Peralta v. Campos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Jose de Peralta was charged with illegal construction of his house under a 1952 Quezon City ordinance for failure to secure a building permit. The house was constructed in 1972 by the previous owner, Guillermo Rezo. Procedural History: The City Court of Quezon City initially convicted Jose de Peralta. However, the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal, Quezon City Branch IV, reversed the decision, absolved De Peralta of the charge of illegal construction, and declared him acquitted. Despite the acquittal, the CFI ordered De Peralta to remove, dismantle, and transfer the house within thirty days, otherwise it would be demolished at his expense. The CFI justified this order as a means to implement the policy of clearing Quezon City of squatters and as part of De Peralta's civil liability. The Petition: De Peralta filed a special civil action for certiorari, contending that the dispositive part of the CFI's decision ordering the demolition of his house was inconsistent with the judgment of acquittal and constituted an excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. It was also revealed that De Peralta could not secure a construction permit because the lot on which the house was built was registered in the name of Augusto Z. Garcia.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance erred and acted in excess of jurisdiction or gravely abused its discretion in ordering Jose de Peralta to remove and dismantle his house within thirty days after his acquittal of the crime of illegal construction. Whether a demolition order can be imposed as part of a judgment of acquittal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that the portion of the decision of the respondent Judge requiring the accused to remove, dismantle, and transfer his house is set aside. The Court held that the trial judge acted in excess of jurisdiction in ordering the demolition of the house after acquitting the accused of illegal construction.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the CFI erred in ordering demolition despite acquittal: The Supreme Court held that the trial judge acted in excess of jurisdiction in ordering De Peralta to demolish his house after acquitting him of illegal construction. The Court reasoned that demolition is a form of punishment, and one cannot be punished in a case where he has been acquitted. A finding of guilt must precede the imposition of any penalty or punishment. The Court cited Gomez vs. Concepcion and People vs. Abellera to support the principle that a court has no power to mete out punishment after an acquittal. On the issue of whether a demolition order can be imposed as part of a judgment of acquittal: The Court unequivocally stated that a demolition order, in the context of an acquittal for illegal construction, is a form of punishment. Therefore, it cannot be imposed upon an individual who has been declared not guilty of the offense charged. The respondent judge's justification that the order was to implement the policy of clearing Quezon City of squatters or that it constituted civil liability was found to be misplaced in the context of a criminal acquittal. The Court clarified that the proper remedy to remove De Peralta's house, if warranted, would be through an ejectment suit or other appropriate civil or administrative proceedings, not as part of a criminal judgment of acquittal.
Main Doctrine
A demolition order issued in a judgment acquitting an accused of illegal construction constitutes an excess of jurisdiction, as demolition is a form of punishment which cannot be imposed upon an acquitted individual.