Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 518 views

    Reso On Motion To Quash PD 1096

    Uploaded by

    Lzl Bastes
    The court denied the accused's motion to quash the information charging them with violating the National Building Code. While the accused was initially issued a building permit, it was later revoked by the Building Official for violating the 3-meter easement rule from the nearby creek. The court found that under the Code, the Building Official has authority to revoke permits for non-compliance and that the accused did not properly appeal the revocation as required by law before continuing construction. Therefore, there was no legal basis for the accused to refuse the revocation order.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Reso On Motion To Quash PD 1096

    Uploaded by

    Lzl Bastes
    518 views3 pages
    The court denied the accused's motion to quash the information charging them with violating the National Building Code. While the accused was initially issued a building permit, it was later revoked by the Building Official for violating the 3-meter easement rule from the nearby creek. The court found that under the Code, the Building Official has authority to revoke permits for non-compliance and that the accused did not properly appeal the revocation as required by law before continuing construction. Therefore, there was no legal basis for the accused to refuse the revocation order.

    Original Description:

    Reso on Motion to Quash PD 1096

    Original Title

    Reso on Motion to Quash PD 1096

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The court denied the accused's motion to quash the information charging them with violating the National Building Code. While the accused was initially issued a building permit, it was later revoked by the Building Official for violating the 3-meter easement rule from the nearby creek. The court found that under the Code, the Building Official has authority to revoke permits for non-compliance and that the accused did not properly appeal the revocation as required by law before continuing construction. Therefore, there was no legal basis for the accused to refuse the revocation order.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    518 views3 pages

    Reso On Motion To Quash PD 1096

    Uploaded by

    Lzl Bastes
    The court denied the accused's motion to quash the information charging them with violating the National Building Code. While the accused was initially issued a building permit, it was later revoked by the Building Official for violating the 3-meter easement rule from the nearby creek. The court found that under the Code, the Building Official has authority to revoke permits for non-compliance and that the accused did not properly appeal the revocation as required by law before continuing construction. Therefore, there was no legal basis for the accused to refuse the revocation order.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Republic of the Philippines

    8th Judicial Region


    MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
    XX
    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
    Plaintiff;
    Criminal Case No. XX
    For:
    -versusViolation of Sec. 213 in relation
    to Sec. 301 of P.D. 1096
    XX
    Accused.
    x-------------------------------------------x

    RESOLUTION
    For resolution is a Motion to Quash the information on the
    ground that accused XX committed no violation of P.D. 1096
    (National Building Code) because at the time the construction was
    made, they were issued a building permit from the Office of the
    Building Official (OBO). Accused, however, admitted that
    sometime in November 2015, said permit was revoked by OBO on
    the ground that the construction violated the 3-meter easement
    rule from the creek.
    On the other hand, the prosecution vehemently objects to
    the quashal of the subject information and argues that from the
    time the building permit was revoked on November 13, 2015, the
    accused had no more right to continue the construction of the
    subject structure.
    As pointed out by the prosecution, the law on the matter
    (P.D. 1096) provides that:
    Section 305. Validity of Building Permits.
    Page 1 of 3

    The issuance of a building permit shall not be construed as an approval or


    authorization to the permittee to disregard or violate any of the provisions of this
    Code.
    Whenever the issuance of a permit is based on approved plans and
    specifications which are subsequently found defective, the Building Official is not
    precluded from requiring permittee to effect the necessary corrections in said
    plans and specifications or from preventing or ordering the stoppage of any or all
    building operations being carried on thereunder which are in violation of this
    Code.
    xxx
    Section 306. Non-Issuance, Suspension or Revocation of Building Permits.
    The Building Official may order or cause the non-issuance, suspension or
    revocation of building permits on any or all of the following reasons or grounds:
    (a) Errors found in the plans and specifications;
    (b) In correct or inaccurate data or information supplied;
    (c) Non-compliance with the provisions of this Code or of any rule or regulation.
    Notice of non-issuance, suspension or revocation of building permits shall always
    be made in writing, stating the reason or grounds therefor.

    Based on the aforesaid law, the Building Official is authorized


    to revoke building permits on the ground of non-compliance with
    the provisions of the Code or of any rule or regulation. In the case
    at bench, the building permit of the accused was revoked because
    the Building Official found out that the subject structure (mosque)
    is constructed or encroached upon a portion of a public land (a 3meter easement measured from the riverbank of XX River).
    Despite the revocation, accused continued their construction. The
    accuseds argument that there is no violation of the 3-meter
    easement rule is misplaced because such argument could have
    been raised before the proper forum, in accordance with law (P.D.
    1096), to wit:
    Section 307. Appeal.
    Within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of advice of the non-issuance,
    Page 2 of 3

    suspension or revocation of permits, the applicant/permittee may file an appeal


    with the Secretary who shall render his decision within fifteen days from date of
    receipt of notice of appeal. The decision of the Secretary shall be final subject
    only to review by the Office of the President.

    There is no showing that in this case, accused had made


    such appeal and obtained a favorable ruling. Hence, there is no
    legal basis that accused may refuse the revocation order of the
    Building Official.
    WHEREFORE, the Motion to Quash is DENIED for lack of
    merit.
    SO ORDERED.
    IN CHAMBERS, this 22nd day of December 2016, at XX City.

    XX
    Presiding Judge

    Page 3 of 3

    You might also like