Anarna, Ma. Jelly Joyce Y.

Criminal Law II Atty David Yap

Class Student No. 3 CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY DAY 6

PEOPLE VS. ALFECHE, JR. G.R. No. 102070. July 23, 1992 211 SCRA 770

DAVIDE, JR., J.:

FACTS:
Sometime in the month of November 1990, Ruperto Dimalata and Norberto Fuentes,
took over the land commonly owned by Teresita Silva and siblings while in the possession of
the tenant, Inocencio Borreros, with threat to kill him.

Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Azarraga filed “Usurpation of Real Rights In Property

defined and penalized under Article 312 in relation to Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code”.
On 17 July 1991, respondent Judge, as Presiding Judge, dismissed the case motu
proprio on the ground of lack of jurisdiction considering that “the crime committed by the
accused falls under Article 312 of the Revised Penal Code and the violence or intimidation by
the accused is a means to commit it or a mere incident in its commission, hence, the threat is
absorbed by the crime charged,” and considering that “the impossable fine as penalty is from
P200.00 to P500.00” because the value of the gain cannot be ascertained.

The petition filed by Azarraga for and in behalf of the People of the Philippines against
respondent Judge to whom is imputed the commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack of jurisdiction for dismissing the criminal case. It is argued that: (a) respondent Judge
erred in not considering the penalty prescribed under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code as
the basis for the imposable penalty in the crime defined in Article 312 thereof, and (b) the
crime charged in the information is not complexed with Article 282 by the mere allegation in
the caption of the information that it is a prosecution under said Article 312 in relation to
Article 282.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent Judge erred in not considering the imposable penalty
due to the violence, threat and / or intimidation used against Borreros?

HELD:
Yes, respondent Judge erred in not considering the imposable penalty due to the
violence, threat and/or intimidation used against Borreros. Respondent Judge then was wrong
in his two (2) inconsistent propositions. This Court cannot agree with the first which postulates
that the threat was the means employed to occupy the land and is therefore absorbed in the
crime defined and penalized in Article 312. If that were the case, the clause “in addition to the
penalty incurred for the acts of violence executed by him” would be meaningless. As earlier
explained, intimidation is a form of violence which may come in the guise of threats or
coercion. Besides, the peculiar theory of absorption would result in an absurdity whereby a
grave or less grave felony defined in paragraph 1 of Article 282 and punished by an afflictive
correctional penalty19 consisting of the deprivation of liberty, would be absorbed by a crime
(Article 312) penalized only by a fine. Neither can this Court accept his second proposition that
Article 282 and Article 312 refer to two (2) separate crimes, both of which “are simple crimes
where only one juridical right or interest is violated.” As already stated, the crime of occupation
of real right in property is a single, special and indivisible crime upon which is imposed a two-
tiered penalty. Also, such a proposition obfuscates the first proposition and ignores the
distinction between the two Articles. Article 286 is a crime against personal security while
Article 312 is a crime against real property or real rights thereon.

What Article 312 means then is that when the occupation of real property is committed
by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, the accused may be prosecuted under
an information for the violation thereof, and not for a separate crime involving violence or
intimidation. But, whenever appropriate, he may be 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

1
Anarna, Ma. Jelly Joyce Y. Criminal Law II Atty David Yap
Class Student No. 3 CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY DAY 6

the occasion of such 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 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 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 or through the infliction of physical injuries not covered by
subdivisions 1 to 4 of Article 263 of the Revised Penal Code, i.e., physical injuries penalized
under 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 penalty for homicide,
rape, intentional mutilation and physical injuries provided under subdivisions 1 to 4 of Article
263, other physical injuries or for the intimidation, which may fall under Article 282 (Grave
Threats) or Article 286 (Grave Coercion) of the Revised Penal Code, as the case may be, and (b)
to pay 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 seventy-five
(P75.00)pesos, provided, however, that if such value cannot be ascertained, the fine shall be
from 200 to 500 (P200.00 to P500.00) pesos.

Supreme Court’s decision, the Orders of respondent Judge of 17 July 1991 and 24 July
1991 in Criminal Case No. 3386 are hereby SET ASIDE. The petitioner may amend the
information as suggested above; otherwise, it should be dismissed not for the reason relied
upon by the respondent Judge, but because it does not charge an offense.