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

Case Summary (G.R. No. 251636)

Charges and Applicable Law

The accused-appellants were charged with violating Article 91(B)(3) of Presidential Decree No. 1067 (PD 1067), also known as the Water Code of the Philippines, for willfully and unlawfully occupying, building, and constructing structures in the foreshore area without securing the necessary permits.

Stipulated Facts During Pre-Trial

There was a stipulation that the accused are members of the White Sand Bentol Fishermen Cooperative (WSBFC), that a foreshore lease application (FLA) was filed on behalf of the cooperative but was not approved, and that all accused resided outside the coastal area where the illegal structures were built.

Prosecution’s Version

The prosecution contended that the accused, members of WSBFC, occupied and constructed structures in the foreshore area beginning January 2009 without an approved foreshore lease from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) or any business permit from the Panabo City Licensing Section. Notices to vacate were ignored, and these unauthorized activities were discovered in July 2009.

Defense’s Version

The accused admitted occupying the foreshore area and filing a foreshore lease application in 2005 for a beach resort. They alleged ignorance of the need for permits to construct and operate businesses pending the lease’s approval and relied on a previous MTCC decision granting them injunctive relief restoring possession of the area.

Municipal Trial Court Decision

The MTCC convicted the accused for unauthorized occupancy, ruling that a pending lease application does not authorize occupation or construction without a permit. The court found the previous civil injunctive relief irrelevant to the criminal charge since restoration of possession does not exonerate the lack of proper permits.

Regional Trial Court Ruling

The RTC affirmed the MTCC’s decision, emphasizing that the structures were built without the necessary permits, which constituted a per se violation under PD 1067. It underscored that the law punishes unauthorized occupancy regardless of intent or good faith, classifying the offense as malum prohibitum. The RTC clarified that “seashore” as used in the statute logically includes “foreshore,” and confirmed the inapplicability of exhaustion of administrative remedies in this criminal matter.

Court of Appeals Decision

The CA upheld the RTC ruling, finding the complaint properly filed by DENR officials before the prosecution. It concluded that DENR has the authority to enforce laws protecting foreshore lands, and that the term “seashore” encompasses “foreshore.” The CA rejected the accused's argument that only the National Water Resources Board (NWRB) could enforce such rules, citing the DENR’s mandate and the procedural correctness of the filing.

Mode of Appeal and Supreme Court Ruling

The accused-appellants improperly filed a notice of appeal instead of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, which warrants dismissal of their appeal as the correct appeal mode is jurisdictional. On the merits, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for unauthorized occupancy and construction on foreshore land without the necessary permit.

Legal Basis and Interpretation

The Court emphasized that Article 91(B)(3) of PD 1067 punishes unauthorized obstruction or occupancy of riverbanks or seashores without permission. The distinction between “foreshore” and “seashore” is immaterial because the latter includes the former. The definition of “foreshore” is the strip between high and low water marks, alternately wet and dry by the tide, which fits within the seashore’s three-meter public easement zone under Article 51 of PD 1067.

Nature of the Offense and Liability

The offense is malum prohibitum—prohibited by law without requiring proof of criminal intent or moral wrongfulness. T

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 251636)

Case Background and Procedural History

Accused-appellants were charged before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Panabo City for violation of Article 91(B)(3) of Presidential Decree No. 1067, the Water Code of the Philippines.
The charge stemmed from their alleged unauthorized occupation and construction of structures in the foreshore area of Barangay San Pedro, Panabo City without securing the necessary permits.
The MTCC convicted the accused on March 7, 2016, sentencing each to a fine of Three Thousand Pesos (₱3,000.00) with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4, Panabo City affirmed the MTCC decision on September 5, 2017.
The Court of Appeals (CA), in its November 21, 2018 Decision and subsequent June 17, 2019 Resolution, likewise affirmed the RTC ruling.
Accused-appellants sought to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via a notice of appeal, later dismissed for improper mode of appeal; the proper remedy being a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Parties and Factual Context

Accused-appellants are members of the White Sand Bentol Fishermen Cooperative (WSBFC).
They occupied a foreshore area in Barangay San Pedro, Panabo City and constructed sheds, cottages, and operated sari-sari stores, allegedly without the required permits.
WSBFC, through its representative Zosimo Lasco, filed a foreshore lease application with the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) on June 10, 2005; however, no approval was granted by CENRO.
The city government and DENR issued notices to accused-appellants to vacate the area, which were allegedly ignored.
Despite pending lease application, accused-appellants continued occupying and developing the area without permits issued by DENR or local government authorities.

Charges and Legal Basis

Accused-appellants were charged with violating Article 91(B)(3) of PD 1067, which prohibits unauthorized obstruction or occupancy of riverbanks or seashores without permission.
The charge refers specifically to their unauthorized occupation and construction in the foreshore area without securing necessary permits.
The law imposes fines ranging from three thousand to six thousand pesos and imprisonment depending on the gravity of the offense.

Defense Arguments

Accused-appellants acknowledged membership in WSBFC, their residence outside the coastal area, and the filing of the foreshore lease application.
They asserted ignorance of the need to secure permits for their construction or business operations in the foreshore area, claiming no government notification was received.
They contended their activities were lawful pending approval of their foreshore lease application.
Cited favorable civil case decisions by the MTCC (Special Civil Case No. 30-08) which restored their possession of the disputed area against other claimants.
Argued that the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies was not observed, supposedly violating their right to due process.

Prosecution’s Position and Evidence

Prosecution emphasized that accused-appellants occupied and constructed structures witho