Case Summary (G.R. No. 251636)
Petitioner and Respondent (in the appeal)
Petitioner: the accused-appellants (who filed a notice of appeal). Respondent: the People of the Philippines (plaintiff-appellee), represented by the prosecutor who subscribed to the Information.
Key Dates
Relevant adjudications and filings (as presented): foreshore lease application filed June 10, 2005; alleged illegal occupation noted July 13, 2009; Building Official certification May 22, 2013; MTCC Decision convicting appellants March 7, 2016; RTC affirmed September 5, 2017; Court of Appeals affirmed November 21, 2018 and denied reconsideration June 17, 2019; appeal to the Supreme Court decided February 14, 2022.
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
Constitutional framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable because the decision date is post-1990). Statutory and regulatory sources relied upon: Presidential Decree No. 1067 (Water Code of the Philippines), particularly Article 91(B)(3) (unauthorized occupancy of river bank or seashore without permission), Article 51 (easement and shore margin limitations), and Article 93 (criminal actions under Article 91 to be brought before proper courts); Rules of Court provisions on appellate procedure (Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari; Rule 56 on mode and disposition of appeals), Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure as discussed by the CA, and the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (Rule 9) as cited. Also referenced in the decisions: Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 (judicial reorganization), and Executive Orders concerning agency mandates (EO Nos. 192 and 123).
Charge and Stipulation of Facts
Accused-appellants were charged in an Information alleging conspiracy and mutual assistance to occupy, build and construct structures in the foreshore area of Barangay San Pedro, Panabo City on or about July 13, 2009, without securing the necessary permit, thereby violating Article 91(B)(3) of PD 1067. At pre-trial the parties stipulated that: none of the complainants are officially employed with the National Water Resources Board; the accused reside outside the coastal area where structures stand; they are WSBFC members represented by Lasco; WSBFC filed a Foreshore Lease Application (FLA) received by CENRO on June 10, 2005 signed by Lasco; and CENRO issued a certification stating there was no approval of the FLA.
Prosecution Version and Evidence
The prosecution established that the accused-appellants, as WSBFC members, entered and occupied the foreshore area beginning January 2009 and constructed sheds, cottages and other structures and operated sari-sari stores without DENR approval of any foreshore lease and without required city business or building permits. Witnesses observed the occupation and structures on July 13, 2009. Notices to vacate issued by Panabo City and public notices by CENRO-DENR advising that a pending FLA does not authorize occupation were ignored. A May 22, 2013 certification by the Building Official stated none of the accused were issued building permits.
Defense Version and Claims
The defense admitted membership in WSBFC and physical occupation prior to July 13, 2009, and that WSBFC filed an FLA in 2005 for a beach resort over 93,497 sqm. They relied on municipal and barangay resolutions recognizing the area as a beach resort, contended ignorance of the need for permits for makeshift stores and business activity, and asserted that pending FLA status lawfully permitted occupation and economic activity. They also relied on MTCC injunctive relief and a December 4, 2009 MTCC decision in a forcible entry case (SCC No. 30-08) that restored their possession, contending that restoration and prior possession justified continued occupation. Finally, they asserted an alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
MTCC Ruling (Trial Court)
The MTCC (Panabo City) convicted the accused-appellants under Article 91(B)(3) of PD 1067 and sentenced each to a fine of PHP 3,000 (with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency). It held that a pending foreshore lease application does not authorize occupation, building or construction; the MTCC decision in SCC No. 30-08 restoring possession in a forcible entry action could not be used as a defense in a criminal prosecution under PD 1067; and the restoration was based on prior de facto possession disturbed by third parties, not on authority to build without permits.
RTC Ruling (First-level Appellate Court)
The Regional Trial Court affirmed the MTCC in toto. Key holdings: none of the accused or WSBFC obtained the permits required by law; construction without the required permit is a violative act per se; PD 1067 is a special law and the offense is malum prohibitum (criminal intent is immaterial); a pending foreshore lease application does not authorize occupation or construction; the area described as “foreshore” falls within the broader statutory concept of “seashore” under PD 1067 and thus within Article 51’s regulated shore margins; the forcible entry decision restoring possession did not validate subsequent occupation or construction without permits; and exhaustion of administrative remedies is not applicable to the criminal prosecution because Article 93 of PD 1067 expressly provides for judicial prosecution of offenses under Article 91.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC. It reasoned that a complaint may be initiated before the prosecutor’s office by persons or public officers (citing Rule 110) and that although CENRO is not the NWRB, CENRO staff filed a joint affidavit-complaint with the prosecutor’s office and the prosecutor subscribed the Information. The CA reiterated that “seashore” encompasses “foreshore” and that unauthorized occupancy of the shore (including foreshore) without permission is penalized under Article 91(B)(3). The CA also held that DENR’s role and interest in foreshore management rendered the complaint properly filed and that exhaustion of administrative remedies did not bar criminal prosecution.
Issue on Appeal and Procedural Disposition by the Supreme Court
The principal procedural issue identified by the Supreme Court was the appellants’ mode of appealing: they filed a notice of appeal instead of the proper remedy—a verified petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The Court cited Rule 45 (Section 1 and 2) and Rule 56 (Sections 3 and 6) to explain that an appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeals should be by petition for review on certiorari and that an appeal by notice of appeal is generally dismissed. Because the accused-appellants received the CA decision and resolution and then filed only a notice of appeal, the Supreme Court concluded that they employed the wrong mode of appeal, which did not toll the reglementary period for filing a Rule 45 petition. Their failure to seek the proper remedy within the prescribed period rendered the judgment final and executable and warranted dismissal of the improper appeal.
Supreme Court Substantive Holding and Legal Reasoning
Substantively, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court highlighted the following points as determinative: the accused-appellants admitted they occupied and constructed structures in an area classified as foreshore without necessa
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 251636)
Case Caption, Docket and Decision
- Second Division, G.R. No. 251636, Decision dated February 14, 2022, penned by Justice Hernando.
- Parties: People of the Philippines (Plaintiff-Appellee) v. 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 (Accused-Appellants; collectively referred to as “accused-appellants”).
- Challenged pleadings: Court of Appeals (CA) Decision of November 21, 2018 and CA Resolution of June 17, 2019 in CA-G.R. CR No. 01622-MIN, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4, Panabo City Decision of September 5, 2017, which in turn affirmed the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Panabo City Decision of March 7, 2016.
- Presiding and concurring judges noted in various tribunals as provided in the source material.
Nature of the Offense Charged
- Accused-appellants were charged in Criminal Case No. 7621 before the MTCC for violation of Article 91(B)(3) of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1067 (the Water Code of the Philippines).
- The Information alleged that on or about July 13, 2009, in Panabo City, Davao del Norte, the accused, as members of Whitesand Bentol Fishermen Cooperative (WSBFC), conspired and without securing the necessary permit, willfully, unlawfully and knowingly occupied, built and constructed building structures in the foreshore area located at Brgy. San Pedro, Panabo City. The charge concluded with the phrase “CONTRARY TO LAW.”
Pleas, Pre-trial and Stipulations
- Upon arraignment, all accused-appellants pleaded not guilty.
- During pre-trial, parties stipulated to material facts:
- Prosecution admitted none of the complainants are officially employed with the National Water Resources Board (NWRB).
- Defense admissions included:
- All accused reside outside the coastal area where the structures are found.
- All accused claim membership in Whitesand Bentol Cooperative (WSBFC), represented by Zosimo Lasco.
- WSBFC, represented by Zosimo Lasco, filed a Foreshore Lease Application (FLA) received by CENRO on June 10, 2005.
- The FLA was signed by Lasco representing the cooperative of which the accused are members.
- A CENRO-issued Certification states there is no approval of the FLA in favor of the cooperative.
Prosecution’s Version and Evidence
- The prosecution’s case presented the following facts and evidence:
- Accused-appellants are members of WSBFC.
- In or about January 2009 accused-appellants entered and occupied the foreshore area of Barangay San Pedro, Panabo City and constructed sheds, cottages, and other structures; they also operated sari-sari stores.
- The structures and businesses were established without WSBFC’s foreshore lease application having been approved by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and without necessary business permits from the Licensing Section of Panabo City.
- On July 13, 2009 prosecution witnesses Oliver Q. Oriol and Mario R. PaAa discovered the alleged illegal occupation, construction, and operation of sari-sari stores by the accused-appellants.
- The Panabo City Government objected to WSBFC’s FLA and sent notices to accused-appellants to vacate the foreshore area, which were ignored.
- Accused-appellants disregarded CENRO-DENR notices stating no foreshore lease application was approved in favor of any person or group and that a pending application did not authorize occupation.
- A Building Official Certification dated May 22, 2013 from the Office of the City Engineer, Panabo City stated none of the accused-appellants had been issued a building permit.
Defense’s Version and Evidence
- The defense put forward several contentions and facts:
- Accused-appellants admitted membership in WSBFC and that they occupied the foreshore area prior to July 13, 2009.
- WSBFC, headed by Zosimo Lasco, filed an FLA with CENRO-DENR Region XI-2B, Panabo City on June 10, 2005 over an area of 93,497 square meters for establishment of a beach resort.
- DENR-LMS, Region XI, Davao City classified the subject area as “foreshore.”
- The Municipal Sangguniang Panabo passed Resolution No. 299, Series of 2000 (dated May 14, 2000) confirming the Sangguniang Barangay San Pedro Resolution No. 46, Series of 2000 declaring the white sand area as a beach resort.
- Accused-appellants asserted ignorance that a permit was required to set up stores and conduct business and claimed no government official informed them of the need.
- They acknowledged the need to apply for a foreshore lease but contended their occupation and economic activities were lawful pending approval of the FLA.
- The MTCC had earlier issued injunctive relief on November 8, 2009 and a Decision on December 4, 2009 in Special Civil Case No. 30-08 (action for forcible entry) that restored accused-appellants to possession of the foreshore area; the defense relied on this as authorization for continued possession.
Ruling of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) — March 7, 2016
- The MTCC convicted the accused-appellants of violating Article 91(B)(3) of PD 1067.
- Dispositive: Each accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00) with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
- MTCC holdings and rationale:
- A pending foreshore lease application does not authorize occupation or construction of structures or establishment of a beach resort in a foreshore-classified area.
- The MTCC Decision in SCC No. 30-08 (Dec. 4, 2009) restoring possession could not be used as a defense against a criminal charge under Article 91(B)(3). The MTCC’s civil ruling restored possession on the basis of prior physical possession (de facto) disturbed by defendants Tan and others, but did not equate to authorization to build or occupy absent permits.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4, Panabo City — September 5, 2017
- The RTC affirmed the MTCC Decision in toto.
- RTC fallo: “Finding no reversible error in the Decision rendered by the court a quo, the same is affirmed in toto.”
- RTC reasoning and key points:
- Neither the accused-appellants nor WSBFC sought or secured the required permits as mandated by law.
- Accused-appellants admitted construction of structures for beach resort purposes and operation of makeshift sheds and sari-sari stores.
- Lack of the required permit to build or construct a building or establishment is a violative act per se under PD 1067.
- PD 1067 is a special law; acts punished therein are generally malum prohibitum and criminal intent is immaterial.
- A pending foreshore lease application does not authorize occupation, building or construction of structures or beach resort operations in foreshore-classified areas.
- The RTC interpreted the terms: although the Information used “foreshore,” the subject area lies within the statutory definition of “seashore”; “seashore” is broader and includes “foreshore,” which lies between high and low water marks.
- Article 51 of PD 1067 provides a margin for public easement (three meters in urban areas, 20 meters in agricultural areas, 40 meters in forest areas) and prohibits building structures beyond brief uses for navigation, recreation, fishing or salvage.
- The MTCC civil decision restoring possession in SCC No. 30-08 did not exculpate subsequent occupation and construction without permit.
- The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply to criminal cases under PD 1067, as Article 93 requires offenses be brought before the proper court.