Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila G.R. No. L-62114 July 5, 1983 ISIDRO ERN!RDO "#$ C! C !%ET %ET!NO !NO ERN!RDO, petitioners, vs. T&E PEOPLE O' T&E P&ILIPPINES, respondent. Alberto Mala, Jr. for petitioners. The Solicitor General for respondent.
RELO(!, J.: FIRST DIVISION Petitioner Isidro ernardo !as a tenant of "edda Sta. Rosa in her riceland in Plaridel, ulacan fro# October $%&' to (u)ust $%&*. (t the ti#e, petitioner constructed a house therein for his fa#il+s d!ellin). -is son, copetitioner /a+etano ernardo, !as sta+in) !ith hi# in said house as his helper in tillin) the land. Subse0uentl+, Isidro left the landholdin) and transferred to San Nicolas, ulacan !ithout the 1no!led)e of the lando!ner " edda Sta. Rosa. efore leavin) the landholdin), ho!ever, Isidro transferred his tenanc+ ri)hts to his son, copetitioner /a+etano ernardo, !ho continued to reside in sub2ect house. 3ventuall+, "edda Sta. Rosa too1 possession of the !hole riceland, throu)h her overseer Dr. Patricio 3. /ru4. ( case case of forcible entr+ !as filed filed b+ "edda Sta. Rosa a)ainst herein petitioners, Isidro ernardo and /a+etano ernardo, before the Municipal /ourt of Plaridel, ulacan. Petitioners lost before the inferior court as !ell as in the /ourt of First Instance of ulacan. "i1e!ise, petitioners lost in their petition for certiorari and #anda#us before the /ourt of (ppeals. Thereafter, "edda Sta. Rosa sent a letter of de#and to petitioners tellin) the# to vacate the house and the land. 5hen the latter failed to leave, a cri#inal co#plaint !as filed a)ainst the# for violation of Presidential Decree No. &&' !ith the fiscals office. (fter (fter a preli#inar+ investi)ation of the case, the provincial fiscal filed the correspondin) infor#ation !ith the /ourt of First Instance of ulacan, ranch VI, doc1eted as /ri#inal /ase No. 67''M, as follo!s8 That on or about the ''nd da+ of (pril $%&*, in the #unicipalit+ of Plaridel, province of ulacan, Philippines, and !ithin the 2urisdiction of this -onorable /ourt, the said accused Isidro ernardo and /a+etano ernardo, did then and there !illfull+, unla!full+ and feloniousl+, !ithout the 1no!led)e and ta1in) advanta)e of the tolerance of the o!ner "edda Sta. Rosa + /ru4, succeed and9or continue in possessin) and s0uattin) on a p arcel of land of the said o!ner, b+ erectin) thereon
their residential house and failin) to re#ove the said residential house despite de#and to do so #ade b+ the said o!ner. :pon arrai)n#ent, herein petitioners, father and son, entered a plea of not )uilt+. Trial on the #erits of the case proceeded and, after both p arties have sub#itted their cases, herein petitioners, throu)h counsel, filed a #otion to dis#iss on the )round of lac1 of 2urisdiction of the court to entertain a case for violation of Presidential Decree No. &&', inas#uch as the sa#e applies to s0uatters in urban communities onl+ and not to a)ricultural lands; that in the case of People vs. Echaves, %< S/R( ==6, it !as held that >Presidential Decree No. &&' does not appl+ to pasture lands because its prea#ble sho!s that it !as intended to appl+ to s0uattin) in urban communities or #ore particularl+ to ille)al construction in s0uatter areas #ade b+ !elltodo individuals.> The #otion to dis#iss !as denied and the trial court rendered 2ud)#ent convictin) herein petitioners of the cri#e char)ed and sentencin) the# to pa+ a fine of P',<77.77 e ach, !ith subsidiar+ i#prison#ent in case of insolvenc+. -ence, this petition for certiorari to set aside the decision of the lo!er court on the )round that it has no 2urisdiction to entertain the cri#inal case for alle)ed violation of Presidential Decree No. &&' since the facts obtainin) in the case do not constitute an offense or violation of said la!. Indeed, in the case of People vs. Echaves, supra, this /ourt, spea1in) throu)h Mr. ?ustice Ra#on /. (0uino, held that Presidential Decree No. &&' does not appl+ to pasture lands. The prea#ble of the decree is 0uoted belo!8 5-3R3(S, it ca#e to #+ 1no!led)e that despite the issuance of "etter of Instruction No. $% dated October ', $%&', directin) the Secretaries of National Defense, Public 5or1s and /o##unications, Social 5elfare and the Director of Public 5or1s, the P--/ @eneral Mana)er, the Presidential (ssistant on -ousin) and Rehabilitation ()enc+, @overnors, /it+ and Municipal Ma+ors, and /it+ and District 3n)ineers, to re#ove all ille)al constructions includin) buildin)s on and alon) esteros and river ban1s, those alon) railroad trac1s and those built !ithout per#its on public and private pr opert+, s0uattin) is still a #a2or proble# in urban co##unities all over the countr+; 5-3R3(S, #an+ persons or entities found to have been unla!full+ occup+in) public and private lands belon) to the affluent class; 5-3R3(S, there is a need to further intensif+ the )overn#ents drive a)ainst this ille)al and nefarious practice. The intent of the decree is un#ista1able. It is intended to appl+ onl+ to urban co##unities, particularl+ to ille)al constructions. The Solicitor @eneral in his co##ent to the petition #anifests that >the intent and p urpose of PD &&' is to prohibit and penali4e s0uattin) or si#ilar acts on public and private lands located in urban co##unities. ... Athat no person should be brou)ht !ithin the ter#s of a penal statute !ho is not clearl+ !ithin the#, nor should an+ act be pronounced cri#inal !hich is not clearl+ #ade so b+ the
statute B:S vs. (bad Santos, 6= Phil. '*6C. ... /onse0uentl+, the decision of the lo!er court in /ri#inal /ase No. 67'' M, convictin) herein petitioners of the offense of violation of PD No. &&', is null and void and should, therefore, be set aside.> (//ORDIN@", this petition for certiorari is @R(NT3D, the 2ud)#ent of conviction is S3T (SID3, and said /ri#inal /ase No. 67''M is hereb+ DISMISS3D. SO ORD3R3D. Teehankee (hairman!, Plana, Escolin and Gutierre", Jr., JJ., concur. Melencio#$errera and %as&ue", JJ., are on leave.