HECTOR AGUIRRE CASIDSID, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Casidsid versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is a criminal case in which Hector Aguirre Casidsid, the Barangay Captain of Barangay Yapak on Boracay Island in Malay, Aklan, was charged with violating Section 48, paragraph 9, in relation to Section 37, of Republic Act No. 9003, the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000, for establishing, operating, and using an open dump site on a privately owned parcel of land. The case matters because the Supreme Court uses it to settle two questions every environmental-law examinee must know: whether the thirty-day notice required for citizen suits is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a criminal prosecution, and whether ownership of the land is a valid defense to the crime of maintaining an open dump site. It is a study in how a special environmental law, a malum prohibitum statute, reaches a public officer who allows a prohibited act to continue.

Procedural History

The Office of the Ombudsman found probable cause and filed the Information before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Buruanga-Malay, Buruanga, Aklan. After trial, that court convicted Hector and sentenced him to pay a fine of 500,000 pesos. Hector appealed to Branch 2 of the Regional Trial Court of Kalibo, Aklan, which affirmed the conviction in full. Hector then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition for lack of merit and later denied his motion for reconsideration. From that denial, Hector filed with the Supreme Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Facts

On May 21, 2012, Leo Neil G. Tirol filed a complaint-affidavit with the Office of the Ombudsman, alleging that a substantial portion of his titled property in Sitio Ilig-iligan, Barangay Yapak, was being used as a dump site without his consent. Earlier, on April 13, 2012, a team from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, led by Engineer Ricardo Benjamin, Sr., had inspected the property after receiving Leo's complaint. The team found heaps of mixed garbage, a deep excavation intended as a dumping site, and traces of waste covered with soil, all indicating that dumping had been going on for a long time.

Hector denied using the property as an open dump site and claimed that a private entity was responsible, supposedly under an agreement with a certain Roberto Tirol. He admitted, however, that he never saw that agreement and relied only on what his uncle Otelo, the caretaker, told him. He also admitted that the Barangay's materials recovery facility was already full and could not accommodate the garbage, and that he never sought the help of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Otelo testified that the Barangay officials, including Hector, had asked permission to use a portion of the property as a temporary dump site, and that he allowed it after consulting the Tirol family by telephone.

The Ombudsman found Hector administratively liable for simple misconduct and suspended him for two months. When he reassumed office, he asserted that he ordered the property vacated as a dump site. The Ombudsman then found probable cause to charge him criminally, and the Information was filed.

Issues

• Whether or not the thirty-day notice rule for citizen suits under Section 52, paragraph c, of Republic Act No. 9003 is a jurisdictional requirement in the filing of criminal cases in court.
• Whether or not ownership of the property is a valid defense for the crime of violation of Section 48, paragraph 9, in relation to Section 37, of Republic Act No. 9003.
• Whether or not Hector is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.

Applicable Provisions

Section 52, paragraph c, of Republic Act No. 9003 provides:

SEC. 52. Citizen Suits. – For purposes of enforcing the provisions of this Act or its implementing rules and regulations, any citizen may file an appropriate civil, criminal or administrative action in the proper courts/bodies against:....(c) Any public officer who willfully or grossly neglects the performance of an act specifically enjoined as a duty by this Act or its implementing rules and regulations; or abuse his [or her] authority in the performance of his [or her] duty; or, in any manner, improperly performs his [or her] duties under this Act or its implementing rules and regulations: Provided, however, That no suit can be filed until after [30]-day notice has been given to the public officer and the alleged violator concerned and no appropriate action has been taken thereon.

This is the provision Hector invoked, and the Court holds that its notice condition governs citizen suits, not criminal prosecutions brought by the State.

Section 5 of Rule 2 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases provides:

SEC. 5. Citizen suit. – Any Filipino citizen in representation of others, including minors or generations yet unborn, may file an action to enforce rights or obligations under environmental laws. Upon the filing of a citizen suit, the court shall issue an order which shall contain a brief description of the cause of action and the reliefs prayed for, requiring all interested parties to manifest their interest to intervene in the case within [15] days from notice thereof. The plaintiff may publish the order once in a newspaper of a general circulation in the Philippines or furnish all affected barangays copies of said order.Citizen suits filed under [Republic Act] No. 8749 and [Republic Act] No. 9003 shall be governed by their respective provisions.

This provision frames the citizen suit and confirms that suits under Republic Act No. 9003 are governed by that statute's own terms, which is why the notice requirement is confined to citizen suits.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled that the thirty-day notice requirement is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to the filing of criminal charges, and that in any event this case did not originate from a citizen suit. The criminal case was prosecuted on behalf of the People of the Philippines, not by a private complainant, so the notice condition never came into play.

On the second issue, the Court ruled that ownership of the property is not an element of the crime and is therefore not a valid defense. Republic Act No. 9003 is a special law, and a violation of it is a crime malum prohibitum, that is, wrong simply because the law forbids it, regardless of the offender's intent or the ownership of the land. What the law penalizes is the use, establishment, or operation of an open dump site without the corresponding permit or authority.

On the third issue, the Court affirmed the conviction. Hector's defenses were conflicting: before the Ombudsman he claimed the Barangay had permission to dump, while at trial he blamed a private entity under an agreement he never produced. Whether the garbage was dumped by the Barangay or by a private entity, Hector remained liable because he allowed the activity to continue, and as Barangay Captain he could have ordered the closure of the dump site but did not. His indifference showed that the Barangay benefited from the open dump site.

Doctrine

First, the thirty-day notice under Section 52, paragraph c, of Republic Act No. 9003 is a condition for citizen suits only; it does not apply to criminal prosecutions instituted by the public prosecutor on behalf of the People. Second, violation of Republic Act No. 9003 is a malum prohibitum offense, so ownership of the property used as an open dump site is not an element of the crime and is no defense. Third, a public officer who, with the power to stop a prohibited open dump site, allows it to continue is criminally liable under Section 48, paragraph 9, in relation to Section 37, of the same law.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied Hector's petition and affirmed his conviction, sustaining the fine of 500,000 pesos.

Remember This

The line to memorize is that the thirty-day notice is for citizen suits, not for criminal prosecutions, and that ownership is no defense to a malum prohibitum environmental crime. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between a citizen suit and a State prosecution, and the liability of a public officer who tolerates an illegal open dump site.