ZAYDA S. BISCOCHO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Biscocho versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed with the Supreme Court by Zayda S. Biscocho against the People of the Philippines, challenging the jurisdiction and discretion of the Sandiganbayan. Biscocho was charged with violating Section 3, paragraph (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, for allegedly recommending a road construction that would benefit her own property. While she was acquitted of the criminal charge, the Sandiganbayan nonetheless ordered her to pay 30,000 pesos in actual damages to the complainant. This case matters because it clarifies the limits of civil liability when an accused is acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt, specifically whether civil liability can attach when the acts complained of were not the accused's own doing.

Procedural History

Biscocho was charged before the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 9252 for violation of Section 3, paragraph (e) of Republic Act No. 3019. After trial, the Sandiganbayan rendered a decision dated 21 May 1986 and promulgated on 17 June 1986, acquitting her of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt, but imposing upon her civil liability in the amount of 30,000 pesos as actual damages to the complainant. On 2 July 1986, Biscocho moved for partial reconsideration, praying that the judgment imposing the payment of actual damages be deleted. On 3 October 1986, the Sandiganbayan denied the motion. Biscocho then filed the present petition with the Supreme Court, contending that the Sandiganbayan acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, and with grave abuse of discretion, in ordering her to pay the damages and in denying her motion for partial reconsideration.

Facts

Zayda S. Biscocho was the Municipal Development Coordinator and Head of the Planning and Development Staff of the Office of the Mayor of Pola, Oriental Mindoro. Her duties consisted of preparing development plans for the municipality in sectors such as health, education, and infrastructure, including the construction of roads, schools, buildings, and seawalls. However, the actual construction of proposed infrastructure projects was left to the Bureau of Public Highways. She had no direct hand in the implementation or carrying out of the plans she proposed.

On 25 June 1982, an information was filed against Biscocho, alleging that she recommended to municipal officials and the Ministry of Public Works and Highways the construction of a barrio road that would traverse the complainant's property, giving access to her own adjacent land. The information alleged that she knew there was no prior expropriation or negotiated sale, that she represented herself as owner of the land when she was not, and that she gave permission to the road contractor's personnel to proceed, resulting in the cutting of fruit-bearing trees and causing undue injury and damages to the complainant assessed at 30,000 pesos.

After trial, the Sandiganbayan found that Biscocho's duties were limited to planning and did not extend to implementation or execution. The prosecution's own evidence established that she was not clothed with authority to give the go-signal or approval to the Bureau of Public Highways to proceed with construction. The plan she drew up did not specify the area or property through which the proposed road would traverse; the actual determination of the area was left to the project engineers of the Bureau of Public Highways. The decision to build the road on the complainant's property instead of on the Barangay Captain's land was made solely by the Bureau of Public Highways project engineers, without any participation by Biscocho. The Sandiganbayan acquitted her on reasonable doubt but still ordered her to pay 30,000 pesos as actual damages.

Issues

• Whether or not the Sandiganbayan acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, and with grave abuse of discretion, in ordering the petitioner to pay the complainant 30,000 pesos as actual damages despite her acquittal.
• Whether or not the petitioner can be held civilly liable for acts which were not of her own doing.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3, paragraph (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, provides:

Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. 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: xxx (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.

This provision is the basis of the criminal charge against the petitioner, and the Court's analysis of her duties and actions determines whether she can be held civilly liable for the alleged undue injury.

Ruling

The Supreme Court granted the petition. On the first issue, the Court held that the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the petitioner to pay actual damages. The Court found that the petitioner's duties were limited to planning and did not extend to implementation or execution. The Sandiganbayan itself found that the petitioner was not clothed with authority to give the go-signal or approval to the Bureau of Public Highways to proceed with construction. The plan she prepared did not specify the area or property through which the road would traverse; the actual determination was left to the project engineers. The decision to build the road on the complainant's property was made solely by the Bureau of Public Highways project engineers, without any participation by the petitioner.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petitioner cannot be held civilly liable for acts which were not of her own doing. The Court quoted the Sandiganbayan's finding:

We can not accept the proposition that when accused drew up the plan for the Pahilahan-Calatagan Road project, she had contemplated the same to traverse the property of complainant so that her own adjacent property would be connected to the main road of the municipality. It is pertinent to stress that the plan itself did not specify the area or property through which the proposed barangay road would traverse. Accused merely recommended therein the construction of a road in the barangays mentioned to form part of a road network in all the barangays without specifying the actual location of said road. The actual determination of the area where the road would be constructed was properly left to the able judgment and sound discretion of the project engineers of the Bureau of Public Highways.

The Court concluded that the petitioner did not authorize the construction of the road over the complainant's land, and thus she cannot be held civilly liable for acts not of her own doing.

Doctrine

The doctrine established in this case is that when an accused is acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt, the court may still impose civil liability if the evidence shows that the acts complained of were attributable to the accused. However, if the acts were not of the accused's own doing, no civil liability can attach. The rule is that civil liability ex delicto requires a finding that the accused committed the acts or omissions complained of. In this case, since the petitioner's duties were limited to planning and she had no participation in the implementation or the decision to construct the road over the complainant's property, she cannot be held civilly liable. The Court emphasized that the decision to build the road on the complainant's land was made solely by the Bureau of Public Highways project engineers, without the petitioner's participation. Thus, the petitioner cannot be held civilly liable for acts which were not of her own doing.

Disposition

The petition is granted. The Sandiganbayan's judgment ordering the petitioner to pay the complainant 30,000 pesos as actual damages is reversed and set aside. No pronouncement as to costs.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that an accused acquitted on reasonable doubt cannot be held civilly liable for acts which were not of her own doing. Examiners like to use this case to test the principle that civil liability ex delicto requires a causal connection between the accused's acts and the injury suffered, and that a public officer whose duties are limited to planning cannot be held liable for the implementation decisions of other agencies.