Asilo vs. People

Civil liability based on an independent source of obligation, such as the law on human relations under Articles 31 and 32 of the Civil Code, survives the death of the accused pending appeal, notwithstanding the extinguishment of criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto.

In 1978, the Municipality of Nagcarlan, Laguna, represented by then Mayor Crisostomo Manalang, leased a public market stall to Marciana Vda. de Coronado for a period of 20 years, extendible for another 20 years. The contract granted the lessee the right to build a firewall and preferential rights in case of market modification. Upon Vda. de Coronado's death in 1984, her daughter, Visitacion Bombasi, took over the stall and continuously secured yearly Mayor's permits. A fire razed the public market in 1986, but an inspection by the District Engineer's office certified that Visitacion's two-storey store remained intact and structurally sound. In 1993, Mayor Demetrio Comendador, relying on Sangguniang Bayan resolutions, ordered the demolition of the store without a court order, which was carried out under the supervision of Municipal Administrator Paulino Asilo, Jr.

• Lease and Occupation: In 1978, Visitacion Bombasi’s mother leased a market stall from the Municipality of Nagcarlan for 20 years, extendible for another 20. Visitacion took over the stall in 1984 and continuously secured yearly Mayor's permits up to January 1993.
• The 1986 Fire: A fire razed the public market in 1986. Upon Visitacion's request, a District Engineer inspected the premises and certified that her two-storey store remained intact, with concrete walls showing no signs of fire damage. The Municipality contested this finding.
• Demolition Orders: On September 1, 1993, Mayor Comendador directed Visitacion to demolish her store within five days, attaching Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 156, which authorized him to file an unlawful detainer case if she resisted. Visitacion replied that the lease was still valid, expressing willingness to vacate only if granted an equivalent space in the new market, and inviting the Mayor to file a court action. On October 11, 1993, the Sangguniang Bayan issued Resolution No. 183, authorizing the Mayor to demolish structures obstructing market reconstruction using legal means.
• The Demolition: On October 14, 1993, Municipal Administrator Asilo informed Visitacion of the impending demolition. Visitacion replied that there was no legal right to demolish without a court order and that the resolutions only authorized filing an ejectment case. On October 15, 1993, Mayor Comendador authorized the demolition, with Asilo supervising the work, despite the absence of a court order.
• Subsequent Actions: In August 1994, the Spouses Bombasi filed a civil case for damages, specifically invoking the violation of their right to due process. In February 1996, a criminal Information for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 was filed against Mayor Comendador, Asilo, and Municipal Planning Coordinator Alberto Angeles. The civil and criminal cases were consolidated. Angeles died in 1997, resulting in the dismissal of the cases against him. Mayor Comendador died in 2002, after which the Sandiganbayan rendered its decision convicting Asilo and Comendador.

• Good Faith and Lack of Bad Faith: Petitioner Asilo argued that he and his co-accused acted in good faith in ordering and implementing the demolition, claiming they merely complied with the Sangguniang Bayan resolutions and the order of a superior, and thus incurred no liability under Section 3(e) of RA 3019, which requires manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.
• Extinction of Liability by Death: Petitioner Victoria Bueta Vda. de Comendador contended that the death of Mayor Comendador prior to the promulgation of the decision extinguished both his criminal and civil liability, invoking Section 4 of PD 1606, which mandates the joint determination of criminal and civil actions.
• Insufficiency of Evidence for Damages: Petitioner Victoria asserted that, assuming liability existed, the actual damages claimed by the Spouses Bombasi had no basis and were not duly substantiated.

• Survival of Civil Liability: Respondents, through the prosecution, countered that the civil liability did not arise from the delict but from an independent source of obligation—the law on human relations under Articles 31 and 32 of the Civil Code—thus surviving the death of the accused.
• Presence of Evident Bad Faith: Respondents maintained that the demolition was executed with evident bad faith and without legal authority, as no court order was secured despite the lack of a nuisance per se and the explicit terms of the Sangguniang Bayan resolutions which only authorized legal means.

• Violation of RA 3019: Whether the petitioners acted with evident bad faith in causing undue injury to the Spouses Bombasi, thus warranting conviction under Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
• Effect of Death on Civil Liability: Whether the civil liability of the deceased accused (Mayor Comendador) survives his death pending appeal, notwithstanding the extinguishment of his criminal liability.
• Award of Damages: Whether the award of actual damages was properly substantiated by the evidence presented.

• Violation of RA 3019: The conviction was affirmed. Evident bad faith was established because the market stall was not a nuisance per se that could be abated without judicial proceedings, the Sangguniang Bayan resolutions did not authorize demolition without a court order, and the Municipality was estopped from claiming the illegality of the structure after issuing yearly business permits. The demolition, executed without a court order and despite a restraining order, demonstrated a palpably and patently fraudulent purpose.
• Effect of Death on Civil Liability: Civil liability was held to survive the death of the accused. Pursuant to People v. Bayotas, while death extinguishes criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto, civil liability predicated on a source of obligation other than the delict survives. The civil action was based on Articles 31 and 32 of the Civil Code (law on human relations), which provides an independent right to recover damages for the violation of constitutional rights, specifically the right against deprivation of property without due process.
• Award of Damages: The award of actual damages was deleted and replaced with temperate damages. The only evidence of actual damage was an itemized list prepared by an engineer commissioned by the respondents, which partook of the nature of hearsay because the engineer was not presented as a witness. However, because pecuniary loss was undeniable, temperate damages of ₱200,000.00 were awarded under Article 2224 of the Civil Code.

• People v. Bayotas — Death of the accused pending appeal extinguishes criminal liability and civil liability based solely thereon (ex delicto). However, the claim for civil liability survives if predicated on a source of obligation other than the delict, such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts, or quasi-delicts. Where the civil liability survives, it may be pursued against the estate of the accused.
• Evident Bad Faith — Connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will. It contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive of self-interest or ill will.
• Temperate Damages — Awarded when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proven with certainty. The amount should be more than nominal but less than compensatory, left to the discretion of the courts.

• "Death of Mayor Comendador during the pendency of the case could have extinguished the civil liability if the same arose directly from the crime committed. However, in this case, the civil liability is based on another source of obligation, the law on human relations."
• "'Evident bad faith' connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will."
• "If demolition is necessary, there must be a hearing on the motion filed and with due notices to the parties for the issuance of a special order of demolition. This special need for a court order even if an ejectment case has successfully been litigated, underscores the independent basis for civil liability, in this case, where no case was even filed by the municipality."

• People v. Bayotas, G.R. No. 102007, 2 September 1994 — Controlling precedent. Laid down the rule that the death of the accused pending appeal extinguishes criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto, but civil liability based on other sources of obligation survives.
• Aberca v. Ver, G.R. No. L-69866, 15 April 1988 — Followed. Cited for the proposition that Article 32 of the Civil Code provides a sanction for the violation of constitutional rights and freedoms, allowing an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages.
• Marikina Auto Line Transport Corporation v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 152040, 31 March 2006 — Followed. Cited to support the ruling that an engineer's summary computation of damage, without the engineer's testimony, is insufficient to prove actual damages.

• Section 3(e), Republic Act No. 3019 — Penalizes public officers who cause undue injury to any party or give unwarranted benefits through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. Applied as the substantive basis for the criminal conviction.
• Article 31, Civil Code — Provides that when the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony, it may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings. Applied to sustain the civil liability independently of the criminal case.
• Article 32(6), Civil Code — Mandates liability for damages against any public officer who obstructs or impairs the right against deprivation of property without due process of law. Applied as the independent source of obligation sustaining the civil liability against the estate of the deceased mayor.
• Article 1157, Civil Code — Enumerates the sources of obligations (law, contracts, quasi-contracts, acts or omissions punished by law, quasi-delicts). Applied to classify the nature of the surviving civil liability.
• Article 2224, Civil Code — Defines temperate or moderate damages. Applied to justify the award of ₱200,000.00 when actual damages could not be proven with certainty.
• Section 10(d), Rule 39, Rules of Court — Requires a special order of the court, issued after due hearing and notice, before an officer can destroy or remove improvements on property subject of execution. Applied to underscore the necessity of a court order for demolition, the absence of which constituted bad faith.
• Section 4, Presidential Decree No. 1606 — Mandates the simultaneous institution and joint determination of criminal and civil actions in the Sandiganbayan. Distinguished; held not to extinguish independent civil actions based on sources other than the offense charged.

Corona, C.J. (Chairperson), Capio Morales, Velasco Jr., Del Castillo