January 20, 2010
Ponente: Abad, J.
FACTS:
·
Jacinto Uy, chairman of real estate company
Moldex Realty, entered into a joint venture agreement with Quintin Bernardo for
the inclusion into Moldex's residential subdivision project in Bulacan of two
parcels of land, totaling 20,954 square meters, that Bernardo held under two
emancipation patents.
·
On June 21, 2001, Moldex applied for a license
to sell subdivision lots in the project mentioned with the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board (HLURB), but the application was denied for failure to comply
with the requirements.
·
On July 2, 2002, petitioner Victoria P. Cabral
filed a criminal complaint against respondents Uy, et al. for violation of
Section 5 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) 957, or the Subdivision and Condominium
Buyers' Protective Decree, alleging that she was the registered owner of the
lots subject of Bernardo's emancipation patents.
·
Cabral said that prior to the transaction
between Bernardo and respondent Uy, the latter offered to acquire the lots from
her but she refused because of the pending case for cancellation of the patents
that she filed against Bernardo with the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board.
·
Without an HLURB license to sell, Moldex
Realty still sold subdivision lots to a certain Josefa C. Yanga. This prompted
public prosecutors to file a criminal information before the RTC of Quezon City
on April 28, 2003, against Uy, et. al.
·
Subsequently, however, or on September 17,
2003 the HLURB issued Moldex the license to sell that it needed.
·
Respondents Uy, et. al. filed a motion to
quash the information and motion for judicial determination of probable cause,
claiming that the office of the prosecutor and the trial court had no
jurisdiction over violations of P.D. 957, such jurisdiction being with the
HLURB alone.
·
Respondents Uy, et. al. also argued that even
if the RTC could take cognizance of the case, they could not be held criminally
liable because the HLURB subsequently issued them a license to sell.
·
Trial court denied the motions, but CA
reversed and granted their prayer for a TRO. In its final ruling, the CA ruled
that although the RTC had jurisdiction over the case, the case filed before it
should be dismissed, given that the subsequent issuance of a license to sell
extinguished respondents Uy, et al.'s criminal liability. Hence, the instant
petition.
RULING:
Whether or
not the office of the public prosecutor and the trial court have jurisdiction
over criminal actions for violation of P.D. 957. – YES.
·
The penalty for violation of P.D. 957 are
P20,000.00 fine and imprisonment of not exceeding 10 years or both. This
penalty brings the offense within the jurisdiction of that court.
Whether or
not HLURBs subsequent issuance to Moldex of a license to sell extinguished
respondents Uy, et al.s criminal liability for selling subdivision lots prior
to the issuance of such license. – NO
·
Selling lots or units without an HLURB license
to sell is regarded as a malum prohibitum. In crimes that are mala prohibita,
the forbidden acts might not be inherently immoral. Still they are punished
because the law says they are forbidden.
With these crimes, the sole issue is whether the law has been violated.
·
Since the Information in this case
sufficiently alleged that Moldex sold a subdivision lot when it did not yet
have a license to do so, the crime was done. Assuming the allegations to be
true, the subsequent issuance of the license and the invocation of good faith
cannot reach back to erase the offense and extinguish respondents Uy, et al.’s
criminal liability.
·
The subsequent issuance of a license, as in
this case, will not extinguish the liability of the developer for violation of
Section 5* of P.D. 957.