Case Digest (G.R. No. 109445)
Facts:
Felicito Basbacio v. Office of the Secretary, Department of Justice, Franklin Drilon, G.R. No. 109445, November 07, 1994, Supreme Court En Banc, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Felicito Basbacio and his son‑in‑law Wilfredo Balderrama were criminally charged in connection with the June 26, 1988 shooting at Palo, Calanaga, Rapu‑Rapu, Albay, which resulted in the death of Federico Boyon and the wounding of his wife and son. At trial both were convicted — petitioner of frustrated murder and of two counts of frustrated murder — and ordered immediately detained after the cancellation of their bonds.
Both convicted accused filed appeals, but only petitioner’s appeal proceeded to judgment because his co‑accused’s appeal was dismissed for failure to file a brief. On June 22, 1992, the Court of Appeals reversed and acquitted petitioner on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove conspiracy between him and Balderrama; the appellate court found petitioner’s mere presence at the scene insufficient to establish concerted action.
Relying on his acquittal, petitioner filed a claim for compensation under Republic Act No. 7309, Sec. 3(a) with the Board of Claims, Department of Justice, seeking indemnity for what he characterized as unjust accusation, conviction and imprisonment. The Board denied the claim, concluding that the acquittal was grounded on reasonable doubt rather than a finding of innocence and that there were facts (motive from a land dispute, family relation to the actual shooter, joint arrival and exit) that supported probable guilt.
On administrative appeal the Secretary of Justice (respondent) affirmed the Board’s denial by resolution dated March 11, 1993, holding that Sec. 3(a) requires that the claimant be a victim of unjust imprisonment — not merely an accused who was later acquitted — and that petitioner’s exculpation was due to reasonable doubt rather than a determination of innocence. Petitioner sought review in this Court; because n...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court entertain the petition even though neither Rule 45 nor R.A. No. 7309 provides for certiorari review of the Secretary of Justice’s denial of a claims application?
- Does an appellate judgment of acquittal automatically entitle a claimant to compensation under R.A. No. 7309, Sec. 3(a), or must the claimant show that he was “unjustly accused, convicted and imprisoned”?
- Did the Secretary of Justice and the Board of Claims commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petition...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)