G.R. No. 174584 January 20, 2010
VICTORIA P. CABRAL, Petitioner, vs. JACINTO UY, MICHAEL UY, MARILYN O. UY, RICHARD O. UY, REY IGNACIO DIAZ, JOSE PO and JUANITO MALTO, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Jacinto Uy, chairman of Moldex Realty, Inc. (Moldex), entered into a joint venture with Quintin Bernardo to include Bernardo’s land (held under emancipation patents) into Moldex’s subdivision project in Bulacan. Moldex applied for a license to sell with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) on June 21, 2001, but the application was denied for non-compliance. On July 2, 2002, petitioner Victoria P. Cabral filed a criminal complaint against the respondents (Moldex officers and directors) for violating Section 5 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) 957, alleging she was the registered owner of the lots and that respondents offered to acquire them from her. On April 28, 2003, a criminal information was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City against respondents for selling a subdivision lot to Josefa C. Yanga without an HLURB license. Subsequently, on September 17, 2003, the HLURB issued Moldex the license to sell. Respondents filed a motion to quash the information, claiming lack of jurisdiction (arguing HLURB had exclusive jurisdiction) and that the subsequent license extinguished criminal liability. The RTC denied the motions. The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the RTC’s jurisdiction but ordered the case dismissed, ruling the subsequent license issuance extinguished criminal liability. Petitioner sought reconsideration, which was denied, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether the public prosecutor and the trial court have jurisdiction over criminal actions for violation of P.D. 957.
2. Whether the HLURB’s subsequent issuance of a license to sell to Moldex extinguished respondents’ criminal liability for selling subdivision lots prior to such issuance.

RULING

1. Yes. Following the precedent in Sia v. People, the CA correctly upheld the public prosecutor’s authority to file the criminal information and the trial court’s power to hear and adjudicate the action. The penalty for violation (a fine not exceeding ₱20,000.00 and/or imprisonment not exceeding 10 years) brings the offense within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
2. No. The subsequent issuance of a license to sell does not extinguish criminal liability. Violation of Section 5 of P.D. 957 (prohibiting sale of subdivision lots without a prior HLURB license) is a malum prohibitum crime. The offense is complete upon the act of selling without a license. The CA’s reliance on Co Chien v. Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, Inc. was misplaced, as that case involved a civil action for refund and contract nullification, not criminal liability. In Co Chien, the HLURB still imposed an administrative fine for the violation, indicating that a subsequent license does not erase the offense. Therefore, the allegations in the Information, if proven true, establish the crime, and the subsequent license cannot retroactively erase the offense or extinguish criminal liability.
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the CA Decision and Resolution, and REINSTATED the RTC Order denying respondents’ motions.