ManilaSECOND
DIVISION
PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,ABUNDIO R.
ELLO, As 4th AssistantProvincial
Fiscal of Bohol,VICENTE DE LA SERNA. JR.,as Complainant All Private Prosecutors,
Petitioners, |
G. R. Nos. L-47757-61
January 28, 1980
-versus-
HON.
VICENTE B. ECHAVES, JR., as Judge of the Court of First Instanceof Bohol, Branch II, ANO DACULLO,GERONIMO OROYAN, MARIO APARICI,RUPERTO CAJES and MODESTO S SUELLO,
Respondents. |
R
E S O L U T I O N
AQUINO, J.:
The legal issue
in this case is whether Presidential
Decree No. 772, which penalizes squatting and similar acts, applies to
agricultural lands. The Decree [which took effect on August 20, 1975]
provides:
Section 1. Any person who, with the use
of
force,
intimidation or threat, or taking advantage of the absence or tolerance
of the landowner, succeeds in occupying or possessing the property of
the
latter against his will for residential, commercial or any other
purposes,
shall be punished by an imprisonment ranging from six months to one
year
or a fine of not less than one thousand nor more than five thousand
pesos
at the discretion of the court, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency. [2nd paragraph is omitted].
The record
shows that on October 25, 1977 Fiscal
Abundio R. Ello filed with the lower court separate Informations
against
sixteen persons charging them with squatting as penalized by
Presidential
Decree No. 772. The Information against Mario Aparici which is similar
to the other fifteen Informations, reads:
That sometime in the year 1974
continuously up
to the present at Barangay Magsaysay, Municipality of Talibon, Province
of Bohol, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court,
the above-named accused, with stealth and strategy, enter into, occupy
and cultivate a portion of a grazing land physically occupied,
possessed
and claimed by Atty. Vicente de la Serna, Jr. as successor to the
pasture
applicant Celestino de la Serna of Pasture Lease Application No. 8919,
accused's entrance into the area has been and is still against the will
of the offended party; did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously
squat and cultivate a portion of the said grazing land; said
cultivation
has rendered a nuisance to and has deprived the pasture applicant from
the full use thereof for which the land applied for has been intended,
that is preventing applicant's cattle from grazing the whole area,
thereby
causing damage and prejudice to the said applicant-possessor-occupant,
Atty. Vicente de la Serna, Jr. (sic)
Five of the
Informations, wherein Ano Dacullo, Geronimo
Oroyan, Mario Aparici, Ruperto Cajes and Modesto Suello were the
accused,
were raffled to Judge Vicente B. Echaves, Jr. of Branch II [Criminal
Cases
Nos. 1824, 1828, 1832, 1833 and 1839, respectively]. Before the accused
could be arraigned, Judge Echaves, motu proprio issued an
omnibus
order dated December 9, 1977 dismissing the five Informations on the
grounds
[1] that it was alleged that the accused entered the land through
"stealth
and strategy", whereas under the Decree, the entry should be effected
"with
the use of force, intimidation or threat, or taking advantage of the
absence
or tolerance of the landowner", and [2] that under the rule of ejusdem
generis the Decree does not apply to the cultivation of a grazing
land.
Because of that
order, the fiscal amended the
informations by using in lieu of "stealth and strategy" the expression
"with threat, and taking advantage of the absence of the ranchowner
and/or
tolerance of the said ranchowner". The fiscal asked that the dismissal
order be reconsidered and that the amended informations be
admitted.
The lower court denied the motion. It insisted that the phrase "and for
other purposes" in the Decree does not include agricultural purposes
because
its preamble does not mention the Secretary of Agriculture and makes
reference
to the affluent class.cralaw:red
From the order of
dismissal, the fiscal appealed
to this Court under Republic Act No. 5440. The appeal is devoid of
merit.
We hold that the lower court correctly ruled that the Decree does not
apply
to pasture lands because its preamble shows that it was intended to
apply
to squatting in urban communities or more particularly to illegal
constructions
in squatter areas made by well-to-do individuals. The squatting
complained
of involves pasture lands in rural areas.cralaw:red
The preamble of
the decree is quoted below:
WHEREAS, it came to my knowledge that
despite
the issuance of Letter of Instructions No. 19 dated October 2, 1972,
directing
the Secretaries of National Defense, Public Works and Communications,
Social
Welfare and the Director of Public Works, the PHHC General Manager, the
Presidential Assistant on Housing and Rehabilitation Agency, Governors,
City and Municipal Mayors, and City and District Engineers, "to remove
all illegal constructions including buildings on and along esteros and
river banks, those along railroad tracks and those built without
permits
on public and private property." squatting is still a major problem in
urban communities all over the country;
WHEREAS, many persons or entities found
to have
been unlawfully occupying public and private lands belong to the
affluent
class;
WHEREAS, there is a need to further
intensify
the government's drive against this illegal and nefarious practice.
It should be
stressed that Letter of Instructions
No. 19 refers to illegal constructions on public and private property.
It is complemented by Letter of Instructions No. 19-A which provides
for
the relocation of squatters in the interest of public health, safety
and
peace and order. On the other hand, it should be noted that squatting
on
public agricultural lands, like the grazing lands involved in this
case,
is punished by Republic Act No. 947 which makes it unlawful for any
person,
corporation or association to forcibly enter or occupy public
agricultural
lands. That law provides:
Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any
person
corporation or association to enter or occupy, through force,
intimidation,
threat, strategy or stealth, any public agriculture land including such
public lands as are granted to private individuals under the provision
of the Public Land Act or any other laws providing for public
agriculture
lands in the Philippines and are duly covered by the corresponding
applications
notwithstanding the fact that title thereto still remains in the
Government
or for any person, natural or judicial to investigate induce or force
another
to commit such acts.
Violations of
the law are punished by a fine of not
exceeding one thousand pesos or imprisonment for not more than one
year,
or both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court, with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. [See People vs.
Lapasaran
100 Phil. 40]. The rule of ejusdem generis [of the same
kind
or species] invoked by the trial court does not apply to this case.
Here,
the intent of the Decree is unmistakable. It is intended to apply only
to urban communities, particularly to illegal constructions. The rule
of
ejusdem generis is merely a tool of statutory
construction
which
is resorted to when the legislative intent is uncertain. [Genato
Commercial Corp. vs. Court of Tax Appeals, 104 Phil. 615,618; 28 C.J.S.
1049-50].
WHEREFORE, the
trial court's order of dismissal
is affirmed. No costs.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.
Barredo, Antonio,
Concepcion Jr., and Abad Santos,
JJ., concur. |