G.R. No. 251636 - People vs. Constantino

Accused-appellants—Orlando Constantino, Antonio Alegado, Romeo Cabiles, Luzviminda Cabiles, Leneto Bonocan, Arturo L. Nueva, Norma C. Lupas, Mercy B. Galabin, Luzviminda Diapolet, Clara Ramirez, and Elvie Arcebar—were members of the White Sand Bentol Fishermen Cooperative (WSBFC).
They were charged before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Panabo City with violation of Article 91(B)(3) of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1067, the Water Code of the Philippines, for unlawfully occupying and constructing structures in the foreshore area located at Brgy. San Pedro, Panabo City without a necessary permit.
The crime allegedly occurred on or about July 13, 2009.

The prosecution admitted that none of its complainants were officially employed by the National Water Resources Board (NWRB).
The defense admitted:

All accused live outside the coastal area where the structures were built.
All accused were members of WSBFC, which was represented by Zosimo Lasco.
WSBFC, through Lasco, filed a Foreshore Lease Application (FLA) with the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) on June 10, 2005.
According to a CENRO certification, the FLA was not approved.

Accused-appellants entered and occupied the foreshore area of Barangay San Pedro in January 2009.
They constructed sheds, cottages, and structures and operated sari-sari stores without an approved foreshore lease from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) nor proper business permits from Panabo City.
On July 13, 2009, witnesses discovered these illegal structures and occupancy.
Despite notices and objections from the City Government to vacate the area, the accused-appellants ignored these warnings.
A certification dated May 22, 2013, by the City Building Official confirmed no building permits were issued to accused-appellants.

The accused-appellants admitted occupation of the foreshore area prior to July 13, 2009 and pending their lease application.
The WSBFC’s FLA filed on June 10, 2005 was for establishing a beach resort over a 93,497 sqm area classified as foreshore.
The Municipality of Panabo had passed resolutions declaring the white sand area as a beach resort.
Accused-appellants claimed ignorance about the need for permits to establish businesses on the foreshore, alleging no government official informed them of such.
They denied unlawful occupancy, asserting their possession was lawful pending approval of the FLA.
The MTCC, through injunctive relief and Special Civil Case No. 30-08, had restored their possession against rival claimants.

MTCC convicted the accused-appellants on March 7, 2016, ruling that a pending foreshore lease application does not permit occupation and construction without the required permit.
The MTCC held that their injunctive relief in SCC No. 30-08 for forcible entry was unrelated to the criminal charge.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4, Panabo City, on September 5, 2017, affirmed the MTCC ruling in toto, emphasizing that a lack of permit was a violation irrespective of intention.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision on November 21, 2018, which was followed by denial of reconsideration on June 17, 2019.
Accused-appellants filed only a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court, which was the improper mode of appeal.

Whether accused-appellants are guilty of violating Article 91(B)(3) of PD 1067 for unauthorized occupancy and construction in the foreshore area without securing necessary government permits.
Whether the pending foreshore lease application/filed suit for forcible entry and possession constitute valid defenses against the criminal charge.
Whether the prosecution’s filing of the complaint through CENRO, rather than NWRB, violates jurisdictional or procedural requirements.
Whether accused-appellants may avail of the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies in their defense.
Whether the mode of appeal employed by accused-appellants (notice of appeal) was proper to bring the case to the Supreme Court.