G.R. No. L-47033. June 16, 1978.
Generoso Castrodes and Lamberto Castrodes, petitioners, vs. Hon. Alfredo V. Cubelo as Municipal Judge of Anda, Bohol; People of the Philippines; Director of Prisons, and Julian, Benedicto, Venancio and Josepatro, all surnamed Ampong, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Generoso Castrodes and his son Lamberto were convicted by the Municipal Court of Anda, Bohol, for acts arising from a land dispute with the Ampong family. The complaint alleged that on July 10, 1975, the accused entered the land of the Ampong brothers and planted coconut trees without consent. When confronted by Julian Ampong, Generoso asserted the land belonged to the Castrodes family. Lamberto then told Julian, “if you touch this land and my plants here blood will drain in this soil.” The municipal court found Generoso guilty of usurpation of real property and fined him P350. It convicted Lamberto of the supposed complex crime of usurpation of real property with grave threats, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of four months and one day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to five years of prision correccional, as maximum. Lamberto served part of this sentence and was paroled.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the municipal court had jurisdiction to convict and sentence Lamberto Castrodes for the complex crime of usurpation of real property with grave threats based on the complaint filed.

RULING

The Supreme Court annulled Lamberto Castrodes’s conviction for lack of jurisdiction. The Court held that the complaint filed by the chief of police charged only the crime of usurpation of real property under Article 312 of the Revised Penal Code. The threat uttered by Lamberto (“blood will drain in this soil”) constituted the intimidation or violence inherent in and absorbed by the crime of usurpation itself; it did not give rise to a separate, complex offense. Since usurpation of real property, when punishable by a fine of 200 to 500 pesos, is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the municipal court, the penalty imposed on Generoso was valid. However, the penalty for the non-existent complex crime, with a maximum of five years of prision correccional, was beyond the municipal court’s jurisdiction, which is limited to offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine not exceeding three thousand pesos. Consequently, the sentence imposed on Lamberto was void ab initio. The Court rejected the argument that the case was moot due to Lamberto’s parole, stating that a void judgment means his detention was illegal from the outset. The sentence against Lamberto was set aside.