Case Digest (G.R. No. 102070)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Hon. David A. Alfeche, Jr., G.R. No. 102070, July 23, 1992, Supreme Court Third Division, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Juliana C. Azarraga, acting for the People of the Philippines, conducted a preliminary investigation into a complaint by co-owners (led by Teresita Silva) alleging that Ruperto Dimalata and Norberto Fuentes unlawfully entered, possessed and cultivated a portion of Lot No. 3000 and had threatened to kill the tenant-encargado, Inocencio Borreros, if he resisted. After finding prima facie evidence, the provincial prosecutor approved an Information for "Usurpation of Real Rights In Property defined and penalized under Article 312 in relation to Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code." The Information was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Capiz, docketed as Criminal Case No. 3386 and raffled to Branch 15.
On 17 July 1991 the presiding judge of Branch 15, Hon. David A. Alfeche, Jr. (respondent), dismissed the Information motu proprio for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that the threatened violence was absorbed by the Article 312 offense and that the imposable fine (P200–P500 when gain cannot be ascertained) placed the case outside RTC jurisdiction. A motion for reconsideration was denied on 24 July 1991; the judge reiterated that Article 312 and Article 282 are distinct simple crimes and not a complex crime subject to Article 48, and also noted the Information’s alleged failure to allege intent to gain.
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Azarraga filed a petition with this Court imputing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction on respondent for dismissing the case. The Court required the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to comment; the OSG advised that the petition had merit, ratified the filing notwithstanding a remark on the Assistant Prosecutor’s capacity, and urged reversal of the respondent’s orders. The respondent filed his comment defending dismissal; the Assistant Prosecutor and the OSG filed replies. The Court admitted the petition and resolved to give it due course.
The parties’ arguments and the Court’s review focused on the proper construction of Article 312 (occupation of real property by means of violence or intim...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the respondent judge commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction by dismissing the Information in Criminal Case No. 3386?
- When the intimidation in an Article 312 offense consists of a threat to kill, which court has jurisdiction to try the case?
- Did the Information filed in Criminal Case No. 3386 properly charge an offense, or must it be dismissed or amended for failure to name the actual offend...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)