G.R. No. 251636 . February 14, 2022.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ORLANDO CONSTANTINO, ANTONIO ALEGADO, ROMEO CABILES, LUZVIMINDA CABILES, LENETO BONOCAN, ARTURO L. NUEVA, NORMA C. LUPAS, MERCY B. GALABIN, LUZVIMINDA DIAPOLET, CLARA RAMIREZ, AND ELVIE ARCEBAR, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

FACTS

Accused-appellants, members of the White Sand Bentol Fishermen Cooperative (WSBFC), were charged with violating Article 91(B)(3) of Presidential Decree No. 1067 (Water Code) for occupying and constructing building structures in a foreshore area in Barangay San Pedro, Panabo City, without the necessary permit. They pleaded not guilty. During pre-trial, it was admitted that the accused resided outside the coastal area, were WSBFC members, and that WSBFC, represented by Zosimo Lasco, had filed a Foreshore Lease Application (FLA) on June 10, 2005, which was not approved. The prosecution established that accused-appellants occupied the foreshore area in January 2009, constructed sheds and operated sari-sari stores without an approved FLA from the DENR or a business permit from Panabo City. Notices to vacate from the city government and CENRO-DENR were ignored. The defense claimed they occupied the area prior to July 13, 2009, under a pending FLA, and that local resolutions declared the area a beach resort. They argued they were unaware a permit was needed and cited an MTCC Decision in a forcible entry case (SCC No. 30-08) that restored their possession. The MTCC convicted them, imposing a fine. The RTC affirmed the conviction, ruling the act was malum prohibitum, a pending FLA does not authorize occupation, and the forcible entry decision did not excuse the criminal violation. The CA affirmed the RTC decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming accused-appellants’ conviction for violation of Article 91(B)(3) of P.D. No. 1067.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the CA Decision. The Court held that all elements of the crime were proven: (1) accused-appellants occupied a foreshore area; (2) they built structures thereon; and (3) they did so without the required government permit. The area was classified as foreshore. Accused-appellants admitted occupying it and constructing structures for a beach resort and stores. The lack of a permit was established by the unapproved FLA and a certification that no building permits were issued. The offense is malum prohibitum; thus, criminal intent is immaterial. A pending FLA does not authorize occupation or construction. The MTCC decision in the forcible entry case merely resolved possession rights against a private claimant and did not legitimize the violation of the Water Code, which requires a permit from the national government. The proper penalty under the law is a fine of not less than One Thousand Pesos nor more than Six Thousand Pesos; the imposed fine of Three Thousand Pesos was within this range. The MTCC had jurisdiction over the offense.