Sia v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Ruben S. Sia and Josephine Sia, owners of a parcel of land in Naga City, developed it into a subdivision project classified under Development Permit No. 92-0415 as socialized housing, though later zoned commercial and industrial via City Ordinance No. 93-041 and Resolution No. 93-261. Respondent Teresita Lee purchased several lots from petitioners via Contracts to Sell, but petitioners failed to register these contracts with the Register of Deeds of Naga City as required under Section 17 of P.D. No. 957. Consequently, on August 7, 2000, the City Prosecutor's Office of Naga City filed three informations charging petitioners with violations of Section 17 of P.D. No. 957 before the RTC of Naga City, Branch 27 (Criminal Case Nos. 2000-0226, 2000-0227, 2000-0228), alleging failure to register the contracts relative to lots sold to Lee. Petitioners contested the applicability of P.D. No. 957 claiming the project was commercial, not residential. The underlying dispute arose from Lee's purchase of subdivision lots intended primarily for residential use despite the site's commercial zoning. Procedural History: On October 15, 2001, petitioners filed a Consolidated Motion to Quash arguing lack of RTC jurisdiction and prosecutorial authority; denied on October 18, 2001, with arraignment set for October 29. Petitioners moved to resolve the prosecutorial authority issue on October 23, denied October 24; reconsideration denied, arraignment reset to November 21. Motion for postponement denied; on November 21, 2001, RTC appointed de officio counsel for Ruben Sia and proceeded with arraignment despite objections. Petitioners filed Petition for Certiorari (with TRO/Injunction) before CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 68057), claiming no jurisdiction, no prosecutorial authority (only HLURB enforcement officers under E.O. No. 71), and denial of right to counsel. CA dismissed on April 25, 2003, affirming RTC orders, holding: (a) RTC jurisdiction proper as offenses alleged within territorial jurisdiction and penalty (up to 10 years) RTC-level; (b) prosecutors authorized per Rule 110, Sec. 5; (c) right to counsel not violated as choice not exclusive. MR denied July 29, 2003. The Petition: Petitioners sought review under Rule 45, arguing: (a) informations do not constitute P.D. No. 957 violations as project commercial per zoning ordinances, not residential; (b) city prosecutors lack authority without prior HLURB enforcement determination under E.O. No. 71; (c) Ruben Sia denied due process/right to counsel by forced arraignment with de officio counsel despite insistence on newly hired de parte counsel.
Issue(s)
Whether the failure to register Contracts to Sell over subdivision lots constitutes a violation of Section 17, P.D. No. 957, given the project's commercial zoning. Whether the City Prosecutor's Office of Naga City has authority to file informations for P.D. No. 957 violations absent HLURB enforcement action under E.O. No. 71. Whether petitioner Ruben S. Sia was denied his constitutional right to counsel by arraignment with de officio counsel despite preference for private counsel.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The April 25, 2003 Decision and July 29, 2003 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 68057 are AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: Section 2 of P.D. No. 957 defines 'subdivision project' as land partitioned primarily for residential purposes, including commercial/industrial areas within, not limited to residential-zoned land; here, Development Permit DP No. 92-0415 classified it as socialized housing (residential), and Zoning Certification confirmed residential zone compliance, thus within P.D. No. 957 despite later commercial zoning. Section 4 requires HLURB registration of subdivision plans for conversion projects; Section 17 mandates separate registration of contracts to sell/deeds with Register of Deeds post-plan approval and License to Sell issuance—petitioners' failure to register Lee's contracts violates this, punishable under Section 39 (fine ≤P20,000 and/or ≤10 years imprisonment). Petitioners' restrictive reading flawed: registration obligations apply to residential-purpose partitions regardless of district. Supreme Court examined documents, rejecting commercial exemption claim as zoning does not override primary residential intent evidenced by permits. On Issue 2: E.O. No. 71, Section 3 limits LGU enforcement officers to monitoring/investigating devolved functions under Section 1 (e.g., plan approvals, monitoring under P.D. 957/BP 220), explicitly allowing DOJ call for criminal proceedings; Section 17 registration violations not devolved, thus city prosecutors authorized per Rule 110, Section 5 ('All criminal actions... prosecuted under direction/control of prosecutor'). Jurisdiction determined by information allegations (failure to register per Section 17), not defenses (citing Dela Cruz v. CA; Roxas v. CA)—RTC has jurisdiction over penalty range. HLURB role supervisory/visitorial, not exclusive for criminal filing. On Issue 3: Article III, Section 12(1) right to 'competent and independent counsel preferably of own choice' applies to custodial investigation but, extended to arraignment, not absolute—accused cannot delay via unavailability (Amion v. Chiongson: 'preferably' not exclusive, prevents obstruction). RTC gave ample time (informations filed August 2000; arraignment November 2001 after multiple motions/postponements); November 21 Orders noted intolerable delay, appointed de officio after exhaustion. No transgression as de officio competent/independent; dilatory tactics trumped by judicial process (People v. Larranaga).
Main Doctrine
A subdivision project under Section 2 of P.D. No. 957 encompasses tracts of land partitioned primarily for residential purposes, including residential, commercial, industrial, and recreational areas within the project, irrespective of the underlying zoning classification as commercial or industrial. Owners must register subdivision plans with HLURB under Section 4 and contracts to sell, deeds of sale, or similar instruments with the Register of Deeds under Section 17, with failure to do so constituting a violation punishable under Section 39. E.O. No. 71 devolves only specific HLURB functions like plan approvals and monitoring to LGUs, but criminal prosecution for P.D. No. 957 violations, such as non-registration of contracts, remains with city prosecutors under Rule 110, Section 5. Trial court jurisdiction over criminal cases is determined by the allegations in the information, not defenses raised, ensuring the penalty (fine up to P20,000 and/or imprisonment up to 10 years) falls within RTC limits. The right to counsel of choice under Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution, even extended to arraignment, is not absolute and cannot be used for dilatory purposes, allowing courts to appoint de officio counsel after reasonable opportunities to secure private counsel are exhausted, as reiterated in Amion v. Chiongson.