Case digest [G.R. No. 136142. October 24, 2000] PEOPLE OF !E P!"L"PP"NE#, plaintiff-appel plaintiff-appellee, lee, vs. $LFON#O %$OR a&d 'EN"O GENOL, accused (Acquitted) P$#OR ELEN, accused-appellant .
Facts( Police officers confiscated pieces of lumber from an Isuzu cargo for failure of the driver, accused Benito Genol, to show the required documents for the proper transport of the pieces of lumber consisting of forty-one (!" pieces of #ita lumber and ten (!$" pieces of %ntipolo lumber with a total volume of !,&'$!' board feet Pastor )elen, owner of lumber, testified that the lumber will be used in renovating his residence Boy *eonor, who was the +fficer in harge of ./+ 0aasin, 1outhern *eyte allegedly allowed )elen to cut the aging #ita trees only %ccording to )elen, *eonor assured him that a written permit was not anymore necessary before he could cut the #ita trees, which are considered soft lumber, from the private land of his mother, provided the same would be used e2clusively for the renovation of his house and that he shall plant trees as replacement thereof, which he did by planting Gemelina seedlings)he trial court convicted Pastor )elen of violation of 1ec '3 of P# .o 4$& which )elen appealed "ss)e( 5+. "ss)e( 5+. *egal #ocuments 6 Permit is still required for cutting6transporting the soft lumber !e*d( )he 1upreme ourt upheld the conviction )he fact of possession by the appellant of the sub7ect lumber, as well as his subsequent failure to produce the legal documents as required under e2isting forest laws and regulations constitute criminal liability for violation of Presidential #ecree .o 4$&, 4$&, 1ection '3
)he appellant stands charged charged with the crime of violation violation of 1ection '3 of P# .o 4$&, a special special statutory law, and which crime is considered mala prohibita In the prosecution for crimes that are considered mala prohibita, the only inquiry is whether or not the law has been violated )he motive or intention underlying the act of the appellant is immaterial for the reason that his mere possession of the confiscated pieces of lumber without the legal documents as required under e2isting forest laws and regulations gave rise to his criminal liability
8nder the #./ %dministrative +rder .o 43, 1eries of !934, a certification from the ./+ concerned to the effect that the forest products came from a titled land or ta2 declared alienable and disposable land must still be secured to accompany the shipment )his the appellant failed to do, thus, he is criminally liable under 1ection '3 of P# .o 4$& necessitating prior acquisition of permit and :legal documents as required under e2isting forest laws and regulations;
F)** te+t
G.R. No. 136142
October 24, 2000
PEOPLE OF vs $LFON#O %$OR a&d P$#OR ELEN, accused-appellant.
!E 'EN"O
P!"L"PP"NE#, plaintiff-appellee, GENOL, accused
(Acquitted)
#I1I+. %E LEON, R., J.: Before us on appeal is the #ecision ! of the /egional )rial ourt of 0aasin, 1outhern *eyte, Branch <&, in riminal ase .o !4== convicting the appellant of the crime of violation of Presidential #ecree .o 4$& Pastor )elen and his co-accused, %lfonso #ator and Benito Genol, were charged with the crime of violation of 1ection '3 < of Presidential #ecree .o 4$&, otherwise >nown as the /evised ?orestry ode, = in an Information that reads@ )hat on or about the <9th day of +ctober, !99= at around 3@$$ oAcloc> in the evening, in barangay *aboon, municipality of 0aasin, province of 1outhern *eyte, Philippines, and within the 7urisdiction of this onorable ourt, the above-named accused conspiring, confederating and mutually helping each other, with intent of gain, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess !,&'$!' board feet of assorted lumber flitches valued at )5.)C-)/ )+81%.# ?ID 8.#/# P1+1 (<=,&$$$$", Philippine urrency, without any legal document as required under e2isting forest laws and regulations from proper government authorities, to the damage and pre7udice of the government +.)/%/C )+ *%5 8pon being arraigned on 0ay <4, !99, Pastor )elen and his co-accused, %lfonso #ator and Benito Genol, assisted by counsel, separately entered the plea of E.ot guiltyE to the charge in the Information )hereafter, trial on the merits ensued It appears that on +ctober <9, !99=, Police 1tation ommander %le7andro /o7as of 0aasin, 1outhern *eyte, and 1P+! .ecitas Bacala, were on board a police patrol vehicle heading towards Barangay 1an /afael, 0aasin, 1outhern *eyte 8pon reaching Barangay *aboon of the same municipality, they noticed a Isuzu cargo truc> loaded with pieces of lumber bound toward the town proper of 0aasin 1uspicious that the cargo was illegally cut pieces of lumber, Police 1tation ommander /o7as maneuvered their police vehicle and gave chase 8pon catching up with the Isuzu cargo truc> in Barangay 1oro-soro, 0aasin, 1outhern *eyte, they ordered the driver, accused Benito Genol, to pull over Benito Genol was left alone in the truc> after his companions hurriedly left 5hen as>ed if he had the required documents for the proper transport of the pieces of lumber, Genol answered in the negative Genol informed the police authorities that the pieces of lumber were owned by herein appellant, Pastor )elen, while the Isuzu cargo truc> bearing Plate .o %? '<3 was registered in the name of 1outhern *eyte ?armers %gro-Industrial ooperative, Inc (1*?%I+" which is a local cooperative onsequently, Police +fficers /o7as and Bacala directed Benito Genol to proceed to the 0aasin Police 1tation, 0aasin, 1outhern *eyte for further investigation & +n .ovember &, !99=, ?orest /anger /omeo Galola was fetched from his office at the ommunity nvironment and .atural /esources +ffice (./+", 0aasin, 1outhern *eyte by 1P+! .ecitas Bacala to inspect the pieces of lumber that were confiscated on +ctober <9, !99= in 1oro-soro, 0aasin, 1outhern *eyte from Pastor )elen Galola and his immediate supervisor, 1ulpicio 1aguing, found that the cargo consisted of
forty-one (!" pieces of #ita lumber and ten (!$" pieces of %ntipolo lumber of different dimensions with a total volume of !,&'$!' board feet' 1ubsequently, 1P+! Bacala issued a seizure receipt 4 covering the fifty-one (&!" pieces of confiscated #ita and %ntipolo lumber and one (!" unit of Isuzu cargo truc> with Plate .o %? '<3 )he confiscated pieces of lumber and the cargo truc> were turned over to 1P+= #aniel *asala, P.P Property ustodian, 0aasin, 1outhern *eyte who, in turn, officially transferred custody of the same to the ./+, 0aasin, 1outhern *eyte 3 )he defense denied any liability for the crime charged in the Information Pastor )elen, a utility wor>er at the Integrated Provincial ealth +ffice, 1outhern *eyte for nineteen (!9" years, testified that he needed lumber to be used in renovating the house of his grandparents in Barangay %bgao, 0aasin, 1outhern *eyte where he maintained residence Fnowing that it was prohibited by law to cut trees without appropriate permit from the #epartment of nvironment and .atural /esources (#./", )elen sought the assistance of a certain *ando dela Pena who was an employee at the ./+, 0aasin, 1outhern *eyte #ela Pena accompanied )elen to the office of a certain Boy *eonor, who was the +fficer in harge of ./+ in 0aasin, 1outhern *eyte *eonor did not approve of the plan of )elen to cut tea> or hard lumber from his ()elen" motherAs trac> of land in )abunan, 1an ose, 0aasin, 1outhern *eyte owever, *eonor allegedly allowed )elen to cut the aging #ita trees only %ccording to )elen, *eonor assured him that a written permit was not anymore necessary before he could cut the #ita trees, which are considered soft lumber, from the private land of his mother, provided the same would be used e2clusively for the renovation of his house and that he shall plant trees as replacement thereof, which he did by planting Gemelina seedlings9 +n 1eptember !&, !99=, )elen requested his cousin, Dicente 1abalo, to hire for him a cargo truc> in order to haul the sawn lumber from the land of his mother in )abunan, 1an ose, 0aasin, 1outhern *eyte is cousin obliged after )elen assured him that he had already secured verbal permission from Boy *eonor, +fficer in harge of ./+ in 0aasin, 1outhern *eyte, before cutting the said lumber !$ %fter having been informed by Dicente 1abalo on +ctober <9, !99= at about @$$ oAcloc> in the afternoon that a cargo truc> was available for hire, )elen instructed his cousin to personally supervise the hauling of the sawn lumber for him inasmuch as he was busy with his wor> in the office %t around 4@$$ oAcloc> in the evening, )elen learned from his daughter that the sawn lumber were confiscated by the police in Barangay 1oro-soro, 0aasin, 1outhern *eyte!! 8pon arrival in Barangay 1oro-1oro, )elen was accosted by Police 1tation ommander %le7andro /o7as who demanded from him #./ permit for the sawn lumber %fter confirming ownership of the sawn lumber, )elen e2plained to /o7as that he had already secured verbal permission from Boy *eonor to cut #ita trees, which are considered soft lumber, to be used in the renovation of his house and that he had already replaced the sawn #ita trees with Gemelina seedlings, but to no avail /o7as ordered that the pieces of lumber and the Isuzu cargo truc> be impounded at the municipal building of 0aasin, 1outhern *eyte for failure of )elen to produce the required permit from the #./ !< Pastor )elen appeared before Bert Pesidas, ./+ hearing officer, in 0aasin, 1outhern *eyte for investigation in connection with the confiscated pieces of lumber )elen had tried to contact +fficer-in-harge Boy *eonor of the ./+ 0aasin, 1outhern *eyte after the confiscation of the sawn lumber on +ctober <9, !99= and even during the investigation conducted by the ./+ hearing officer for three (=" times but to no avail, for the reason that Boy *eonor was assigned at a reforestation site in #anao, ebu province != %lfonso #ator, was the accounting manager of 1*?%I+, Inc, a local cooperative engaged in buying and selling abaca fibers #ator testified that on +ctober <9, !99= at =@$$ oAcloc> in the afternoon, a certain Dicente 1abalo, accompanied by their company driver, Benito Genol, proposed to hire the Isuzu cargo truc> owned by
1*?%I+, Inc to haul pieces of coconut lumber from Barangay 1an ose to Barangay 1oro-soro in 0aasin, 1outhern *eyte e readily acceded to the proposal inasmuch as the owner of the alleged coconut lumber, according to 1abalo, was Pastor )elen, who is a long time friend and former officemate at the provincial office of the #epartment of ealth Besides, the fee to be earned from the hauling services meant additional income for the cooperative! %t about '@$$ oAcloc> in the evening of the same day, #ator met the Isuzu cargo truc> of 1*?%I+, Inc at the anturing bridge in 0aasin, 1outhern *eyte, being escorted by a police patrol vehicle, heading towards the municipal town proper %t the municipal hall building of 0aasin, he learned that the Isuzu truc> was apprehended by the police for the reason that it contained a cargo of #ita and %ntipolo lumber without the required permit from the #./ e e2plained to the police authorities that the Isuzu cargo truc> was hired merely to transport coconut lumber, however, it was impounded at the municipal building 7ust the same !& #ue to the incident #ator lost his 7ob as accounting manager in 1*?%I+, Inc !' ?or his defense, Benito Genol testified that he was employed by the 1*?%I+, Inc as driver of its Isuzu cargo truc> %side from transporting abaca fibers, the Isuzu cargo truc> was also available for hire !4 5hile Genol was having the two tires of the Isuzu cargo truc> vulcanized on +ctober <9, !99= in Barangay 0antahan, 0aasin, 1outhern *eyte, Dicente 1abalo approached him and offered to hire the services of the cargo truc> Genol accompanied 1abalo to the residence of the accounting manager of 1*?%I+, Inc, %lfonso #ator, which was nearby, and the latter agreed to the proposal of 1abalo to hire the Isuzu cargo truc> to haul pieces of coconut lumber from 1an ose, 0aasin, 1outhern *eyte, for a fee !3 %t @$$ oAcloc> in the afternoon of the same day, Genol, 1abalo and a son of %lfonso #ator, proceeded to 1an ose after fetching about si2 ('" haulers along the way in Barangay 1oro-soro 8pon arrival in 1an ose, Genol remained behind the steering wheel to ta>e a rest e was unmindful of the actual nature of the lumber that were being loaded %fter the loading, Genol was instructed to proceed to Barangay 1oro-soro in front of the lumberyard of a certain immy Go Before the lumber could be unloaded at 3@$$ oAcloc> in the evening Genol was approached by Police 1tation ommander %le7andro /o7as who demanded #./ permit for the lumber )he pieces of lumber were confiscated by /o7as after Genol failed to produce the required permit from the #./ office!9 Dicente 1abalo corroborated the testimonies of the three (=" accused in this case e testified in substance that he was requested by his cousin, Pastor )elen, to engage the services of a cargo truc> to transport sawn pieces of lumber from 1an ose to be used in the renovation of his house in %bgao, 0aasin, 1outhern *eyteH that he approached Benito Genol and offered to hire the services of the Isuzu cargo truc> that he was drivingH that both of them as>ed the permission of %lfonso #ator who readily acceded to the proposal for a fee of P&$$$$H <$ that he saw Genol remained behind the steering wheel as the loading of the lumber was going on in 1an oseH and that the lumber and the Isuzu cargo truc> were confiscated in Barangay 1oro-soro for failure of his cousin, Pastor )elen, to show to Police 1tation ommander %le7andro /o7as any written permit from the #./ for the sub7ect lumber
ma2imum, the authorized penalty similar to ualified )heft, and to pay the costs is bail for his provisional liberty is hereby cancelled and he shall be committed to the .ew Bilibid Prisons, 0untinlupa, 0etro 0anila thru the %buyog /egional Prisons, %buyog, *eyte via the Provincial 5arden, 0aasin, 1outhern *eyteH < %8I))I.G co-accused %lfonso #ator and Benito Genol on reasonable doubt for insufficiency of evidenceH and cancelling their bailH = +.?I1%)I.G and 1IJI.G the !,&'$!' board feet of illegal lumber worth P<=,&$$$$ and +/#/I.G the ./+ 0aasin, 1outhern *eyte to sell the lumber at public auction under proper permission from the ourt, with the proceeds thereof turned over to the .ational Government thru the .ational )reasury under proper receipt, and to /P+/) the fact of sale to this ourt duly covered by documents of sale and other receipts by evidencing the sale within five (&" days from the consummation of saleH and #I/)I.G the ./+ authorities to coordinate with its /egional +ffice for immediate administrative proceedings and determination of any administrative liability of the truc> owner, 1*?%I+ Inc if any, otherwise, to release the truc> to its owner 1+ +/#/# In his appeal Pastor )elen interpose the following assignments of error@ I ) *+5/ +8/) //# I. ?I.#I.G ) %81#-%PP**%.) G8I*)C BC+.# /%1+.%B* #+8B) ?+/ DI+*%)I+. +? 1 '3, P # 4$&, %1 %0.##, BI.G +.)/%/C )+ *%5 %.# ) DI#. +. /+/# %.# ?+/ BI.G .+) I. +.?+/0I)C 5I) #./ %#0I.I1)/%)ID +/#/ .+ 49, 1/I1 +? !99$ II ) *+5/ +8/) //# I. I0P+1I.G ) %81#-%PP**%.) ) P.%*)C +? /*81I+. P/P)8% ?+/ ) %**G# DI+*%)I+. +? 1 '3, P # 4$&, %1 %0.##, I) BI.G % P%).)*C //+.+81 P.%*)C .+) 5%//%.)# BC %.C P/+DI1I+. +? ) /DI1# P.%* +# +/ 8/I1P/8#. III ) *+5/ +8/) //# I. ?I.#I.G )%) ) D%*8 +? ) +.?I1%)# *80B/ I1 P<=,&$$$$ ?+/ .+ DI#. +? 18 D%*8 5%1 1)%B*I1# #8/I.G ) )/I%* )he appeal is not impressed with merit It is not disputed that appellant Pastor )elen is the owner of the fifty-one (&!" pieces of assorted %ntipolo and #ita lumber with a total volume of !,&'$!' board feet e alleged that the pieces of lumber were cut from the trac> of land belonging to his mother in 1an ose, 0aasin, 1outhern *eyte which he intended to use in the renovation of his house in Barangay %bgao of the same municipality %fter having been confiscated by the police, while in transit, in Barangay 1oro-soro, appellant )elen failed to produce before the authorities the required legal documents from the #./ pertaining to the said pieces of lumber
)he fact of possession by the appellant of the sub7ect fifty-one (&!" pieces of assorted %ntipolo and #ita lumber, as well as his subsequent failure to produce the legal documents as required under e2isting forest laws and regulations constitute criminal liability for violation of Presidential #ecree .o 4$&, otherwise >nown as the /evised ?orestry ode << 1ection '3 of the code provides@ 1ection '3 Cutting, Gathering and/or Collecting Timber or Other orest !roducts "ithout #icense -%ny person who shall cut, gather, collect, remove timber or other forest products from any forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private land, without any authority, or possess timber or other forest products without the legal documents as required under e2isting forest laws and regulations, shall be punished with the penalties imposed under %rticles =$9 and =!$ of the /evised Penal ode@ Provided, that in the case of partnerships, associations, or corporations, the officers who ordered the cutting, gathering, collection or possession shall be liable, and if such officers are aliens, they shall, in addition to the penalty, be deported without further proceedings on the part of the ommission on Immigration and #eportation )he ourt shall further order the confiscation in favor of the government of the timber or any forest products cut, gathered, collected, removed, or possessed, as well as the machinery, equipment, implements and tools illegally used in the area where the timber or forest products are found %ppellant )elen contends that he secured verbal permission from Boy *eonor, +fficer-in-harge of the #././+ in 0aasin, 1outhern *eyte before cutting the lumber, and that the latter purportedly assured him that written permit was not anymore necessary before cutting soft lumber, such as the %ntipolo and #ita trees in this case, from a private trac> of land, to be used in renovating appellantAs house, provided that he would plant trees as replacements thereof, which he already did It must be underscored that the appellant stands charged with the crime of violation of 1ection '3 of Presidential #ecree .o 4$&, a special statutory law, and which crime is considered mala prohibita In the prosecution for crimes that are considered mala prohibita, the only inquiry is whether or not the law has been violated <= )he motive or intention underlying the act of the appellant is immaterial for the reason that his mere possession of the confiscated pieces of lumber without the legal documents as required under e2isting forest laws and regulations gave rise to his criminal liability In any case, the mere allegation of the appellant regarding the verbal permission given by Boy *eonor, +fficer in harge of #./-./+, 0aasin, 1outhern *eyte, is not sufficient to overturn the established fact that he had no legal documents to support valid possession of the confiscated pieces of lumber It does not appear from the record of this case that appellant e2erted any effort during the trial to avail of the testimony of Boy *eonor to corroborate his allegation %bsent such corroborative evidence, the trial court did not commit an error in disregarding the bare testimony of the appellant on this point which is, at best, self-serving < )he appellant cannot validly ta>e refuge under the pertinent provision of #./ %dministrative +rder .o 49, 1eries of !99$ <& which prescribes rules on the deregulation of the harvesting, transporting and sale of firewood, pulpwood or timber planted in private lands %ppellant submits that under the said #./ %dministrative +rder .o 49, no permit is required in the cutting of planted trees within titled lands e2cept Benguet pine and premium species listed under #./ %dministrative +rder .o 43, 1eries of !934, namely@ narra, molave, dao, >amagong, ipil, acacia, a>le, apanit, banuyo, bati>uling, betis, bolong-eta, >alantas, lanete, lumbayao, sangilo, supa, tea>, tindalo and manggis oncededly, the varieties of lumber for which the appellant is being held liable for illegal possession do not belong to the premium species enumerated under #./ %dministrative +rder .o 43, 1eries of !934 owever, under the same #./ administrative order, a certification from the ./+ concerned to the effect that the forest products came from a titled land or ta2 declared alienable and disposable land must still be secured to accompany the shipment )his the appellant failed to do, thus, he is criminally liable under 1ection '3 of Presidential #ecree .o 4$& necessitating prior acquisition of permit and Elegal documents as required
under e2isting forest laws and regulationsE )he pertinent portion of #./ %dministrative +rder .o 49, 1eries of !99$, is quoted hereunder, to wit@ In line with the .ational /eforestation Program and in order to promote the planting of trees by owners of private lands and give incentives to the tree farmers, 0inistry %dministrative +rder .o dated anuary !9, !934 which lifted the restriction in the harvesting, transporting and sale of firewood, pulpwood or timber produced from Ipil-Ipil (leucaenia spp" and ?alcate ( Albi$$ia falcataria" is hereby amended to include all other tree species planted in private lands e2cept B.G8) PI. and premium hardwood species enceforth, no permit is required in the cutting of planted trees within the titled lands or ta2 declared % and # lands with corresponding application for patent or acquired through court proceedings, e2cept B.G8) PI. and premium species listed under #./ %dministrative +rder .o 43, 1eries of !934, pro%ided, that a certification of the C&'O concerned to the effect that the forest products came from a titled land or ta declared alienable and disposable land is issued accompan*ing the shipment. %ppellant )elen ne2t contends that proof of value of the confiscated pieces of lumber is indispensable, it being the basis for the computation of the penalty prescribed in %rticle =$9 in relation to %rticle =!$ of the /evised Penal odeH and that in the absence of any evidence on record to prove the allegation in the Information that the confiscated pieces of lumber have an equivalent value of P<=,&$$$$ there can be no basis for the penalty to be imposed and hence, he should be acquitted )he appellantAs contention is untenable It is a basic rule in criminal law that penalty is not an element of the offense onsequently, the failure of the prosecution to adduce evidence in support of its allegation in the Information with respect to the value of the confiscated pieces of lumber is not necessarily fatal to its case )his ourt notes that the estimated value of the confiscated pieces of lumber, as appearing in the official transmittal letter<' of the #./-./+, 0aasin, 1outhern *eyte addressed to the +ffice of the Provincial Prosecutor of the same province, is P<=,&$$$$ which is alleged in the Information owever, the said transmittal letter cannot serve as evidence or as a valid basis for the estimated value of the confiscated pieces of lumber for purposes of computing the proper penalty to be imposed on the appellant considering that it is hearsay and it was not formally offered in evidence contrary to 1ection = of /ule !=< of the /evised /ules of ourt +phi+ In the case of People vs lizaga, <4 the accused-appellant therein was convicted of the crimes of homicide and theft, and the value of the bag and its contents that were ta>en by the accused-appellant from the victim was estimated by the prosecution witness to be P&$$$$ In the absence of a conclusive or definite proof relative to their value, this ourt fi2ed the value of the bag and its contents at P!$$$$ based on the attendant circumstances of the case 0ore pertinently, in the case of People vs /eyes, <3 this ourt held that if there is no available evidence to prove the value of the stolen property or that the prosecution failed to prove it, the corresponding penalty to be imposed on the accused-appellant should be the minimum penalty corresponding to theft involving the value of P&$$ In the case at bench, the confiscated fifty-one (&!" pieces of assorted #ita and %ntipolo lumber were classified by the ./+ officials as soft, and therefore not premium quality lumber It may also be noted that the said pieces of lumber were cut by the appellant, a mere 7anitor in a public hospital, from the land owned by his mother, not for commercial purposes but to be utilized in the renovation of his house It does not appear that appellant )elen had been convicted nor was he an accused in any other pending criminal case involving violation of any of the provisions of the /evised ?orestry ode (P# .o 4$&, as amended" In view of the attendant circumstances of this case, and in the interest of 7ustice, the basis for the penalty to be imposed on the appellant should be the minimum amount under %rticle =$9 paragraph ('" of the /evised Penal ode which carries the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods for simple theft
onsidering that the crime of violation of 1ection '3 of Presidential #ecree .o 4$&, as amended, is punished as qualified theft under %rticle =!$ of the /evised Penal ode, pursuant to the said decree, the imposable penalty on the appellant shall be increased by two degrees, that is, from arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods to prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods <9 %pplying the Indeterminate 1entence *aw,=$ the penalty to be imposed on the appellant should be si2 ('" months and one (!" day of prision correccional to si2 ('" years and one (!" day of prision mayor 5/?+/, the decision of the /egional )rial ourt of 0aasin, 1outhern *eyte, Branch <&, in riminal ase .o !4== is %??I/0# with the 0+#I?I%)I+. that appellant Pastor )elen is sentenced to si2 ('" months and one (!" day of prision correccional, as minimum, to si2 ('" years and one (!" day of prision mayor, as ma2imum 1+ +/#/#