GR 139603; (July, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 139603; July 14, 2000
CONCHITA QUINAO, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and FRANCISCO DEL MONTE, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Conchita Quinao and Salvador Cases were charged with Usurpation of Real Property under Article 312 of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that on February 2, 1993, in Lapinig, Northern Samar, they conspired to forcibly usurp a parcel of land owned by private complainant Francisco Delmonte, gathered coconuts therefrom, and converted them into copra for sale. Both accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented evidence, including a tax declaration and a prior court decision (Civil Case No. 3561), to establish Delmonte’s ownership derived from his predecessor-in-interest, Petre Delmonte. The defense claimed ownership through their grandfather, Lorenzo Cases, presenting their own tax declaration and asserting possession.
The trial court found both accused guilty. Salvador Cases died during the appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of petitioner Quinao, prompting this petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for the crime of usurpation of real property.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. For usurpation of real property under Article 312, the elements are: (1) the property belongs to another; (2) the accused took possession through violence, force, or intimidation; and (3) the act was committed with intent to gain. The Court upheld the concurrent factual findings of the lower courts that the land belonged to Delmonte. The prosecution’s evidence, particularly the prior civil case decision awarding the land to Delmonte’s parents, sufficiently established ownership and refuted petitioner’s claim.
Regarding the second element, the Court gave weight to the testimony of prosecution witness Bienvenido Delmonte, who detailed how petitioner and her co-accused, with relatives, suddenly appeared, used force and intimidation to drive him out, and threatened him if he returned. This constituted the requisite violence or intimidation in acquiring possession. The act of gathering and selling the coconuts demonstrated the intent to gain. The Court found no reason to deviate from the factual conclusions of the lower courts, which are generally binding. Finally, the fact that the judge who penned the decision did not hear the entire trial did not impair the judgment’s validity absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion, which was not present.