Case Summary (G.R. No. 138962)
Relevant Procedural History
Petitioners were convicted by the MTC (Branch 38, Quezon City) for violation of Presidential Decree No. 772 (the Anti‑Squatting Law). The convictions were affirmed by the RTC (Branch 96) in a September 10, 1997 decision. While a motion for reconsideration was pending, Republic Act No. 8368 (the Anti‑Squatting Law Repeal Act of 1997) was enacted. The RTC ruled (Order, January 28, 1998) that the criminal convictions were extinguished by RA 8368 but that the civil aspect (removal of illegally constructed house and improvements) remained executory. The CA, in a decision dated April 30, 1999, sustained the RTC’s ruling; the CA denied reconsideration on June 9, 1999. Petitioners filed this Rule 45 petition seeking annulment of those rulings.
Issues Presented
- Whether the repeal of P.D. No. 772 by RA 8368 extinguished both criminal and civil liability arising under that decree;
- Whether the civil aspect of the judgment (restoration/removal of improvements) remains executory despite repeal; and
- Whether the CA and RTC erred in their interpretation and application of RA 8368 and related jurisprudence.
Parties’ Contentions
Petitioners: RA 8368’s repeal of P.D. No. 772 absolves them of both criminal and civil liability derived from that law.
Private respondent (I.C. Construction, Inc.): Only the criminal liability was extinguished; civil liability survives because Article 113 of the Revised Penal Code provides that, except where civil liability is otherwise extinguished, the offender remains obliged to satisfy civil liability resulting from the crime. Private respondent also moved to deny due course on the basis that it had already been adjudged title to the land.
Public respondents (Office of the Solicitor General): Agreed with petitioners that both criminal and civil liability were extinguished by RA 8368 and recommended reversal of the assailed rulings.
Applicable Statute: RA No. 8368 (Anti‑Squatting Law Repeal Act of 1997)
Sections material to the decision:
- Sec. 2: Repeal — Presidential Decree No. 772 is repealed.
- Sec. 3: Effect on Pending Cases — “All pending cases under the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 772 shall be dismissed upon the effectivity of this Act.”
Other pertinent law cited by the courts: Article 113, Revised Penal Code (obligation to satisfy civil liability), provisions of RA 7279 (sanctions for professional squatters/syndicates), and applicable provisions of the Revised Penal Code and Rules of Court for other remedies (e.g., forcible entry, unlawful detainer, trespass).
Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis — Repeal Effect on Criminal Liability
The Court treated the repeal as explicit, categorical, definite and absolute. An unqualified repeal of a penal law is a legislative act that removes the illegality of the previously penalized act; the essence of that rule is that the offense is obliterated and the State loses authority to punish under the repealed law. Section 3 of RA 8368 expressly mandates dismissal of all pending cases under P.D. No. 772 upon the law’s effectivity. Accordingly, the Court concluded that criminal liability under P.D. No. 772 no longer exists and pending prosecutions must be dismissed.
Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis — Repeal Effect on Civil Liability
The Court reasoned that civil liability ex delicto is rooted in the existence of the underlying delict. Where the act is no longer a crime (because the penal law was repealed unconditionally), there is no delict from which civil liability ex delicto can arise. Given the absolute repeal and the express dismissal of pending cases under Section 3, the Court held that the civil aspects of the criminal cases founded on P.D. No. 772 must also be dismissed. The Court relied on prior recognition of RA 8368’s unconditional repeal in People v. Leachon, Jr., and concluded that dismissal should not be qualified to preserve the civil aspect when the predicate criminal offense has been abolished.
Legislative Intent and Limits Recognized by the Court
The Court emphasized that decriminaliza
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 138962)
Procedural History
- Petitioners Prescilla Tuates and Andres de la Paz were convicted by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Quezon City (Branch 38) of Violation of Presidential Decree No. 772 (the Anti-Squatting Law); the MTC decision is dated December 16, 1996 in Criminal Cases Nos. 38-0130 and 38-0131.
- Petitioners appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City (Branch 96); the RTC rendered a decision on September 10, 1997 affirming the MTC conviction in toto.
- While petitioners’ motion for reconsideration before the RTC was pending, Republic Act No. 8368 (Anti-Squatting Law Repeal Act of 1997) was enacted.
- In an Order dated January 28, 1998, the RTC ruled that only petitioners’ criminal convictions were extinguished by R.A. 8368; the civil aspect (specifically, removal of petitioners’ illegally constructed house and improvements) would remain executory against them.
- On petition for review, the Court of Appeals sustained the RTC ruling and denied due course to the petition in its Decision dated April 30, 1999 (CA-G.R. SP No. 46845).
- The Court of Appeals denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in its Resolution dated June 9, 1999.
- Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (G.R. No. 138962, October 04, 2002) seeking annulment of: (1) the CA Decision of April 30, 1999 and CA Resolution of June 9, 1999; (2) the RTC Decision of September 10, 1997 and the RTC Order of January 28, 1998; and (3) the MTC Decision of December 16, 1996.
- The Supreme Court, through Justice Austria-Martinez, found the petition meritorious, reversed and set aside the CA Decision dated April 30, 1999, and entered a new judgment modifying the RTC and MTC decisions to the effect that dismissal of the criminal cases likewise include dismissal of the civil aspects, without prejudice to filing civil and/or criminal actions under the prevailing laws. No costs were imposed.
Facts of the Case
- Petitioners were charged and convicted for violation of Presidential Decree No. 772, which penalized squatting and similar acts.
- Petitioners’ criminal cases were prosecuted in MTC (Dec. 16, 1996 decision) and affirmed by RTC (Sept. 10, 1997 decision).
- Republic Act No. 8368, enacted October 27, 1997, expressly repealed P.D. No. 772 and contained a provision on pending cases.
- The RTC interpreted R.A. 8368 as extinguishing only criminal liability and leaving civil executory remedies intact; the CA affirmed that interpretation.
- The petition to the Supreme Court presented the question whether repeal of P.D. 772 extinguished both criminal and civil liabilities arising from the offense.
Issues Presented
- Whether the express repeal of Presidential Decree No. 772 by Republic Act No. 8368 absolves petitioners of any criminal liability.
- Whether the repeal likewise extinguishes the civil aspect of the judgment (specifically, removal of illegally constructed house and improvements) or whether the civil aspect remains executory against petitioners.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC Order that held that only the criminal aspect was extinguished and in denying relief to petitioners.
Parties’ Contentions
- Petitioners’ contention:
- Repeal of P.D. No. 772 by R.A. 8368 carries extinction of both criminal and civil liability arising from the penal provision.
- Private respondent’s contention (I.C. Construction, Inc. as named respondent in the record):
- The RTC and CA were correct in ruling that only criminal liability was absolved by R.A. 8368; civil liability remains and was not extinguished in accordance with Article 113 of the Revised Penal Code.
- In its Motion to Deny Due Course, private respondent argued the petition should be denied because its title to the land subject of the case had already been adjudged in its favor.
- Office of the Solicitor General (on behalf of public respondents):
- Agreed with petitioners that both criminal and civil liability were rendered extinct with the repeal of P.D. 772.
- Recommended reversal and setting aside of the assailed issuances.
Statutory Provisions Quoted or Cited
- Republic Act No. 8368 (Anti-Squatting Law Repeal Act of 1997) as provided in the source:
- SECTION 1. Title — This Act shall be known as the “Ant