G.R. No. 159017 -18 & G.R. No. 159059; March 9, 2011
Case Parties/Title:

PAULINO S. ASILO, JR., Petitioner, vs. 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, vs. VISITACION C. BOMBASI AND CESAR C. BOMBASI, Respondents.

FACTS

On March 15, 1978, the Municipality of Nagcarlan, Laguna, represented by Mayor Crisostomo P. Manalang, entered into a 20-year lease contract (extendible for another 20 years) with Marciana Vda. De Coronado for a lot and store in the public market. Upon her mother’s death in 1984, Visitacion C. Bombasi took over the store and secured yearly Mayor’s permits until January 1993. A fire razed the public market in 1986, but an inspection found Visitacion’s store intact. On September 1, 1993, Mayor Demetrio T. Comendador directed Visitacion to demolish her store within five days, citing Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 156 (dated August 30, 1993) authorizing him to order demolition to give way for a new market building and to file an unlawful detainer case if resisted. Visitacion replied, asserting the lease was still binding, offering to vacate if given the same space in the new market, and concurring with filing an unlawful detainer case. On October 11, 1993, the Sangguniang Bayan issued Resolution No. 183 authorizing Mayor Comendador to demolish any structure obstructing market reconstruction. On October 14, 1993, Municipal Administrator Paulino S. Asilo, Jr. informed Visitacion of the demolition set for the next day. Visitacion objected, citing lack of a court order. On October 15, 1993, Mayor Comendador, relying on the Resolutions, authorized the demolition, supervised by Asilo and Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator Alberto S. Angeles. The estimated cost of the demolished property was ₱437,900.00. The Spouses Bombasi filed a civil case for damages and a criminal complaint for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) against the Municipality, Mayor Comendador, Asilo, and Angeles. The Sandiganbayan found Mayor Comendador and Asilo guilty beyond reasonable doubt, dismissed the case against Angeles, and ordered the defendants to pay damages.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly found petitioners Demetrio T. Comendador and Paulino S. Asilo, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 for causing the demolition of Visitacion Bombasi’s market stall with evident bad faith, manifest partiality, or gross inexcusable negligence, causing undue injury.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the Sandiganbayan’s decision with MODIFICATION regarding the civil liability. The petitioners were found guilty of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 . The elements of the offense are: (1) the accused are public officers; (2) the act was done in the discharge of their official, administrative, or judicial functions; (3) they acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and (4) their action caused undue injury to any party or gave any private party unwarranted benefits. All elements were present. As public officers, they ordered and supervised the demolition in their official capacities. They acted with evident bad faith. The demolition was done without a judicial order, despite Visitacion’s valid lease contract which was still in effect until 1998 and her offer to submit to an unlawful detainer proceeding. The Sangguniang Bayan Resolutions did not justify the extrajudicial demolition, as they also contemplated filing a court action. The demolition caused undue injury to Visitacion, depriving her of her property and business. The civil liability for damages arising from the crime is subsidiary to the criminal liability. The award of ₱437,900.00 as actual damages was proper, supported by an engineer’s estimate. However, the awards for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees in the criminal case were deleted, as these are not recoverable in a criminal prosecution for violation of R.A. No. 3019 ; such damages must be pursued in a separate civil action. The civil case for damages filed by the spouses was deemed a separate civil action under Article 32 of the Civil Code, which can proceed independently.