Scribd
Upload
30 views

Basbacio vs. DOJ (G.R. No. 109445. November 07, 1994) : in Re: Rafael C. Climaco

Petitioner Felicito Basbacio was convicted along with his son-in-law of attempted murder but was later acquitted on appeal. He filed a claim for compensation under a law that provides payment to those unjustly accused and convicted but later acquitted. His claim was denied on grounds that while the evidence was insufficient to convict him, he was probably guilty due to a land dispute with the victim and his son-in-law being the convicted murderer. The Supreme Court upheld the denial, finding that an acquittal due to errors in evidence appreciation does not necessarily mean the conviction was unjust and entitle one to compensation under the law. The petitioner's contention that he was entitled to compensation was without merit.

Uploaded by

first
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
30 views

Basbacio vs. DOJ (G.R. No. 109445. November 07, 1994) : in Re: Rafael C. Climaco

Petitioner Felicito Basbacio was convicted along with his son-in-law of attempted murder but was later acquitted on appeal. He filed a claim for compensation under a law that provides payment to those unjustly accused and convicted but later acquitted. His claim was denied on grounds that while the evidence was insufficient to convict him, he was probably guilty due to a land dispute with the victim and his son-in-law being the convicted murderer. The Supreme Court upheld the denial, finding that an acquittal due to errors in evidence appreciation does not necessarily mean the conviction was unjust and entitle one to compensation under the law. The petitioner's contention that he was entitled to compensation was without merit.

Uploaded by

first
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

In re: Rafael c.

climaco

Basbacio vs. DOJ [G.R. No. 109445. November 07, 1994]


15 Aug
Ponente: MENDOZA, J.
FACTS:
Petitioner Felicito Basbacio and his son-in-law, Wilfredo Balderrama, were convicted of
frustrated murder and of two counts of frustrated murder. Petitioner and his son-in-law were
sentenced to imprisonment and ordered immediately detained after their bonds had been
cancelled. Petitioner and his son-in-law appealed. The Court of Appeals rendered a decision
acquitting petitioner on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove conspiracy between him
and his son-in-law. Based on his acquittal, petitioner filed a claim under Rep. Act No. 7309, Sec.
3(a), which provides for the payment of compensation to any person who was unjustly accused,
convicted, imprisoned but subsequently released by virtue of a judgment of acquittal. The claim
was filed with the Board of Claims of the Department of Justice, but the claim was denied on the
ground that while petitioners presence at the scene of the killing was not sufficient to find him
guilty beyond reasonable doubt, yet, considering that there was bad blood between him and the
deceased as a result of a land dispute and the fact that the convicted murderer is his son-in-law,
there was basis for finding that he was probably guilty. Petitioner brought this petition for
review on certiorari as a special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is entitled of the claim under R.A. No. 7309.
HELD:
NO. Petitioners contention has no merit.
To say then that an accused has been unjustly convicted has to do with the manner of his
conviction rather than with his innocence. An accused may on appeal be acquitted because he did
not commit the crime, but that does not necessarily mean that he is entitled to compensation for
having been the victim of an unjust conviction. If his conviction was due to an error in the
appreciation of the evidence the conviction while erroneous is not unjust. That is why it is not, on
the other hand, correct to say as does respondent, that under the law liability for compensation
depends entirely on the innocence of the accused.
Dela cruz vs concepcion

You might also like