View full case

PRESCILLA TUATES v. LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

FACTS:

The petitioners in this case, Prescilla Tuates and Andres de la Paz, were convicted by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Quezon City for Violation of Presidential Decree No. 772 or the Anti-Squatting Law. They appealed their conviction to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, but their conviction was affirmed. However, before their motion for reconsideration was resolved, Republic Act No. 8368, which repealed Presidential Decree No. 772, was enacted. The RTC ruled that only the criminal convictions of the petitioners were extinguished by the repeal, but the civil aspect, which involved the removal of their illegally constructed house and improvements, would still be enforced against them. The Court of Appeals upheld this ruling, leading to the petition for review before the Supreme Court. The petitioners argued that the repeal of the law absolved them of both criminal and civil liability, while the private respondent insisted that only the criminal liability was absolved. The Office of the Solicitor General agreed with the petitioners, recommending that the rulings be reversed and set aside. The Supreme Court found the petition to be meritorious, stating that the repeal of Presidential Decree No. 772 was explicit and definite, rendering the previous offense of squatting obliterated. They also noted that the clear intent of the law was to decriminalize squatting, and therefore, there was no criminal or civil liability. The Court ordered the dismissal of the criminal cases and the civil aspects thereof.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the repeal of Presidential Decree No. 772 absolves the petitioners of any criminal or civil liability.

  2. Whether the civil aspect of the judgment shall remain executory against the accused.

  3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Order of the Regional Trial Court.

RULING:

  1. The repeal of Presidential Decree No. 772 by Republic Act No. 8368 carries with it the extinction of both the criminal and civil aspects of the crime. The intent of the law is to decriminalize squatting, and as there is no criminal liability, there is likewise no civil liability.

  2. The civil aspect of the judgment shall also be dismissed, as there is no delict or offense upon which it is based.

  3. The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Order of the Regional Trial Court, as the repeal of Presidential Decree No. 772 by Republic Act No. 8368 extinguished both the criminal and civil liabilities.

PRINCIPLES:

  • An unqualified repeal of a penal law constitutes a legislative act of rendering legal what had been previously declared as illegal, and the offense no longer exists. (Citing People v. Leachon, Jr.)

  • The repeal of a penal law with no qualification extinguishes both the criminal and civil liabilities rooted in the former offense.

  • The intent of Republic Act No. 8368 is to decriminalize squatting, but it does not encourage or protect acts of squatting on someone else's land. Recourse may still be had through other laws that penalize squatting or violations of property rights.