of
Republic Act. No. 3019 and dismissed the case against the spouses Coronado and spouses Coroza.
Asilo filed a motion for reconsideration on the same day which was subsequently denied.
The counsel for the late Mayor also filed a motion for reconsideration which alleged that the
latters death extinguished both his criminal and civil liability. The Sandiganbayan granted the extinction
of the criminal liability but denied the extinction of the civil liability. Consequently, petitions for review
on Certiorari were filed.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the decision of the Sandiganbayan finding the accused guilty of RA 3019 was
correct.
2. Whether the civil liability of Mayor Comendador was extinguished by his death.
HELD:
1. Yes
RA 3019 provides that:

Prepared by: Kristine Joyce Alegre

In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the
following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be
unlawful:
xxxx
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any
private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his
official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad
faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and
employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or
permits or other concessions.
Since the requisites of the offense are present, there is competent evidence that the Spouses
Bombasi suffered undue injury when the Petitioners (public officials) performed the demolition of the
market stalls with evident bad faith.
Contentions made by the petitioners, that the respondents structure is a public nuisance, had no
merit. Findings made by the Supervising Civil Engineer Wilfredo A. Sambrano of the Laguna District
Engineer Office provided that the said building was not affected by the 1986 fire which razed the
Nagcarlan market. Also, the Sangguniang Bayan Resolutions used as basis for the demolition did not
justify the same and that the legal order of demolition was a legally impossible provision as there was no
legal basis. The present Local Government Code does not include a provision regarding the abatement of
nuisance. This constitutes bad faith and therefore the accused are in violation of RA 3019 and would also
be liable civilly for the damages caused to the Spouses Bombasi.
2. No
The death of Mayor Comendador did not extinguish his civil liability as the source of his
obligation was the New Civil Code which provided that the civil action pertained to in the case is
independent and will stand despite the Mayors death during the cases pendency. If the liability arose
directly from the crime committed, then his civil liability could have been extinguished but since it was
based on the law on human relations it stands alone.
The facts of the case show that the act of demolition without a proper court order approved/
performed by the petitioners violated the Spouses Bombasis right against deprivation of property
without due process of law. Art 32 of the Civil Code expressly provides that in such cases the
aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, and for
other relief. Such civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be
instituted), and may be proved by a preponderance of evidence.

Prepared by: Kristine Joyce Alegre