CONCHITA QUINAO vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, rep.

by the OFFICE OF THE

SOLICITOR GENERAL, and FRANCISCO DEL MONTE

FACTS: On February 2, 1993 at around 9 o'clock in the morning while Bienvenido

Delmonte was busy working in the agricultural land which he owns in common with
complainant Francisco Delmonte, accused Salvador Cases and Conchita Quinao, together
with their other close relatives suddenly appeared and while there, with the use of force,
violence and intimidation, usurped and took possession of their landholding, claiming that
the same is their inheritance from their ascendants and while there, accused immediately
gathered coconuts and made them into copra. Complainant was forcibly driven out by the
accused from their landholding and was threatened that if he will try to return to the land
in question, something will happen to him. Complainant was thus forced to seek assistance
from the Lapinig Philippine National Police.

Both the accused and private complainant are claiming ownership over the land in
question. Private complainant Francisco Delmonte submitted and offered in evidence Tax
Declaration which shows that the land is the same land litigated and awarded to the
predecessor-in-interest of the complainant in Civil Case No. 3561. The accused-appellant,
on the other hand, claims that the land was their inheritance from their ascendants.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is guilty of the crime of usurpation of real property?

HELD: Article 312 of Revised Penal Code defines and penalizes the crime of usurpation of
real property as follows: “Any person who, by means of violence against or intimidation of
persons, shall take possession of any real property or shall usurp any real rights in property
belonging to another, in addition to the penalty incurred for the acts of violence executed by
him shall be punished by a fine from P50 to P100 per centum of the gain which he shall have
obtained, but not less than P75 pesos. If the value of the gain cannot be ascertained, a fine
from P200 to P500 pesos shall be imposed.” The elements of the offense are (1) occupation of
another's real property or usurpation of a real right belonging to another person; (2)
violence or intimidation should be employed in possessing the real property or in usurping
the real right, and (3) the accused should be animated by the intent to gain. Thus, in order
to absolve herself of any liability for the crime, she maintains that she owns the property
involved herein. The matter on the ownership of the lot in question, however, had long
been settled when, in Civil Case No. 3561 involving the predecessors-in-interest of private
complainant and that of accused Cases, the Court of First Instance of Samar, Branch III,
Thirteenth Judicial Region, adjudicated said lot to private complainant's predecessors-in-
interest. Furthermore, on the issue of the employment of violence in acquiring possession
over the real property or in usurping the real right and accused was animated by intent to
gain, the Supreme Court agrees with
the trial court and the CA’s affirmative ruling based testimony of prosecution witness
Bienvenido Delmonte.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED.

PEOPLE v. DAVID A. ALFECHE

FACTS:
Upon a complaint for Grave Threats and Usurpation of Real Property filed against Ruperto
Dimalata and Norberto Fuentes, and after the appropriate preliminary investigation
wherein Dimalata presented evidence showing that he is a successor-in-interest of the
alleged original owner of the land, and that the threat was established to have been
directed against the complainants' tenant-encargado, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor
Juliana C. Azarraga of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Capiz handed down a
Resolution, duly approved by the Provincial Prosecutor, finding prima facie evidence of
guilt for the crime charged. The complainants are co-owners of the parcel of land allegedly
usurped. On 17 July 1991, respondent Judge, as Presiding Judge of Branch 15 of the court
below, dismissed the case motu proprio on the ground of lack of jurisdiction considering
that "the crime committed by the accused falls under Article 312 of the Revised Penal Code
and the violence or intimidation by the accused is a means to commit it or a mere incident
in its commission, hence, the threat is absorbed by the crime charged," and considering that
"the impossable fine as penalty is from P200.00 to P500.00" because the value of the gain
cannot be ascertained.

ISSUE:
Is the judge correct in dismissing the case?

HELD:
No. the Orders of respondent Judge of 17 July 1991 and 24 July 1991 in Criminal Case No.
3386 are hereby SET ASIDE. What Article 312 means then is that when the occupation of
real property is committed by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, the
accused may be prosecuted under an information for the violation thereof, and not for a
separate crime involving violence or intimidation. But, whenever appropriate, he may be
sentenced to suffer the penalty for the acts of violence and to pay a fine based on the value
of the gain obtained.