People vs. Aquino

Subject: Criminal Law 1
Topic: Legality; RPC. Art. 5

Title: People vs. Aquino
Citation: G.R. No. L-39274
FACTS:
A complaint for violation of R.A. No. 3701 entitled "An Act to Discourage Destruction of Forests,
Further Amending for this Purpose Section 2751 of the Revised Administrative Code" docketed as
Criminal Case No. 1183, was filed on 10 October 1970 before the Municipal Court of Balungao,
Pangasinan against private respondent Bartolome Padilla y Domingo.
On 29 November 1972, Judge Amando G. Lazaro of the Municipal Trial Court rendered a decision
finding respondent Padilla guilty as charged and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment of seven (7)
months and to pay a fine of P1,200.00 as the value of the forest products destroyed by appellee,
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. 1
Respondent Padilla filed his notice of appeal, and in an order dated 13 February 1973, the Municipal
Trial Court ordered the case elevated to the higher court. 2
Respondent Padilla then filed a motion to dismiss, dated 14 July 1974, claiming that upon inspection
of the land involved by the Municipal Treasurer of Balungao, Pangasinan for the 1964 tax
declaration, it was found that the land was not public land. Respondent also argued that assuming
4
the land to be public, the 12 June 1974 proclamation of the then President Ferdinand Marcos
promised to recognize private rights acquired in respect of alienable and disposable public lands. 5
Assistant Provincial Fiscal Juanito R. Morante filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, dated 8
August 1974, arguing that since R.A. No. 3701 had not been repealed, that statute must be
enforced.6
On 22 August 1974, public respondent Judge Narciso A. Aquino issued an order dismissing the case
on the ground that the proclamation cited by private respondent Padilla had given him the
opportunity to apply for a homestead patent, thus, rendering the case against him moot and
academic. The respondent judge further ruled that:
7
That Court is inclined to sustain the theory of the accused that the Court has lost jurisdiction
over the subject matter of this case inasmuch as in consonance with the spirit of the New
Society to implement the land reform program and/or giving land to the landless, and to
resolve in favor of the accused the benefit of the doubt, this case can no longer prosper
under the aforesaid circumstances. 8
The People, through the Solicitor-General, then filed with this Court a Petition for Review. In a
Resolution, dated 30 October 1974, the Petition was given due course. 9
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the respondent court, which was possessed of uncontroverted jurisdiction over the
subject matter of this case, had thereafter lost such jurisdiction by reason of the "spirit and meaning
of various Presidential Decrees, Orders and Proclamations issued by his Excellency, the President
of the Philippines, in implementing the Land Reform Program and/or giving land to the landless" that
allegedly rendered this case "moot and academic".
2. Whether or not the dismissal of this case by reason of the "spirit and meaning of various
Presidential Decrees, Orders and Proclamations issued by his Excellency, the President of the
Philippines, in implementing the Land Reform Program and/or giving land to the landless" is an act
without or in excess of the respondent court's jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion,
amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
RULING:
NO. Under Article 7 of the Civil Code, a law may be repealed only by a subsequent law. Accordingly,
w
in the absence of a law repealing Section 2751 of the Revised Administrative Code. A judge has no
choice save to apply and enforce Section 2751.
Thus, while Judge Aquino was obviously aware of the applicable legal principle, he chose to
disregard that principle by invoking "the spirit and meaning" of various presidential decrees. This
constitutes a rejection of the principle of legality so fundamental in criminal law that it is very difficult
to understand how a judge could reach such a conclusion.
No "spirit and meaning" that are not given statutory form and content can be invoked as over-turning
a prior statute or as giving rise to new legal rights and duties. The "proclamation" relied upon by
Judge Aquino was not a law and did not purport to be a law. In fact, that "proclamation" was merely
an extraction from a speech of the then President of the Philippines, a speech in which some
proposed policies concerning the disposition of public lands were announced. No decree or
legislative enactment exempting "kaingineros" from liability for destruction of forest resources was
promulgated after the presidential speech. As a matter of fact, Presidential Decrees Nos. 389 and 19
705, enacted subsequently to that Independence Day Speech of former President Marcos,
20
penalized the practice of kaingin in forest reserves.
DECISION:
The Court Resolved to GRANT DUE COURSE to the Petition for Review and to REVERSE and SET
ASIDE the Order of public respondent Judge Narciso A. Aquino dated 22 August 1974. The trial
court is hereby ORDERED to resume proceedings in Criminal Case No. 148-R of the then Court of
First Instance of Pangasinan, Branch 14, against private respondent Bartolome D. Padilla. Costs
against private respondent.

People vs. Aquino

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Aquino

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Aquino

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Subject: Criminal Law 1

Topic: Legality; RPC. Art. 5

penalized the practice of kaingin in forest reserves.

You might also like