G.R. No. L-44095. April 24, 1989.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. OSCAR P. SIAT, AGUSTIN VIGONTE and EDGARDO MAGBANUA, respondents.
FACTS
The private respondents, Agustin Vigonte and Edgardo Magbanua, were charged before the City Court of Puerto Princesa with violating Presidential Decree No. 772, which penalizes squatting. The information alleged that on or about the second week of October 1975 in Barrio Bagongbayan, Puerto Princesa City, the accused conspired to occupy and build a house on land owned by Felix Yara for residential and/or commercial purposes, taking advantage of the owner’s absence or tolerance, and refused to vacate despite demands.
The private respondents filed a motion to quash the information, arguing that the facts charged did not constitute an offense. Respondent Judge Oscar P. Siat granted the motion and dismissed the case. The trial court opined that the preamble and purpose clause of P.D. No. 772 indicate it was intended to penalize squatting only in urban communities. Since the information lacked an allegation that Barrio Bagongbayan was an urban community, it failed to state an offense. The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting the People to elevate the case via petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether or not the trial court erred in dismissing the information on the ground that P.D. No. 772 applies only to squatting in urban communities, and the information failed to allege that the locus criminis was an urban area.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the trial court’s orders. The Court held that the respondent judge committed no reversible error. The legal logic is anchored on the settled interpretation of P.D. No. 772’s scope. As definitively ruled in People vs. Echaves (95 SCRA 663) and reiterated in Bernardo vs. People (123 SCRA 365), the decree is intended to apply only to squatting in urban communities. This unambiguous intent is gleaned from the decree’s preamble, which explicitly states the problem of squatting “in urban communities all over the country” and refers to the drive against illegal constructions on public and private properties.
Since the applicability of the law is expressly limited to urban communities, it is an essential element of the offense that the act of squatting be committed in such a community. Consequently, an information that fails to allege this jurisdictional element does not charge an offense. In this case, the information merely alleged the act was committed in Barrio Bagongbayan, Puerto Princesa City, without characterizing it as an urban community. Therefore, the facts as charged did not constitute a violation of P.D. No. 772, warranting the dismissal of the case. The petition was denied for lack of merit.
