People v. Leachon, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Two separate informations for violation of P.D. 772 (Anti-Squatting Law) were filed against Noli Hablo, Edmundo Mapindan, and Diego [Surname Missing] before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro. After the prosecution rested its case and offered its evidence, the RTC, presided over by respondent Judge Emilio L. Leachon, Jr., dismissed the cases motu proprio on August 18, 1992, citing 'lack of jurisdiction.' Procedural History: The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the RTC's dismissal order, directing the respondent judge to proceed with the trial. Subsequently, on January 19, 1993, the respondent judge again dismissed the cases motu proprio, opining that P.D. 772 was rendered obsolete and repealed by Article XIII, Sections 9 and 10 of the 1987 Constitution. A motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioners then filed the instant special civil action for certiorari and mandamus with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioners prayed for the annulment of the RTC orders dismissing the cases and for an order directing the respondent judge to proceed with the trial. The core issue was whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the cases and declaring P.D. 772 unconstitutional.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the criminal cases for violation of the Anti-Squatting Law, considering the procedural aspects of raising constitutional questions and the effect of Republic Act No. 8368. Whether P.D. 772 is rendered obsolete and repealed by Sections 9 and 10, Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution, and the interpretation of these constitutional provisions regarding eviction and demolition.
Ruling
The Petition is hereby DISMISSED, without any pronouncement as to costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and the procedural aspects: The Supreme Court held that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion. Every legislative act is presumed constitutional, and a law remains valid unless declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court or repealed by a subsequent law. P.D. 772 was effective and neither declared unconstitutional nor repealed by implication at the time of the dismissal. Repeals by implication are not favored unless the legislative intent is manifest. A constitutional question will not be decided unless properly raised in appropriate cases and meets certain requisites. The respondent judge dismissed the cases motu proprio after the prosecution rested, without giving the accused an opportunity to present their evidence, and without the issue of P.D. 772's constitutionality being raised by the accused. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Republic Act No. 8368 was enacted, repealing P.D. 772, rendering the petition moot and academic. The respondent judge's actions constituted grave abuse of discretion. On the issue of the constitutionality of P.D. 772 and the interpretation of Article XIII, Sections 9 and 10: The Court agreed with the respondent judge's interpretation that eviction and demolition of urban or rural poor dwellers must be done in accordance with law and in a just and humane manner. However, the Court clarified that the validity of eviction is not hinged on the existence of a government resettlement plan or area. Instead, 'in accordance with law' and 'just and humane manner' mean that the occupant is accorded due process, an opportunity to be heard, sufficient notice before eviction, and that there be no loss of lives, physical injuries, or unnecessary loss or damage to property during the process. The presumption of constitutionality attaches to P.D. 772.
Main Doctrine
A judge commits grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing criminal cases for violation of P.D. 772 motu proprio on the ground that the law is obsolete or repealed by the 1987 Constitution, especially when the issue of constitutionality was not raised by the accused and the dismissal occurs before the accused has presented their evidence. Furthermore, the validity of eviction and demolition under Article XIII, Sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution is not hinged on the existence of a government resettlement plan, but on the observance of due process and humane treatment during the eviction process. However, subsequent enactment of R.A. 8368, which repealed P.D. 772, mandates the dismissal of all pending cases.