PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONERS, VS. THE CITY COURT, BRANCH III OF GENERAL SANTOS CITY, PRESIDED OVER BY THE HONORABLE CITY JUDGE ANDRES O. LORENZO, ERMILINA COLLADO VDA.…

People of the Philippines versus the City Court of General Santos City

The Case

This is a petition filed by the People of the Philippines against the City Court, Branch 3 of General Santos City, presided over by Judge Andres O. Lorenzo, and against the private respondents whom that court had discharged. The People ask the Supreme Court to reverse the city court's order quashing the criminal information against the private respondents and to reinstate the case. The case matters because it settles a question every prosecutor and defense counsel must know: is squatting a continuing offense, such that a person who began occupying another's land before the penal law took effect, but who continued occupying it after, may still be prosecuted under that law? The answer turns on whether the law is being applied retroactively, which the Constitution forbids, or prospectively, to a continuing act that persists after the law's effectivity.

Procedural History

On August 17, 1978, the private respondents were charged before the City Court of General Santos City with violation of Presidential Decree No. 772, which penalizes squatting and other similar acts. From August 24 to 30, 1978, some of the private respondents filed motions to quash on various grounds. On August 31, 1978, the city court granted the motion to quash and dismissed the case. The People, through the City Fiscal of General Santos City, then filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, seeking reversal of the order and reinstatement of the criminal case. The private respondents and the Solicitor General filed their respective comments, and the Solicitor General agreed with the City Fiscal that the petition should be granted. In a resolution dated July 30, 1987, the Supreme Court resolved to consider the case as a special civil action for certiorari. The Court then decided the case on the merits.

Facts

Dr. Jorge P. Royeca owned a parcel of land in Barrio Dadiangas, General Santos City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-12289, described as Lot 4743-B, containing an area of 7,724 square meters. In 1968, the private respondents began occupying and possessing this land. They constructed their houses on it without any building permit, and they did so against the will of the owner, by means of force or by taking advantage of the tolerance of the landowner. Despite repeated demands to remove their houses and vacate the land, the private respondents refused to do so.

On August 20, 1975, Presidential Decree No. 772 took effect, penalizing squatting and other similar acts. The private respondents continued to occupy and possess the land after that date. On August 17, 1978, an information was filed against them, alleging that on or about the year 1968 and continuously until the filing of the information, they had occupied and possessed the land without the consent and against the will of the owner, in violation of Presidential Decree No. 772.

The private respondents moved to quash the information. The city court granted the motion and dismissed the case, reasoning that Presidential Decree No. 772 is not an ex post facto law and that the crime penalized is not a continuing crime. The city court held that since there was no law before August 20, 1975 penalizing the act complained of, there could have been no criminal resolution in 1968. It read the decree as prospective, because the phrase "succeeds in occupying or possessing" refers to the effective entry of the squatter, which in this case was in 1968. The People then brought the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not squatting under Presidential Decree No. 772 is a continuing offense.
• Whether or not Presidential Decree No. 772 may be applied to persons who began occupying the property before its effectivity but continued to occupy it after, without violating the prohibition against ex post facto laws.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 772, which penalizes squatting and other similar acts, provides:

Any person who, with the use of force, intimidation or threats 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.

This is the provision the city court construed as prospective and the Supreme Court applied to the private respondents, whose occupancy continued after the decree took effect.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Supreme Court held that squatting is a continuous offense. The Court agreed with the petitioner and the Solicitor General that even if the illegal occupancy commenced prior to the promulgation of Presidential Decree No. 772 on August 20, 1975, since it continued up to the filing of the information and up to the present, the person can be held liable under the law. The Court cited its earlier ruling in Dacutanan versus People, a minute resolution dated August 29, 1990, for this doctrine.

On the second issue, the Court held that Presidential Decree No. 772 is applicable to the private respondents and that they can be charged in the information with violation of the said law. The Court noted that the facts alleged in the information state that in 1968 and continuously until August 17, 1978, when the information was filed, the private respondents had been occupying and possessing the titled property of Royeca against his will by means of force or by taking advantage of the tolerance of the landowner. Because the occupancy continued after the decree took effect, the law operates prospectively on the continuing act and does not violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws. The city court's reading of the phrase "succeeds in occupying or possessing" as referring only to the initial entry was rejected.

Doctrine

Squatting under Presidential Decree No. 772 is a continuing offense. A person who began occupying another's property before the decree took effect, but who continued that occupancy after its effectivity and up to the filing of the information, may be prosecuted under the decree. The law is not applied retroactively in such a case; it is applied prospectively to the continuing act that persists after the law's effectivity. The prohibition against ex post facto laws is not violated, because the accused is being punished for conduct that continued after the law was in force, not for an act completed before it. The phrase "succeeds in occupying or possessing" in Section 1 of the decree does not limit the offense to the moment of initial entry; the offense continues for as long as the unlawful occupancy and possession persist.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the order of the city court dated August 31, 1978, and ordered the city court to reinstate the case for further proceedings until termination.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that squatting is a continuous offense, so continued occupancy after the effectivity of Presidential Decree No. 772 makes the squatter liable even if the occupancy began before the law. Examiners like to use this case to test the distinction between an ex post facto application of a penal law and the prospective application of that law to a continuing offense.