G.R. No. 71989 , July 7, 1986
AVELINA CONDE, petitioner, vs. HON. FELIX MAMENTA JR., as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Zambales, and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Avelina Conde was a stallholder in the Masinloc Public Market. The Sangguniang Bayan passed Municipal Ordinance No. 3-A, series of 1980, which increased her monthly rental from P27.00 to P140.02. Conde refused to pay the new rate, contending it was excessive, and she had challenged the increase before the Ministry of Local Government.
Consequently, a criminal complaint was filed against her for violating Section 5 B.05 of the Masinloc Revenue Code, as amended, for willful non-payment of her monthly dues totaling P2,640.37. The Municipal Circuit Trial Court convicted her, ordering her to vacate the stall and pay the accumulated rentals and surcharges. This decision was affirmed by the Regional Trial Court. On appeal, the Intermediate Appellate Court elevated the case to the Supreme Court, certifying the sole legal issue of whether Conde could be criminally prosecuted for her failure to pay the increased rental.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner can be validly prosecuted criminally for her failure to pay the increased monthly rental for her public market stall.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in the negative and ordered the dismissal of the criminal complaint. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental principles of criminal law. For a criminal prosecution to lie, the law or ordinance must clearly define an act as an offense and prescribe a corresponding penalty for its violation. Examining the relevant enactments—Municipal Ordinance No. 3-A, which merely sets the new rental rates, and Section 5 B.05 of the Revenue Code, which imposes a 25% surcharge for late or non-payment and allows for cancellation of the lease—the Court found that neither provision defines non-payment of fees as a criminal offense nor stipulates any criminal punishment.
The surcharge imposed is not a criminal penalty but an administrative or civil addition to the debt, recoverable through civil action. Since no crime was created by the municipal legislation, the trial court lacked criminal jurisdiction over the case. Criminal jurisdiction is the authority to hear, try, and punish offenses defined by law; absent such a defined offense, no criminal proceeding can be sustained. The Court dismissed the case without prejudice to the municipality’s right to collect the unpaid rentals and surcharges through a proper civil action.