People v. Constantino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellants, members of the White Sand Bentol Fishermen Cooperative (WSBFC), were charged with violation of Article 91(B)(3) of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1067, the Water Code of the Philippines. They were accused of occupying and constructing structures in the foreshore area of Barangay San Pedro, Panabo City, without the necessary permit. Procedural History: The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) convicted the accused-appellants, sentencing them to pay a fine of P3,000.00 each, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTCC decision in toto. The Court of Appeals (CA) also affirmed the RTC's decision. Accused-appellants filed an ordinary appeal to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Accused-appellants challenged their conviction, arguing various points including the nature of the area, the need for permits, and procedural matters. The Supreme Court noted that the accused-appellants availed of the wrong mode of appeal by filing a notice of appeal instead of a petition for review on certiorari.
Issue(s)
Whether accused-appellants are guilty of violating Article 91(B)(3) of PD 1067. Whether a pending foreshore lease application constitutes a valid defense against the charge of unauthorized occupancy. Whether the term "foreshore" is encompassed within the term "seashore" as used in PD 1067. Whether the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies to criminal charges under PD 1067. Whether the accused-appellants availed of the proper mode of appeal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellants for violation of Article 91(B)(3) of PD 1067. The Court dismissed the appeal due to the improper mode of appeal filed by the accused-appellants. Even if the appeal were properly filed, the Court found no reversible error in the lower courts' decisions.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of accused-appellants for violating Article 91(B)(3) of PD 1067: The Court held that accused-appellants are guilty of unauthorized occupancy of the foreshore area without the necessary permit. They admitted to constructing and occupying various structures on the subject area, which is classified as foreshore land, without the required permit. The Court clarified that the term "seashore" as used in PD 1067 encompasses "foreshore" lands. Article 51 of PD 1067 explicitly prohibits staying in the seashore zone for extended periods or building structures of any kind without permission. Therefore, any unauthorized occupancy of the three-meter shore without permission entails the penalty provided under Article 91(B)(3). On the defense of a pending foreshore lease application: The Court ruled that a pending foreshore lease application does not serve as a defense to exculpate accused-appellants from the criminal charge. The act of unauthorized occupancy of the seashore without the necessary permit, as punished under Article 91(B)(3) of PD 1067, is considered malum prohibitum. This means that criminal intent is immaterial, and the mere commission of the prohibited act is sufficient for conviction. Therefore, the pendency of their foreshore lease application with the DENR did not legitimize their unauthorized occupancy and construction of structures. On the interpretation of "foreshore" and "seashore": The Court affirmed the lower courts' ruling that the term "seashore" encompasses "foreshore" areas. Foreshore land is defined as the strip of land between the high and low water marks, alternately wet and dry. This area is logically within the three-meter seashore provided under Article 51 of PD 1067, as it is adjacent to the sea. Thus, the charge involving "foreshore area" was correctly understood to fall under the prohibition against unauthorized occupancy of the "seashore." On the exhaustion of administrative remedies: The Court reiterated that the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not applicable in criminal cases. Article 93 of PD 1067 explicitly states that all offenses punishable under Article 91 shall be brought before the proper court. The filing of a criminal complaint for violation of environmental laws can be initiated by any offended party, peace officer, or public officer charged with enforcement, and it is filed with the prosecutor's office, not directly with an administrative agency. Therefore, the contention that administrative remedies were not exhausted was deemed misplaced. On the mode of appeal: The Court found that accused-appellants availed of the wrong mode of appeal by filing a mere notice of appeal instead of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege, and its perfection in the manner and within the period prescribed is mandatory and jurisdictional. Failure to comply with the rules on appeal renders the judgment final and executory. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on this procedural ground alone.
Main Doctrine
Unauthorized occupancy of a foreshore area without the necessary permit constitutes a violation of Article 91(B)(3) of PD 1067, the Water Code of the Philippines. A pending foreshore lease application does not serve as a defense against such violation, as the act is considered malum prohibitum and requires strict adherence to permits and regulations.