Case Summary (G.R. No. 102070)
Factual Background and Initial Court Proceedings
In November 1990, the accused allegedly forcibly entered and occupied a portion of land owned by Teresita Silva and her co-owners, threatening to kill their tenant-encargado to prevent resistance. Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Juliana C. Azarraga found prima facie evidence of guilt and filed an Information for usurpation of real rights in property with the RTC of Capiz, docketed as Criminal Case No. 3386. The respondent RTC judge dismissed the case motu proprio, ruling lack of jurisdiction because the penalty for Article 312 offenses, based on a fine of P200 to P500 where the gain cannot be ascertained, was below the court’s minimum jurisdictional threshold.
Grounds for Dismissal by the RTC Judge
The presiding judge reasoned that the violence or intimidation was merely a means or incident of committing usurpation under Article 312 and that such threat was absorbed by the crime charged. He held that the crime charged was not a complex crime as the elements of Article 312 and Article 282 were distinct and could not be treated as one for penal or jurisdictional purposes. Because the imposable fine under Article 312 was minimal and the value of the gain could not be determined, jurisdiction properly lay with a lower court.
Motion for Reconsideration and RTC Denial
The assistant provincial prosecutor filed a motion for reconsideration contending that Article 312 borrows its penalty provisions from Article 282, meaning the penalty for the acts of violence or intimidation should be considered in assessing jurisdiction. The respondent judge denied the motion, reiterating that both offenses were separate simple crimes, thus not forming a complex crime, and reaffirmed the dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction due to the low imposable penalty.
Petition for Review and Office of the Solicitor General’s Position
The assistant provincial prosecutor filed a petition before the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction by the RTC judge. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a comment pointing out procedural issues about representation but took the position that the petition had merit and advocated for reversal of the dismissal. The OSG asserted that Article 312’s penalty must include the penalty for the violence or intimidation employed by the accused, which under Article 282 could raise the penalty to prision mayor, thus conferring jurisdiction to the RTC.
The RTC Judge’s Defense on Comment
In his comment, the respondent judge maintained that only usurpation under Article 312 was charged, with the violence or intimidation as mere elements, not separate crimes. According to him, the phrase “in addition to the penalty incurred for the acts of violence executed by him” did not refer to Article 282. He also contended that failure to allege intent to gain—the animus furandi—was fatal to the charge.
Legal Analysis of Article 312’s Nature and Penalty Structure
Article 312 punishes any person who takes possession or usurps real property “by means of violence against or intimidation of persons” with a fine based on the value of gain plus the penalty for the acts of violence committed. The offense is a special form of crime against property, akin to robbery by violence or intimidation, but involving real property or real rights thereto instead of personal property. The court clarified that violence or intimidation in this context corresponds to the various forms set forth in Article 294, including intimidation defined as unlawful coercion or putting in fear, which may be inflicted without actual physical harm.
Distinction Between Violence or Intimidation in Related Crimes
The Supreme Court distinguished intimidation in Article 312 from other provisions like Article 282 (Grave Threats) and Article 286 (Grave Coercion). While Article 282 involves conditional intimidation that may be indirect or via intermediaries, Articles 294 and 312 involve actual or immediate physical violence or intimidation directed at victims. Article 312 combines a principal penalty for the violent acts with an incremental fine proportional to the gain from usurpation.
Jurisdictional Implications of the Penalty Under Article 312 and Related Provisions
The Court rejected the judge’s proposition that the threat was absorbed as a mere means and that Article 282 did not affect jurisdiction. It further clarified that Article 282 and Article 312 do not create two separate offenses but rather one indivisible crime subject to a composite penalty—prision mayor and a fine based on gain. The penalty for the violence or intimidation under Article 282 when linked to Article 312 is one degree lower than that for the threatened crime (e.g., homicide), generally prision mayor, which confers jurisdiction to the RTC.
Deficiencies in the Information and Offended Party Considerations
The Court observed that the tenant-encargado, Inocencio Borreros, who was threatened, is the person in actual possession and thus has a real right over the property. However, the complaint named only the co-owners as offended parties and did not include the tenant as an offended party, which is legally defective since the tenant’s right was directly usurped. Hence, the information as framed fails to charge an offense against the proper offended party, justifying dismissal under Rule 117, Section 3(a) of the Rules of Court.
Corrective Measures and Clarifications on Offended Parties
The ruling clarifies that the tenant with real rights of possession must be included as offended party in the information. Should the accused intend to gain possession unlawfully, the charge for usurpation can stand. Without intent to gain, however, the acts may constitute grave coercion instead. The Court also stated that an owner can be an offended party if all elements of Article 282 are satisfied, in which case the
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 102070)
Facts of the Case
- The case involves a complaint for Grave Threats and Usurpation of Real Property filed against Ruperto Dimalata and Norberto Fuentes.
- The complainants are co-owners of a parcel of land allegedly usurped by the accused.
- Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Juliana C. Azarraga conducted the preliminary investigation and found prima facie evidence of guilt.
- On July 5, 1991, the Information was filed charging the accused with Usurpation of Real Rights in Property under Article 312 in relation to Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code.
- The accused allegedly threatened to kill the tenant-encargado if he resisted their taking possession of the property.
- The accused entered, possessed, and cultivated a portion of the land, excluding the owners from its produce and profits.
- The Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Capiz, dismissed the case motu proprio on July 17, 1991, citing lack of jurisdiction due to the penalty involved.
Issues Presented
- Which court has jurisdiction over cases involving violations of Article 312 of the Revised Penal Code where the intimidation consists of a threat to kill?
- Whether the violence or intimidation under Article 312 is absorbed as part of the crime or constitutes a separate offense.
- Whether the penalty for the violence or intimidation should be considered for determining jurisdiction.
- Whether the case charges a complex crime or two separate offenses.
- The legal sufficiency of the Information with respect to the offended party and intent to gain.
Proceedings and Rulings of the Trial Court
- The trial court dismissed the Information for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning:
- The violence or intimidation is a means to commit the crime under Article 312 and thus absorbed.
- The imposable penalty is a fine between ₱200 to ₱500, below its jurisdictional threshold.
- The acts alleged do not constitute a complex crime under Article 312 and Article 282.
- The motion for reconsideration filed by the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor was denied.
- The court held that the crimes charged under Articles 312 and 282 are separate and distinct simple crimes with separate elements.
- The court further posited the absence of intent to gain in the Information as an additional ground for dismissal.
Petition for Certiorari and Arguments
- Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Azarraga filed a petition for certiorari on behalf of the People of the Philippines, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the respondent Judge.
- The petition argued:
- The court erred in ignoring Article 282’s penalty as the basis for jurisdiction.
- The crime charged is not a complex crime by mere reference to both Articles.
- The intimidation constituted a threat punishable under Article 282, which raises the penalty and jurisdictional qualification.
- The Office of the Solicitor General intervened, noting procedural irregularities but supporting the petition’s merit.
- It emphasized that the penalty for the acts of violence, particularly threats to kill (Article 282), is one degree lower than homicide and falls within Regional Trial Court jurisdiction.
Legal Analysis on Article 312 of the Revised Penal Code
- Article 312 punishes the occupation or usurpation of real property b