IAN REX T.

BARRAMEDA - BLOCK B

SIMON V CHAN
G.R. NO. 157547 February 23, 2011
FACTS:

On July 11, 1997, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila filed in the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Manila (MeTC) an information charging the late Eduardo Simon (Simon) with a violation of BP 22,
docketed as Criminal Case No. 275381 entitled People v. Eduardo Simon. 

More than three years later, or on August 3, 2000, respondent Elvin Chan commenced in the MeTC in
Pasay City a civil action for the collection of the principal amount of P336,000.00, coupled with an
application for a writ of preliminary attachment (docketed as Civil Case No. 915-00).

On August 9, 2000, the MeTC in Pasay City issued a writ of preliminary attachment, which was
implemented on August 17, 2000 through the sheriff attaching a Nissan vehicle of Simon.

On August 17, 2000, Simon filed an urgent motion to dismiss with application to charge plaintiffs
attachment bond for damages

On August 29, 2000, Chan opposed Simons urgent motion to dismiss with application to charge plaintiffs
attachment bond for damages, 

On October 23, 2000, the MeTC in Pasay City granted Simon the urgent motion to dismiss with
application to charge plaintiffs attachment bond for damages. The MTC cites the grounds of litis
pendentia and that the case for sum of money is one based on fraud and hence falling under Article 33 of
the Civil Code, still prior reservation is required

Chans motion for reconsideration was denied as well as his appeal with the RTC. On the CA, Chan's
appeal was granted. 

ISSUE: Whether or not Chan's civil action to recover the amount of the unfunded check (Civil Case No.
915-00) was an independent civil action.

RULING:

NO. There is no independent civil action to recover the civil liability arising from the issuance of an
unfunded check prohibited and punished under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22).
This is clear from Rule 111 of the Rules of Court which relevantly provides: "The criminal action for
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No
reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed." 
Supreme Court Circular 57-97 also provides that: "1. The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22 shall be deemed to necessarily include the corresponding civil action, and no reservation to file
such civil action separately shall be allowed or recognized."
IAN REX T. BARRAMEDA – BLOCK B
ASILO V PEOPLE
GR NO. 159017

FACTS:
On 15 March 1978, Private Respondent Visitacion’s late mother Marciana Vda. De Coronado (Vda. De
Coronado) and the Municipality of Nagcarlan, Laguna (represented by the then Municipal Mayor
Crisostomo P. Manalang) entered into a lease contract whereby the Municipality allowed the use and
enjoyment of property comprising of a lot and a store located at the corner of Coronado and E. Fernandez
Sts. at Poblacion, Nagcarlan, Laguna, in favor of the respondent’s mother for a period of twenty (20)
years beginning on 15 March 1978 until 15 March 1998, extendible for another 20 years.
The lease contract provided that the late Vda. De Coronado could build a firewall on her rented property
which must be at least as high as the store; and in case of modification of the public market, she or her
heir/s would be given preferential rights.
Visitacion took over the store when her mother died sometime in 1984.  From then on up to January 1993,
Visitacion secured the yearly Mayor’s permits.
Sometime in 1986, a fire razed the public market of Nagcarlan. Upon Visitacion’s request for inspection
on 15 May 1986, District Engineer Marcelino B. Gorospe (Engineer Gorospe) of the then Ministry of
Public Works and Highways, Regional Office No. IV-A, found that the store of Visitacion remained intact
and stood strong. This finding of Engineer Gorospe was contested by the Municipality of Nagcarlan.
 The Sangguniang Bayan of Nagcarlan, Laguna issuedResolution No. 183 authorizing Mayor
Comendador to demolish the store being occupied by Visitacion usingl e g a l m e a n s . M a y o r
C o m e n d a d o r r e l y i n g o n t h e   strength of Sangguniang Bayan Resolution Nos. 183and
156 authorized the demolition of the store with Asilo and Angeles supervising the work.Visitacion,
filed with a case for damages before the  R T C . S p o u s e s B o m b a s i , t h e r e a f t e r , f i l e d a
c r i m i n a l complaint  a g a i n s t M a y o r C o m e n d a d o r , A s i l o a n d Angeles for violation of
Sec. 3(e) of Republic Act No.3019 otherwise known as the "Anti-Graft and CorruptPractices Act"
before the Office of the Ombudsman.S a n d i g a n b a y a n r e n d e r e d a d e c i s i o n , f i n d i n g
t h e accused Demetrio T. Comendador and Paulino S. Asilo, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of Sec.3(e) of Republic Act. No. 3019
The counsel for the late Mayor also filed its Motion for  R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e
d e a t h o f t h e l a t e  Mayor had totally extinguished both his criminal and  civil liability. The
Sandiganbayan granted the extinction of the criminal liability is concerned and denied
the  e x t i n c t i o n o f t h e c i v i l l i a b i l i t y h o l d i n g t h a t t h e c i v i l action is an independent civil
action. Hence, these Petitions for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUES
1. WON the accused is guilty of violating RA 3019
2   WON the actual damages prayed for is unconscionable
HELD:  The Supreme Court sustain the Sandiganbayanin its finding of criminal and civil liabilities
against petitioner Asilo and petitioner Mayor Comendador. The elements of the offense are as follows:
(1) that the accused are public officers or private persons charged in conspiracy with them; (2) that said
public officers commit the prohibited acts during the performance of their official duties or in relation to
their public positions; (3) that they caused undue injury to any party, whether the Government or a private
party;(4) OR that such injury is caused by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to the
other party; and (5) that the public officers have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence. Clearly, the demolition of plaintiff’s store was carried out without a court order,
and notwithstanding are straining order which the plaintiff was able to obtain. The demolition was done in
the exercise of official DUTIES WHICH apparently was attended by evident bad faith, manifest partiality
or gross inexcusable negligence as there is nothing in the two (2)resolutions which gave the herein
accused the authority to demolish plaintiff’s store. The accused public officials were devoid of any power
to demolish the store. A closer look at the contested resolutions reveals that Mayor Comendador was only
authorized to file an unlawful detainer case in case of resistance to obey the order or to demolish the
building using legal means. Clearly, the act of demolition without legal order in this case was not among
those provided by the resolutions, as indeed, it is a legally impossible provision.2.The amount of actual
damages prayed for is unconscionable. To seek recovery of actual damages, it is necessary to prove the
actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof  and on the
best evidence obtainable. n this case, the Court finds that the only evidence presented to prove the actual
damages incurred was the itemized list of damaged and lost items prepared by Engineer Cabrega,an
engineer commissioned by the Spouses Bombasi to estimate the costs. The amount claimed by the
respondent-claimant’s witness as to the actual amount of DAMAGES”
should be admitted with extreme caution considering that, because it was a bare assertion, it should be
supported by independent evidence."Whatever claim the respondent witness would allege must be
appreciated in consideration of his particular self-interest. There must still be a need for the examination
of the documentary evidence presented by the claimants to support its claim with regard to the actual
amount of damages. The price quotation made by Engineer Cabrega presented as an exhibit partakes of
the nature of hearsay evidence considering that the person who issued them was not presented as a
WITNESS.
IAN REX T. BARRAMEDA - BLOCK B

PEOPLE V BAYOT
G.R. NO. 200030 April 18, 2012

FACTS: The accused Nelson Bayot y Santina was convicted by the Regional Trial Court for a crime of
rape committed against AAA, thus sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The
appellate court increased the award of indemnity from 40,000 to 50,000 php. It is also ordered accused to
pay AAA moral damages in the amount of Php 50,000. The decision was promulgated on May 9, 2006.
However, in a letter dated May 29, 2006, the Superintendent Leopando of the New Bilibid Prison
informed the Court of Appeals that the appealant died at the Prison Hospital on December 4, 2004.

ISSUE: Is the death of the accused before the final promulgation of the decision which convicts him for
rape extinguished both his Criminal and Civil liability?

HELD: Yes, This is for the reason that the source of the civil liability of the accused is based solely on
his criminal liability. As opined by Justice Regalado, “the death of the accused prior to final judgement
terminates his criminal liability directly arising and based solely on the offense committed. The claim for
civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of the accused if the same may also predicate on a source
of obligation other than delict. However in this case, the claim for civil liability is attached to the criminal
liability.
In addition, par 1 of Art. 89 provides that the death of the convict extinguished the criminal liabilities and
as to pecuniary penalties liability , when the death occurs before the final judgement. Based from the
records, the judgement was promulgated only on 2006, two years after the death of the accused in 2004,
therefore, both his criminal and civil liability is extinguished.