PEOPLE v. ALFECHE, JR.

211 SCRA 770, G.R. No. 102070

DAVIDE, JR., J.:
Augustus Botrous DV. Guco

FACTS: A complaint for Grave Threats and Usurpation of Real Property was filed by
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Azarraga against Fuentes and Dimalata, a successor-in-interest to
the original landowner of the property in question, for threats directed against a tenant-
encargado (overseer) who worked for the complainants (co-owners of the lot in issue). The
respondent judge (Alfeche, Jr.), however, dismissed the case due to lack of jurisdiction, opining
that in line with the affidavit, the threat made is a means to committing the crime, and thus
should be absorbed by it – as per Article 312 of the Revised Penal Code, whereas in accordance
with the facts, the threat made was not a means to committing the crime – instead, what occurred
are two distinct crimes and not a complex crime under Art. 312 in relation to Article 282, and
that furthermore, the imposable penalty was below the court’s jurisdiction.
A motion to reconsider was filed – agreeing that the crime charged is not a
complex crime, yet noting that Art. 282 is mentioned only for the penalty therein as Art. 312
does not provide for such – but it was also denied by the respondent judge, who reiterated that
what the information provides for are crimes under Art. 282 and Art. 312, which are separate and
distinct offenses.
Hence, the petition was filed against the respondent Judge by the aforementioned
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor in behalf of the People of the Philippines, imputing grave abuse
of discretion on the judge’s part.

ISSUE: WON the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over cases involving a violation of
Article 312 of the Revised Penal Code where the intimidation employed by the accused consists
of a threat to kill?

RULING: The Court disagrees with the Respondent Judge in his opining that the threat
made is a means to commit the crime and thus should be absorbed by it – as intimidation is a
form of violence which may also be done through threats or coercion, nor in his stating that
Articles 282 and 312 refer to two separate simple crimes – as crime of occupation of real right in
property is a single, special, and indivisible crime upon which is imposed a two-tiered penalty,
and these two contentions together were deemed both erroneous and incongruous. Yet, the Court
also disagrees with the petitioner’s argument – observing that the complainants are the co-
owners of the lot and not the tenant-encargado (overseer) who was actually threatened. Still, the
information may be amended to include the tenant as the offended party, provided the accused
usurped the tenant’s real right with intent to gain (otherwise they can only be charged with
coercion), or it may also be proven that the complainants (co-owners of the lot) were indeed the
offended party for the crime of occupation of real right in property by means of intimidation
consisting of a threat as per Art. 282 should the elements for such be deemed present. If it is so,
the Regional Trial Court would have exclusive original jurisdiction over the offense charged.
 The Orders of respondent judge are thus SET ASIDE, with petitioner permitted to
amend information as above suggested; if not it should be dismissed because it does not charge
an offense.