G.R. No. 102070 - People vs. Alfeche, Jr.

A complaint for Grave Threats and Usurpation of Real Property was filed against Ruperto Dimalata and Norberto Fuentes.
Preliminary investigation established that Dimalata is a successor-in-interest of the original owner, and the threat was against the tenant-encargado.
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Juliana C. Azarraga recommended filing of Information for Usurpation of Real Rights in Property under Article 312 in relation to Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Capiz.
The complainants, co-owners of the property, alleged that the accused unlawfully occupied a portion of Lot No. 3000 by threatening to kill the tenant-encargado, preventing the owners’ use and enjoyment of the land.

The Information was docketed as Criminal Case No. 3386 and assigned to Branch 15 of RTC Capiz.
On July 17, 1991, the presiding judge dismissed the case motu proprio for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning:

The threat used by the accused was absorbed in the crime of usurpation under Article 312.
The imposable fine was from P200 to P500, which is below RTC jurisdictional threshold.

The assistant prosecutor filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the penalty under Article 312 depends on the penalty prescribed in Article 282 (Grave Threats), which includes imprisonment penalties within RTC jurisdiction.
The motion for reconsideration was denied on July 24, 1991, affirming the dismissal on grounds that Article 312 and Article 282 refer to separate offenses and that the penalty is only a fine.

Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Azarraga filed a petition for certiorari questioning the RTC judge’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a comment supporting the petition, although it noted that only the Solicitor General is authorized to represent the People in such cases.
The RTC judge filed a comment defending his orders:

Violence or intimidation is an element of Article 312 and does not constitute a separate offense.
Article 312 and Article 282 are separate crimes with separate juridical interests; complex crime theory is inapplicable.
Failure to allege intent to gain in the information (an essential element of Article 312) was another ground for dismissal.

The SC required reply from the prosecutor; the OSG filed a reply, and the petition was given due course.

The penalty for acts of violence executed, plus
A fine of 50% to 100% of the gain obtained (not less than ₱75), or ₱200 to ₱500 if the gain cannot be ascertained.

Article 282 criminalizes Grave Threats, with penalty one degree lower than the penalty for the crime threatened.
Article 294 defines and penalizes Robbery with violence or intimidation against persons.

What court has jurisdiction over cases involving violation of Article 312 of the Revised Penal Code where intimidation consists of a threat to kill?
Whether the violence or intimidation in Article 312 is absorbed by the crime or constitutes a separate offense subject to additional penalty under Article 282.
Whether the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction by the RTC was proper and justified based on the imposable penalty.
Whether the Information sufficiently charged an offense, considering the actual offended party and the failure to allege intent to gain.