CEBU, Philippines - Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) Judge Gerardo Estopa acquitted three members of Greenpeace Philippines of trespassing charges after the prosecution failed to prove their culpability.
Estopa found Norineal Tolibas, Christine Garnace and Amalie Obusan not guilty of the crime charged – an alleged violation of Article 281 of the Revised Penal Code or Other Forms of Trespass.
“The Information (charge sheet) does not allege that the Balili Beach Resort is a closed premises or a fenced estate, neither does it allege that the place is a dwelling. The prosecution’s evidence has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the crime charged,” the decision reads.
Estopa cited four elements of the forms of trespass as basis of his decision: (1) The offender is any person, (2) he offender enters the closed premises or the fenced estate of another, (3) the closed premises are uninhabited and the prohibition to enter is manifest, and (4) the trespasser has not secured the permission of the owner or caretaker.The information said that the respondents conspired and mutually helped each other to enter the premises of Balili Beach Resort, a property owned by the Cebu Provincial Capitol against the will and consent of the owner and represented by Dr. Necias Vicoy, Jr.
The prosecution presented security guards Ronald Carreon and Jasper Divinagracia, both detailed at the controversial Balili property in Barangay Tinaan, Naga City to prove the circumstances of the trespass incident on December 1, 2009.
The security guards said the three accused and some companions entered the fenced estate of the Balili Beach Resort owned by the Province of Cebu.
They added they were able to communicate with them and told that no one is allowed inside the Tina-an property without the permission of the provincial government.
However, minutes after, guards said the accused were again inside the premises by gaining entry at the APO wharf situated at the back of the secured property. The three accused admitted having entered the premises but claimed they passed through the portion that was not fenced.
“The three accused admitted to have entered the said premises on such date, alleging that the area is not totally fenced, and that anybody may enter the same passing through the portion not fenced,” decision reads. (FREEMAN)