CRIMLAW II 1

G.R. No. 102070. July 23, 1992.| THIRD DIVISION. occupation or usurpation, the crime of homicide, or any of the physical injuries
penalized in either subdivisions 1 or 2 of Article 263 is committed; or when the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. DAVID A. ALFECHE, JR., Presiding
Judge, Branch 15, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, Capiz, respondent.
same shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation; or when, in
the course of its execution, the offender shall have inflicted upon any person not
Criminal Law; Words and Phrases; Meaning of “Intimidation.”—But what is responsible for its commission any of the physical injuries covered by
meant by the word intimidation? It is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as subdivisions 3 and 4 of Article 263; or when it is committed through intimidation
“unlawful coercion; extortion; duress; putting in fear”. To take, or attempt to or through the infliction of physical injuries not covered by subdivisions 1 to 4 of
take, by intimidation means “willfully to take, or attempt to take, by putting in Article 263 of the Revised Penal Code, i.e., physical injuries penalized under
fear of bodily harm.” As shown inUnited States vs. Osorio, material violence is Articles 265 and 266 of the Revised Penal Code, the accused may be convicted
not indispensable for there to be intimidation; intense fear produced in the mind for the violation of Article 312. However, he shall be sentenced: (a) to suffer the
of the victim which restricts or hinders the exercise of the will is sufficient. In an penalty for homicide, rape, intentional mutilation and physical injuries provided
appropriate case, the offender may be liable for either (a) robbery under under subdivisions 1 to 4 of Article 263, other physical injuries or for the
paragraph 5 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code if the subject matter is intimidation, which may fall under Article 282 (Grave Threats) or Article 286
personal property and there is intent to gain or animus furandi, or (b) grave (Grave Coercion) of the Revised Penal Code, as the case may be, and (b) to pay
coercion under Article 286 of said Code if such intent does not exist. a fine based on the value of the gain obtained by him, which shall be an amount
equivalent to 50 to 100per centum of such gain, but in no case less than
Same; Crime of Usurpation of Real Property by means of violence or intimidation seventy-five (P75.00)pesos, provided, however, that if such value cannot be
not a complex crime.—Article 312 may also be considered as defining and ascertained, the fine shall be from 200 to 500 (P200.00 to P500.00) pesos.
penalizing the single, special and indivisible crime of occupation of real property
or usurpation of real rights in property by means of violence against or Same; Same; Jurisdiction; The charge of Usurpation of Real Property may fall
intimidation of persons. It is likewise not a complex crime as defined under under the R.T.C. or the MTC depending on whether the intimidation used results
Article 48. However, while Article 294 provides a single penalty for each class of in either a grave threat (Art. 282) or a grave coercion (Art. 286).—In so holding,
crime therein defined, Article 312 provides a single, albeit two-tiered, penalty this Court does not preclude the owner of a piece of property from being the
consisting of a principal penalty, which is that incurred for the acts of violence, offended party in the crime of occupation of real property or usurpation of real
and an additional penalty of fine based on the value of the gain obtained by the rights in property by means of intimidation consisting of a threat, under Article
accused. This is clear from the clause “in addition to the penalty incurred for the 282, provided, however, that all the elements thereof are present. In such a
acts of violence executed by him.” For want of a better term, the additional case, the penalty imposable upon the accused would be the penalty prescribed
penalty may be designated as an incremental penalty. therein plus a fine based on the value of the gain obtained by the accused. As
stated earlier, intimidation as found in Article 312 could result in either the crime
Same; Criminal Procedure; In crimes involving usurpation of real property or real of grave threats under Article 282 or grave coercion under Article 286 of the
rights under Art. 312 R.P.C., the threat or violence used is not a mere means Revised Penal Code. Thus, if complainants were in fact the parties threatened
used to commit said crime nor does the use of violence or intimidation subject to and paragraph 1 of Article 282 is applicable, the Regional Trial Court would have
a separate prosecution. It is an offense with a two-third penalty.—What Article exclusive original jurisdiction over the offense charged because the
312 means then is that when the occupation of real property is committed by corresponding penalty for the crime would be prision mayor, which is the penalty
means of violence against or intimidation of persons, the accused may be next lower in degree to that prescribed for the offense threatened to be
prosecuted under an information for the violation thereof, and not for a separate committed—homicide—which is reclusion temporal, and a fine based on the
crime involving violence or intimidation. But, whenever appropriate, he may be value of the gain obtained by the accused.
sentenced to suffer the penalty for the acts of violence and to pay a fine based
on the value of the gain obtained. Thus, if by reason or on the occasion of such PETITION to review the orders of the Regional Trial Court of Capiz, Br. 15. Alfeche, Jr., J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
 CRIMLAW II 2

DAVIDE, JR., J.: on said portion of land to the exclusionof the above-named owners
thereof who, therefore, were prevented from appropriating the
Which court has jurisdiction over cases involving a violation of Article 312 of the
property’s produce or earningprofits therefrom from the time of the said
Revised Penal Code where the intimidation employed by the accused consists of
a threat to kill? usurpation by accused up to the present to the damage and prejudice of
the saidTeresita Silva and her co-owners.
This is the issue in this case.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
Upon a complaint for Grave Threats and Usurpation of Real Property filed against
Ruperto Dimalata and Norberto Fuentes, and after the appropriate preliminary On 17 July 1991, respondent Judge, as Presiding Judge of Branch 15 of the court
investigation wherein Dimalata presented evidence showing that he is a below, dismissed the case motu proprio on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
successor-in-interest of the alleged original owner of the land, and that the considering that “the crime committed by the accused falls under Article 312 of
threat was established to have been directed against the complainants’ tenant- the Revised Penal Code and the violence or intimidation by the accused is (sic) a
encargado, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Juliana C. Azarraga of the Office of means to commit it or a mere incident in its commission, hence, the threat is
the Provincial Prosecutor of Capiz handed down a Resolution, duly approved by absorbed by the crime charged,” and considering that “the impossable (sic) fine
the Provincial Prosecutor, finding prima facie evidence of guilt for the crime as penalty is from P200.00 to P500.00” because the value of the gain cannot be
charged.1 The complainants are co-owners of the parcel of land allegedly ascertained. The order of dismissal reads as follows:
usurped.
“Upon personal examination and evaluation of the affidavit of the
On 5 July 1991, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Azarraga filed the corresponding complainant, annexes and the resolution in support of the information,
Information2 for “Usurpation of Real Rights In Property defined and penalized the crime committed by the accused falls under Article 312 of the
under Article 312 in relation to Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code” with the Revised Penal Code and the violence or intimidation by the accused is
Regional Trial Court of Capiz. It was docketed as Criminal Case No. 3386 and (sic) a means to commit it or a mere incident in its commission, hence,
was raffled to Branch 15 thereof. The Information reads as follows: the threat is absorbed by the crime charged.

“The undersigned, with the prior authority and approval of the Provincial Under above (sic) facts, an (sic) act of the accused was not a means to
Prosecutor, accuses RUPERTO DIMALATA and NORBERTO FUENTES of commit the other or by their single act, it resulted to (sic) two or more
the crime of Usurpation of Real Rights in Property defined and penalized offenses thereby making paragraph 1 of Article 282 the basis in
under Article 312 in relation to Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code, imposing the penalty. In fine, the act of the accused as alleged could
committed as follows: not be a complex crime under Article 312 in relation to Article 282.

That sometime in the month of November, 1990, at Brgy. Cabugao, One is a distinct crime from the other with separate elements to prove in
Municipality of Panitan, Province of Capiz, Philippines, and within the case of prosecution.
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
On the basis of the allegations of the information the value of the gain
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, by means
incurred for the act of violence or intimidation executed by the accused
of violence against or intimidation of persons, did then and there
cannot be ascertained, hence the impossable (sic) fine as penalty is
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter, possess and occupy a portion
from P200 to P500 which is below the jurisdiction of this court.
of Lot No. 3000, Panitan Cadastre, belonging to and owned in common
by Teresita Silva and the latter’s brothers and sisters, after threatening For lack of jurisdiction over the case the herein information is
to kill the tenant-encargado if the latter would resist their taking of the dismissed.”
portion of the land, and thereafter, plowed, cultivated and planted palay
 CRIMLAW II 3

Assistant Prosecutor Azarraga filed a motion to reconsider the above order4 Hence, this petition was filed by Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Azarraga for and
alleging therein that it is true that the crime charged is not a complex crime and in behalf of the People of the Philippines against respondent Judge to whom is
if mention is made of Article 282, it is because “the penalty of the crime defined imputed the commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
under Article 312 is dependent on Article 282. Article 312 ‘borrows’ the pertinent jurisdiction for dismissing the criminal case. In support thereof, it is argued that:
provision on penalty from Article 282, because Article 312 does not provide a (a) respondent Judge erred in not considering the penalty prescribed under
penalty” as “Article 312 expressly provides that the penalty for the violence shall Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code as the basis for the imposable penalty in
likewise be imposed in addition to the fine.” In the instant case, the intimidation the crime defined in Article 312 thereof, and (b) the crime charged in the
consists of the threat to kill the encargado, penalized under Article 282 of the information is not complexed with Article 282 by the mere allegation in the
Revised Penal Code; considering that the accused attained their purpose, the caption of the information that it is a prosecution under said Article 312 in
penalty imposable thereunder is that which is one degree lower than that relation to Article 282.
prescribed by law for the crime they had threatened to commit—homicide. In his
Order of 24 July 1991,5 respondent Judge denied the motion for reconsideration. Before acting on the petition, this Court required the Office of the Solicitor
The order reads: General to comment on the petition filed by the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor.6

“This refers to the motion for reconsideration on (sic) the order of this In its Comment7 filed on 13 November 1991, the Office of the Solicitor General,
court dated July 17, 1991, dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction while observing that the Assistant Provincial Fiscal lacks the authority to file the
over the case as charged in the information. instant petition as only the Solicitor General is authorized by law to represent the
People of the Philippines in cases of this nature, declares, nevertheless, that the
The legal basis of the dismissal is founded on the fact that paragraph 1 petition is impressed with merit and, consequently, it ratifies the same and prays
Article 282, and Article 312, of the Revised Penal Code, are separate and that it be admitted, given due course and the questioned orders of the
distinct offenses. They could not be made a complex crime. Both are respondent Judge be reversed. It, however, urges that the Assistant Provincial
simple crimes where only one juridical right or interest is violated. Prosecutor be advised to be more circumspect in filing cases of this nature with
Neither is Article 312 a special complex crime. The mere circumstance this Court without the intervention of, or prior authorization from, the Solicitor
that the two crimes may be so related does not make them a special General.
complex crime or be treated (sic) like one for the purpose of imposing
the penalty. In sustaining the position of the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, the Office of the
Solicitor General argues that “in prosecution for Usurpation of Real Property as
Seemingly, the information charges two (2) separate and distinct crimes, provided for in Art. 312 of the Revised Penal Code, the over-all penalty
one under paragraph 1, Article 282 and the other under Article 312, of imposable on the accused is determined not only by the penalty provided therein
the Revised Penal Code. Close examination reveals that the violence or but also by the penalty incurred for the acts of violence executed by him. x x x
intimidation by the accused as alleged therein is a means to commit the The accused in Crim. Case No. 3386 committed acts of violence on the
crime under Article 312 or a mere incident in its commission. Under the complainant’s tenant. The violent acts with which the accused were charged in
premises, the test of jurisdiction of the court over the case is the attaining their wishes constituted threats to kill Inocencio Borreros, if the latter
impossable (sic) penalty under Article 312. prevented or prohibited both accused in (sic) taking possession of the lot in
question. Hence, accused’s threats on the life of Borreros may be considered as
Above premises considered, the motion for reconsideration is denied. the ‘violence or intimidation of persons’ mentioned in Art. 312, supra, as the
means by which accused took possession of the lot in question. And, under Art.
SO ORDERED.”
282, the imposable penalty for the threatening act of both accused—to kill
Borreros—is one (1) degree lower than that prescribed by law for the crime
accused threatened to commit—homicide; hence, the additional penalty
 CRIMLAW II 4

imposable on both accused is prision mayor minimum to prision mayor If the value of the gain cannot be ascertained, a fine of from 200 to 500
maximum, which is well within the jurisdiction of (sic) Regional Trial Court.” pesos shall be imposed.”

Acting on the Comment of the Office of the Solicitor General, this Court admitted The Article is not as simple as it appears to be. What is meant by the phrase “by
the petition and required respondent Judge to file his Comment thereon, which means of violence against or intimidation of persons” and the clause “in addition
he complied with on 9 December 1991.8 Defending his challenged orders, to the penalty incurred for the acts of violence executed by him”? What penalty
respondent Judge argues that: (a) only the crime of usurpation of real property should be made the basis for determining which court shall acquire jurisdiction
is charged in the information; the violence against or intimidation of persons over a case involving a violation of the said Article?
alleged therein is an element of the crime charged; it cannot constitute a distinct
crime of grave threats or give rise to the complex crime of usurpation of real An inquiry into the nature of the crime may yield the desired answers.
property with grave threats as basis for determining the jurisdiction of the court;
The offense defined in this Article is one of the crimes against property found
(b) the clause “in addition to the penalty incurred for the acts of violence
under Title Ten, Book Two of the Revised Penal Code, and is committed in the
executed by him” does not refer to Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code; both
same manner as the crime of robbery with violence against or intimidation of
Articles 312 and 282 are distinct offenses where only one juridical interest is
persons defined and penalized in Article 294 of the same Code. The main
violated; if ever there are resultant offenses arising from the acts of violence of
difference between these two (2) crimes is that the former involves real property
the accused in their occupation of the real property or usurpation of real rights
or real rights in property, while the latter involves personal property.9 In short,
over the same, they shall be subject to other criminal prosecutions not
Article 312 would have been denominated as robbery if the object taken is
necessarily under Article 282. He further claims that although not dwelt upon in
personal property.
his order of dismissal, there is another ground for the dismissal of the case; this
ground is the failure to allege intent to gain in the information, an essential Accordingly, the phrase “by means of violence against or intimidation of persons”
element of Article 312. in Article 312 must be construed to refer to the same phrase used in Article 294.
There are five (5) classes of robbery under the latter, namely: (a) robbery with
On 29 January 1992, this Court required the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor to
homicide (par. 1); (b) robbery with rape, intentional mutilation, or the physical
file a Reply to the respondent’s Comment.
injuries penalized in subdivision 1 of Article 263 (par. 2); (c) robbery with the
Considering the appearance of the Office of the Solicitor General, she moved to physical injuries penalized in subdivision 2 of Article 263 (par. 3); (d) robbery
be excused from complying with the same. The Office of the Solicitor General committed with unnecessary violence or with physical injuries covered by
subsequently filed the Reply. subdivisions 3 and 4 of Article 263 (par. 4); and (e) robbery in other cases, or
simple robbery (par. 5), where the violence against or intimidation of persons
This Court thereafter resolved to give due course to the petition. cannot be subsumed by, or where it is not sufficiently specified so as to fall
under, the first four paragraphs.10
Article 312 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
Paragraphs one to four of Article 294 indisputably involve the use of violence
“ART.312. Occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights in against persons. The actual physical force inflicted results in death, rape,
property.—Any person who, by means of violence against or intimidation mutilation or the physical injuries therein enumerated. The simple robbery under
of persons, shall take possession of any real property or shall usurp any paragraph five may cover physical injuries not included in paragraphs two to
real rights in property belonging to another, in addition to the penalty four. Thus, when less serious physical injuries or slight physical injuries are
incurred for the acts of violence executed by him, shall be punished by a inflicted upon the offended party on the occasion of a robbery, the accused may
fine of from 50 to 100 per centum of the gain which he shall have be prosecuted for and convicted of robbery under paragraph five.11
obtained, but not less than 75 pesos.
 CRIMLAW II 5

It seems obvious that intimidation is not encompassed under paragraphs one to clause “in addition to the penalty incurred for the acts of violence executed by
four since no actual physical violence is inflicted; evidently then, it can only fall him.” For want of a better term, the additional penalty may be designated as an
under paragraph five. incremental penalty.

But what is meant by the word intimidation? It is defined in Black’s Law What Article 312 means then is that when the occupation of real property is
Dictionary12 as “unlawful coercion; extortion; duress; putting in fear”. To take, committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, the accused
or attempt to take, by intimidation means “willfully to take, or attempt to take, may be prosecuted under an information for the violation thereof, and not for a
by putting in fear of bodily harm”. As shown in United States vs. Osorio,13 separate crime involving violence or intimidation. But, whenever appropriate, he
material violence is not indispensable for there to be intimidation; intense fear may be sentenced to suffer the penalty for the acts of violence and to pay a fine
produced in the mind of the victim which restricts or hinders the exercise of the based on the value of the gain obtained. Thus, if by reason or on the occasion of
will is sufficient. In an appropriate case, the offender may be liable for either (a) such occupation or usurpation, the crime of homicide, or any of the physical
robbery under paragraph 5 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code if the injuries penalized in either subdivisions 1 or 2 of Article 263 is committed; or
subject matter is personal property and there is intent to gain or animus furandi, when the same shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation;
or (b) grave coercion under Article 286 of said Code if such intent does not or when, in the course of its execution, the offender shall have inflicted upon any
exist.14 person not responsible for its commission any of the physical injuries covered by
subdivisions 3 and 4 of Article 263; or when it is committed through intimidation
In the crime of grave coercion, violence through force or such display of force or through the infliction of physical injuries not covered by subdivisions 1 to 4 of
that would produce intimidation and control the will of the offended party is an Article 263 of the Revised Penal Code, i.e., physical injuries penalized under
essential ingredient.15 Articles 265 and 266 of the Revised Penal Code, the accused may be convicted
for the violation of Article 312. However, he shall be sentenced: (a) to suffer the
In the crime of Grave Threats punished under Article 282 of the Revised Penal
penalty for homicide, rape, intentional mutilation and physical injuries provided
Code, intimidation is also present. However, this intimidation, as contra-
under subdivisions 1 to 4 of Article 263, other physical injuries18 or for the
distinguished from the intimidation in paragraph 5, Article 294 or Article 286—
intimidation, which may fall under Article 282 (Grave Threats) or Article 286
which is actual, immediate and personal—is conditional and not necessarily
(Grave Coercion) of the Revised Penal Code, as the case may be, and (b) to pay
personal because it may be caused by an intermediary.16
a fine based on the value of the gain obtained by him, which shall be an amount
Paragraphs one to five of Article 294 are single, special and indivisible felonies, equivalent to 50 to 100 per centum of such gain, but in no case less than
not complex crimes as defined under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.17 The seventy-five (P75.00) pesos, provided, however, that if such value cannot be
penalties imposed do not take into account the value of the personal property ascertained, the fine shall be from 200 to 500 (P200.00 to P500.00) pesos.
taken, but the gravity of the effect or consequence of the violence or
Respondent Judge then was wrong in his two (2) inconsistent propositions.
intimidation.
This Court cannot agree with the first which postulates that the threat was the
Article 312 may also be considered as defining and penalizing the single, special
means employed to occupy the land and is therefore absorbed in the crime
and indivisible crime of occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights in
defined and penalized in Article 312. If that were the case, the clause “in
property by means of violence against or intimidation of persons. It is likewise
addition to the penalty incurred for the acts of violence executed by him” would
not a complex crime as defined under Article 48. However, while Article 294
be meaningless. As earlier explained, intimidation is a form of violence which
provides a single penalty for each class of crime therein defined, Article 312
may come in the guise of threats or coercion. Besides, the peculiar theory of
provides a single, albeit two-tiered, penalty consisting of a principal penalty,
absorption would result in an absurdity whereby a grave or less grave felony
which is that incurred for the acts of violence, and an additional penalty of fine
defined in paragraph 1 of Article 282 and punished by an afflictive correctional
based on the value of the gain obtained by the accused. This is clear from the
penalty19 consisting of the deprivation of liberty, would be absorbed by a crime
 CRIMLAW II 6

(Article 312) penalized only by a fine. Neither can this Court accept his second property from being the offended party in the crime of occupation of real
proposition that Article 282 and Article 312 refer to two (2) separate crimes, both property or usurpation of real rights in property by means of intimidation
of which “are simple crimes where only one juridical right or interest is violated.” consisting of a threat, under Article 282, provided, however, that all the elements
As already stated, the crime of occupation of real right in property is a single, thereof are present. In such a case, the penalty imposable upon the accused
special and indivisible crime upon which is imposed a two-tiered penalty. Also, would be the penalty prescribed therein plus a fine based on the value of the
such a proposition obfuscates the first proposition and ignores the distinction gain obtained by the accused. As stated earlier, intimidation as found in Article
between the two Articles. Article 286 is a crime against personal security while 312 could result in either the crime of grave threats under Article 282 or grave
Article 312 is a crime against real property or real rights thereon. coercion under Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, if complainants were
in fact the parties threatened and paragraph 1 of Article 282 is applicable,23 the
It does not, however, necessarily follow that just because the respondent Judge Regional Trial Court would have exclusive original jurisdiction over the offense
is wrong, the petitioner is correct. This Court finds the proposition of petitioner charged because the corresponding penalty for the crime would be prision
similarly erroneous and untenable. As earlier stated, the complainants in the case mayor, which is the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed for the
are the co-owners of the lot and not the tenant-encargado who was the person offense threatened to be committed—homicide—which is reclusion temporal,24
threatened. The latter was in actual physical possession of the property for, as and a fine based on the value of the gain obtained by the accused.25
found by the investigating prosecutor:
WHEREFORE, the Orders of respondent Judge of 17 July 1991 and 24 July 1991
“x x x This lot was tenanted by Inocencio Borreros after the latter was in Criminal Case No. 3386 are hereby SET ASIDE. The petitioner may amend the
installed thereat by Teresita Silva herself. Lot No. 3000 is an agricultural information as suggested above; otherwise, it should be dismissed not for the
land devoted to palay.”20 reason relied upon by the respondent Judge, but because it does not charge an
offense.
Accepting this to be a fact and without necessarily inquiring into the effects of
P.D. No. 27 and R.A. No. 6657 on such tenancy, the tenant has, at the very No pronouncement as to costs.
least, a real right over the property—that of possession—which both accused
were alleged to have usurped through the threat to kill. Borreros is, therefore, SO ORDERED.
the offended party who was directly threatened by the accused; while the
information expressly states this fact, Borreros is not, most unfortunately, made Gutierrez, Jr., (Chairman), Feliciano, Bidin and Romero, JJ., concur.
the offended party. The information does not even suggest that the accused
Orders set aside.
threatened complainants or their families with the infliction upon their persons,
honor or property of any wrong amounting to a crime so as to bring the former Note.—Jurisdiction over subject matter is determined by the pleadings (DRMC
within the purview of Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code. At most, the liability Enterprises vs. Este Del Sol Mountain Reserve, Inc., 132 SCRA 293).
of the accused to the complainants would only be civil in nature. Hence, to the
extent that it limits the offended parties to just the co-owners of the property ——o0o——
who were not even in possession thereof, the information in question does not
charge an offense.21 It may, therefore, be dismissed in accordance with Section
3 (a), Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. Considering, however, that both accused
have not yet been arraigned, the information may be accordingly amended to
include the tenant as the offended party. This of course is on the assumption
that the accused usurped the tenant’s real right with intent to gain or with
animus furandi; for without such intent, he could only be charged with
coercion.22 In so holding, this Court does not preclude the owner of a piece of