Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION DIVISION G.R. No. 205015
November 19, 2014
MA. MIMIE CRESCENCIO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
D!ISION REES, J.:
This case ste""ed fro" Ma. Mi"ie !rescen !rescencio#s cio#s $petition $petitioner% er% convictio conviction n for ( violat vio latio ion n of Se Secti ction on &' of Pr Presid esidenti ential al Decr Decree ee $P $P.D.% .D.% No. )*+, other-ise no-n as the Revised /orestr0 !ode of the Philippines $/orestr0 !ode%, as a"ended b0 1ecutive Order $.O.% No. )), 2 rendered b0 the Re3ional Trial !ourt !ou rt $R $RT T!% ofTalib alibon, on, 4oho 4ohol, l, 4ran 4ranch ch +, in !ri" !ri"inal inal !ase No No.. 5&6 5&6), ), on 8 7u3ust 7u3 ust (, **' **'.. Th The e !o !our urtt of 7pp 7ppeal eals s $!7 $!7%, %, in !7 !769.R 69.R.. !R No No.. *(( *((& &,, + dis"issed the appeal in its Resolution dated 7pril (+, *(( for failure to serve a cop0 of the 7ppellant:s 4rief to the O;ce of the Solicitor 9eneral $OS9%. The !7, in its Resolution & dated Nove"ber (5, *(, also denied the petitioner:s "otion for reconsideration of the said resolution. The /acts /acts 7ctin3 7ctin 3 on an in infor for"at "ation ion th that at th ther ere e -a -as s a sto stocp cpile ile of lu" lu"be berr or for forest est prod pr oduct ucts s in the vic vicin init0 it0 of th the e ho house use of the pe petit titio ione ner, r, u ufe" fe"io io 7b 7ban aniel iel $7ba $7 bani niel el%, %, th the e !h !hie ieff of th the e /or ores estP tPrrot otec ecti tion on
uival e>uivalent ent to 8+ board feet, -ere discovered. ?hen the DNR personnel ased for docu"ents
to support the petitioner:s clai" of o-nership, the latter sho-ed to the" O;cial Receipt No. 2+*+2 issued b0 Pen3avitor nterprises -here she alle3edl0 bou3ht the said lu"ber. Ho-ever, -hen the DNR personnel scaled the lu"ber, the0 found out that the di"ensions and the species of the lu"ber did not tall0 -ith the ite"s "entioned in the receipt. The said receipt sho-ed that the petitioner bou3ht (* pieces of red la-aan lu"ber -ith si@es 1&1(' and + pieces -ith si@es 1'1(& on March (2, (558. On the other hand, the lu"ber in the petitioner:s house, on March (+, (558, -as 8 pieces of "a3siha3onlu"ber of three diAerent si@es, to -it= * pieces 1&1('B 2 pieces 1'1('B and ( piece 1(*1(. ' Since the petitioner could not present an0 other receipt, 7baniel ordered the conCscation of the lu"ber, ased for police assistance, and told the petitioner that the0 -ere 3oin3 to transport the conCscated lu"ber to the DNR o;ce for safeeepin3. Sei@ure Receipt No. **8(+) and a State"ent Sho-in3 the Nu"berPieces and Volu"e of Eu"ber 4ein3 !onCscated, 5 -hich sho-ed the value of the lu"ber to be 5,*8*.**, -ere issued to the petitioner. /orest Ran3ers 4utal and Ra"os corroborated 7baniel:s testi"on0. (* SPO( Desiderio 9arcia testiCed that upon the re>uest of 7baniel for police assistance, he and PO2 7ntonio !rescencio -ent to the house of the petitioner -here the0 sa- so"e lu"ber-hich -as later loaded on a car3o truc. Thereafter, the0 escorted the transport of the lu"ber to the DNR o;ce in San Ro>ue, Talibon, 4ohol. (( On the other hand, the lone -itness of the defense, Eolita !rescencio, ad"itted that the sei@ed lu"ber -ere o-ned b0 the petitioner but clai"ed that the latter bou3ht it fro" Pen3avitor nterprises of Trinidad, 4ohol and fro" Fava Maretin3 in uired under e1istin3 Gurisprudence, la-s and re3ulations, and -ithout an0 la-ful authorit0 under e1istin3 rules and re3ulation of DNR /orest Mana3e"ent Sector, -illfull0, unla-full0 and ille3all0 possess and have under her custod0 and control forest products consistin3 of t-ent06four $8% pieces of "a3siha3on lu"ber -ith a volu"e of 8+ board feet and a total value of Nine Thousand /ort0 $P5,*8*.**% Pesos,
Philippine !urrenc0B to the da"a3e and preGudice of the Republic of the Philippines. (8 Durin3 the arrai3n"ent on Ful0 (+,(55), the petitioner pleaded not 3uilt0 to the oAense char3ed.Thereafter, trial ensued. (+ On 7u3ust (, **', the RT! rendered Gud3"ent (& convictin3 the petitioner of the oAense char3ed and sentenced her to i"prison"ent of si1 $&% 0ears and one $(% da0 of prision "a0oras "ini"u" to eleven $((% 0ears and si1 $&% "onths and t-ent06one $(% da0s of prision "a0oras "a1i"u". The RT! also ordered the conCscation of the sei@ed lu"ber o-ned b0 the petitioner. () 7s e1pected, the petitioner appealed the decision to the !7. Ho-ever, in its Resolution(' dated 7pril (+, *((, the !7 dis"issed the appeal outri3ht because the petitioner failed to furnish the OS9 a cop0 of the 7ppellant:s 4rief in violation of the Rules of !ourt. The petitioner "oved for reconsideration but it -as denied b0 the !7,in its Resolution (5 dated Nove"ber (5, *(. Hence, this petition for revie- on certiorari. The Issue The core issue to be resolved is -hether or not the !7:s dis"issal of the appeal due to the petitioner:s failureto serve a cop0 of the 7ppellant:s 4rief to the OS9 is proper, in vie- of the attendant factual circu"stances and in the interest of substantial Gustice. Rulin3 of the !ourt In this case, the petitioner ass for a rela1ation of the ri3id rules of technical procedure and sub"its that the !7 erred in dis"issin3 her appeal purel0 on the basis of "ere technicalities. !onfronted -ith issues of this nature, this !ourt is "indful of the polic0 of aAordin3 liti3ants the a"plest opportunit0 for the deter"ination of their cases on the "erits and of dispensin3 -ith technicalities -henever co"pellin3 reasons so -arrant or -hen the purpose of Gustice re>uires it. * The !ourt has constantl0 pronouncedthat tJhe rules of procedure ou3ht not to be applied in a ver0 ri3id,technical sense, for the0 have been adopted to help secure K not override K substantial Gustice. /or this reason, courts "ust proceed -ith caution so asnot to deprive a part0 of statutor0 appealB rather, the0 "ust ensure thatall liti3ants are 3ranted the a"plest opportunit0 for the proper and Gust ventilation of their causes, free fro" the constraint of technicalities.(
It is clear that -ithout at all touchin3 on the substantive aspects of the petitioner:s cause, the appellate court opted not to decide the case on the "erits. The subGect of the appeal -as the decision of the RT! convictin3 the petitioner of violation of the /orestr0 !ode and sentencin3 her to suAer an i"prison"ent of no less than si1 $&% 0ears to eleven $((% 0ears. In this case, there is nothin3 in the record that sho-s an0 deliberate intent on the part of the petitioner to subvert and dela0 the Cnal disposition of the case. In fact, -hen the petitioner learned that her appeal -as dis"issed b0 the !7 for failure to serve a cop0 of her 7ppellant:s 4rief to the OS9, she i""ediatel0 confronted her previous counsel -ho denied havin3 Cled such brief. 7sthe petitioner -as ver0 "uch -orried of bein3 incarcerated, she ased her previous counsel to -ithdra- fro" the case. Thus, the petitioner sub"its that the outri3ht denial of her appeal is due to the inco"petence and i3norance of her for"er counsel -ho even lied about the fact thathe has indeed Cled an 7ppellant:s 4rief. 7s a 3eneral rule, the inadvertence of counsel cannot be considered as an ade>uate e1cuse as to call for the appellate court:s indul3ence e1cept= $a% -here the recless or 3ross ne3li3ence of counsel deprives the client of due process of la-B $b% -hen application of the rule -ill result in outri3ht deprivation of the client:s libert0 or propert0B or $c% -here the interests of Gustice so re>uire. Here, the petitioner sub"its that the inadvertence of her counsel to serve a cop0 of the 7ppellant:s 4rief tothe OS9 is a persuasive reason or a co"pellin3 GustiCcation to fore3o the Rules of Procedure as the -anton reclessness or 3ross ne3li3ence of her counsel has deprived her of due process of la- -hich -ill result in the outri3ht deprivation of her libert0. In this re3ard, the !ourt a3rees that the !7 should have taen a liberal vieof the rules and ruled on the "eritsof the appeal, especiall0 -hen -hat is involved is no less than the petitioner:s libert0. Nonetheless, even if the !ourt brushes aside the technicalit0 issue, it -ill still Cnd that the prosecution -as able to prove be0ond reasonable doubt the petitioner:s culpabilit0. In atte"ptin3 to escape liabilit0, the petitioner contends that= $a% she had the supportin3 docu"ents to sho- that she bou3ht the >uestioned lu"ber fro" le3iti"ate sourcesB and $b% the -arrantless search and sei@ure conducted b0 the DNR personnel -as ille3al and, thus, the ite"s sei@ed should not have been ad"itted in evidence a3ainst her. The !onstitution reco3ni@es the ri3ht of the people to be secured in their persons, houses, papers, and eAects a3ainst unreasonable searches and
sei@ures.2 Nonetheless, the constitutional prohibition a3ainst -arrantless searches and sei@ures ad"its of certaine1ceptions, one of -hich is sei@ure of evidence in plain vie-. 1âwphi1 uestion that the DNR personnel -ere not ar"ed -ith a search -arrant -hen the0 -ent to the house of the petitioner. ?hen the DNR personnel arrived at the petitioner:s house, the lu"bers -ere l0in3 under the latter:s house and at the shoreline about t-o "eters a-a0 fro" the house of the petitioner. It isclear, therefore, that the said lu"ber is plainl0 e1posed to si3ht. Hence, the sei@ure of the lu"ber outside the petitioner:s house falls -ithin the purvie- of the plain vie- doctrine. 4esides, the DNR personnel had the authorit0 to arrest the petitioner, even -ithout a -arrant. Section '* + of the /orestr0 !ode authori@es the forestr0 o;cer or e"plo0ee of the DNR or an0 personnel of the Philippine National Police to arrest, even -ithout a -arrant, an0 person -ho has co""itted or is co""ittin3 in his presence an0 of the oAenses deCned b0 the /orestr0 !ode and to sei@e and conCscate the tools and e>uip"ent used in co""ittin3 the oAense orthe forest products 3athered or taen b0 the oAender. !learl0, in the course ofsuch la-ful intrusion, the DNR personnel had inadvertentl0 co"e across the lu"ber -hich evidentl0 incri"inated the petitioner. The fact of possession b0 the petitioner of the 8 pieces of "a3siha3onlu"ber, as -ell as her subse>uent failure to produce the le3al docu"ents as re>uired under e1istin3 forest la-s and re3ulations constitute cri"inal liabilit0 for violation of the /orestr0 !ode. uired under e1istin3 forest la-s and re3ulations. & In the second oAense, it is i""aterial -hether the cuttin3, 3atherin3, collectin3 and re"oval of the forest products are le3al or not. Mere possession of forest products -ithoutthe proper docu"ents consu""ates the cri"e. ?hether or not the lu"ber co"es fro" a le3al source is i""aterial because the /orestr0 !ode is a special la- -hich considers "ere possession of ti"ber or other forest products -ithout the proper docu"entation as "alu" prohibitu". ) In the present case, the "a3siha3onlu"ber -ere ad"ittedl0 o-ned b0 the petitioner but unfortunatel0 no per"it evidencin3 authorit0 to possess said lu"ber -as dul0 presented. Thus, the Infor"ation correctl0 char3ed the
petitioner -ith the second oAense -hich is consu""ated b0 the "ere possession of forest products -ithout the proper docu"ents. The prosecution adduced several docu"ents to prove that the lu"ber -as conCscated fro" the petitioner, na"el0= a State"ent Sho-in3 the Nu"berPieces and Volu"e of Eu"ber 4ein3 !onCscated on March (+, (558, sei@ure receipt, a photo3raph of the house of the petitioner, and a photo3raph of the conCscated lu"ber. Moreso, the direct and a;r"ative testi"on0 of the DNR personnel as state -itnesses on the circu"stances surroundin3 the apprehension -ell establishes the petitioner:s liabilit0. 7s to the i"posable penalt0 on the petitioner, the RT! i"posed an indeter"inate sentence of si1 $&% 0ears and one $(% da0 of prision "a0oras "ini"u" to eleven $((% 0ears, si1 $&% "onths and t-ent06one $(% da0s of prision "a0oras "a1i"u". The !ourt does not a3ree. This !ourt notes that the esti"ated value of the conCscated pieces of lu"ber, as appearin3 in the State"ent Sho-in3 the Nu"berPieces and Volu"e of Eu"ber 4ein3 !onCscated is P5,*8*.** -hich is alle3ed in the Infor"ation. Ho-ever, e1cept for the testi"onies of 7baniel and 4utal that this a"ount is the esti"ate based on prevailin3 local price as stated in the apprehension receipt the0 issued, the prosecution did not present an0 proof as tothe value of the lu"ber. !learl0, this evidence does not su;ce. The !ourt had ruled that in order to prove the a"ount of the propert0 taen for C1in3 the penalt0 i"posable a3ainst the accused under 7rticle 2*5 of the Revised Penal !ode $RP!%, the prosecution "ust present "ore than a "ereuncorroborated esti"ate of such fact. In the absence of independent and reliable corroboration of such esti"ate, courts "a0 either appl0 the "ini"u" penalt0 under 7rticle 2*5 or C1 the value of the propert0 taen based on the attendant circu"stances of the case.' Hence, the lo-er court erred in Cndin3 that the value of the conCscated lu"ber is P5,*8*.** for no evidence of such value -as established durin3 the trial. 7ccordin3l0, the !ourt i"poses on the petitioner the "ini"u" penalt0 under 7rticle 2*5$&% 5 of the RP!, -hichis arresto "a0orin its "ini"u" and "ediu" periods. Ho-ever, considerin3 that violation of Section &' of the /orestr0 !ode is punished as LualiCed Theft under 7rticle 2(* 2* in relation to 7rticle 2*5 of the RP!, the statutor0 penalt0 shall be increased b0 t-o de3rees, that is, to prision correccionalin its "ediu" and "a1i"u" periods or -ithin the ran3e ofthree $2% 0ears, si1 $&% "onths and t-ent06one $(% da0s to four $8% 0ears, nine $5% "onths and ten $(*% da0s, considerin3 that there are no attendin3 "iti3atin3 or a33ravatin3 circu"stance in the co""ission of the oAense.
In accordance -ith current Gurisprudence 2( and tain3 into account the Indeter"inate Sentence Ea-, the !ourt Cnds it proper to i"pose on the petitioner, in vie- of the circu"stances obtainin3 here, the penalt0 of fr"r $8% "onths and one $(% da0 of arresto "a0or, as "ini"u", to three $2% 0ears, si1 $&% "onths and t-ent06one $(% da0s of prision correccional, as "a1i"u". ?HR/OR, the Decision on 7u3ust (, **' of the Re3ional Trial !ourt of Talibon, 4ohol, 4ranch +, in !ri"inal !ase No. 5&6), is 7//IRMD -ith the MODI/I!7TION that petitioner Ma. Mi"ie !rescencio is sentenced to suAer the indeter"inate penalt0 of four $ 8% "onths and one $(% da0 of arresto "a0or, as "ini"u", to three $2% 0ears, si1 $&% "onths and t-ent06one $(% da0s of prision correccional, as "a1i"u". SO ORDRD. !IEN"ENI#O L. REES 7ssociate Fustice
? !ON!
MARIANO C. #EL CASTILLO% 7ssociate Fustice
MARTIN S. "ILLARAMA, $R. 7ssociate Fustice
7TTST7TION I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case -as assi3ned to the -riter of the opinion of the !ourt#s Division. PRES!ITERO R. "ELASCO, $R. 7ssociate Fustice !hairperson, Third Division
!RTI/I!7TION Pursuant to Section (2, 7rticle VIII of the !onstitution and the Division !hairperson#s 7ttestation, I certif0 that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case -as assi3ned to the -riter of the opinion of the !ourt#s Division.
Fustice
Foo&'o&e(
7dditional "e"ber per Special Order No. (') dated Nove"ber 8, *(8 vice 7ssociate Fustice /rancis H. Fardele@a. (
Sec. &'. !uttin3, 9atherin3 andor collectin3 Ti"ber, or Other /orest Products -ithout Eicense. 7n0 person -ho shall cut, 3ather, collect, re"oved ti"ber or other forest products fro" an0 forest land, or ti"ber fro" alienable or disposable public land, or fro" private land, -ithout an0 authorit0, or possess ti"ber or other forest products -ithout the le3al docu"ents as re>uired under e1istin3 forest la-s and re3ulations, shall be punished -ith the penalties i"posed under 7rticles 2*5 and 2(* of the Revised Penal !ode= Provided, That in the case of partnerships, associations, or corporations, the o;cers -ho ordered the cuttin3, 3atherin3, collection or possession shall be liable, and if such o;cers are aliens, the0 shall, in addition to the penalt0, be deported -ithout further proceedin3s on the part of the !o""ission on I""i3ration and Deportation. The court shall further order the conCscation in favor of the 3overn"ent of the ti"ber or an0 forest products cut, 3athered, collected, re"oved, or possessed as -ell as the "achiner0, e>uip"ent, i"ple"ents and tools ille3all0 used in the area -here the ti"ber or forest products are found.
Revisin3 PRSIDNTI7E D!R NO. 2'5, other-ise no-n 7S TH /ORSTR R/ORM !OD O/ TH PHIEIPPINS. 2
7"endin3 Section &' of Presidential Decree No. )*+, as a"ended, other-ise no-n as the Revised /orestr0 !ode of the Philippines, for the purpose of penali@in3 possession of ti"ber or other forest products -ithout the le3al docu"ents re>uired b0 e1istin3 forest la-s, authori@in3 the conCscation of ille3all0 cut, 3athered, re"oved and possessed forest products, and 3rantin3 re-ards to infor"ers of violations of forestr0 la-s, rules and re3ulations. 8
Issued b0 Presidin3 Fud3e Ir"a ita V. Masa"a0orB rollo, pp. 8+6+&.
+
Penned b0 7ssociate Fustice M0ra V. 9arcia6/ernande@, -ith 7ssociate Fustices Portia 7lioHor"achuelos and 9abriel T. In3les, concurrin3B id. 2568*. &
Id. at 8688.
)
Id. at +*.
'
Id. at +6+2.
5
Id. at &.
(*
Id. at +.
((
Id. at +, &+.
(
Id. at +*6+(.
(2
Id. at +)6+'.
(8
Id. at +).
(+
Id. at 8+.
(&
Id. at 8+6+&.
()
Id. at ++.
('
Id. at 2568*.
(5
Id. at 8688.
*
The 9overn"ent of the Qin3do" of 4el3iu" v. Hon. !ourt of 7ppeals, et al., +)8 Phil. 2'*, 2'' $**'%. (
7tt0. !alo v. Spouses Villanueva, +(& Phil. 28*, 285 $**&%, citin3 Re"ulla v. Manlon3at, 8'8 Phil. '2, '8( $**8%.
2
Supra note *, at 25&.
7rticle III. 4ill of Ri3hts 1 1 1 1 Sec. . The ri3ht of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and eAects a3ainst unreasonable searches and sei@ures of -hatever nature and for an0 purpose shall be inviolable, and no search -arrant or -arrant of arrest shall issue e1cept upon probable cause to be deter"ined personall0 b0 the Gud3e after e1a"ination under oath or a;r"ation of the
co"plainant and the -itnesses he "a0 produce, and particularl0 describin3 the place to be searched and the persons or thin3s to be sei@ed. 8
Miclat, Fr. v. People, 9.R. No. ()&*)), 7u3ust 2(, *((, &+& S!R7 +25, ++6++2, citin3 People v. Ea3"an, et al., +52 Phil. &(), &' $**'%. +
Sec. '*. 7rrestB Institution of !ri"inal 7ctions.K 7 forest o;cer or e"plo0ee of the 4ureau or an0 personnel of the Philippine !onstabular0Philippine National Police shall arrest even -ithout -arrant an0 person -ho has co""itted or is co""ittin3 in his presence an0 of the oAenses deCned in this chapter. He shall also sei@e and conCscate, in favor of the 9overn"ent, the tools and e>uip"ent used in co""ittin3 the oAense, and the forest products cut, 3athered or taen b0 the oAender in the process of co""ittin3 the oAense. 1 1 1. &
7>uino v. People, &(( Phil. 88, 8+* $**5%.
)
Id. at 8+(.
'
Merida v. People,+)) Phil. 82, +'6+5 $**'%.
5
7rt. 2*5. Penalties. 7n0 person 3uilt0 of theft shall be punished b0= 1111 &. 7rresto "a0or in its "ini"u" and "ediu" periods, if such value does not e1ceed + pesos.
2*
7rt. 2(*. LualiCed theft. K The cri"e of >ualiCed theft shall be punished b0 the penalties ne1t hi3her b0 t-o de3rees than those respectivel0 speciCed in the ne1t precedin3 article 1 1 1. 2(
Merida v. People, supra note '.
