SECOND DIVISION
RODOLFO
TIGOY, G.R.
No. 144640
Petitioner,
Present:
PUNO,
J., Chairperson,
-
versus – SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
AZCUNA,
and
GARCIA,
JJ.
COURT
OF APPEALS AND
PEOPLE
OF THE
Respondents.
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
DECISION
AZCUNA, J.:
This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court assailing the decision and resolution, dated March 6, 2000 and August 23,
2000, respectively, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 20864 entitled
“People of the Philippines v. Nestor Ong and Rodolfo Tigoy,” acquitting Nestor
Ong for insufficiency of evidence, while convicting Rodolfo Tigoy for violating
Section 68 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 705 or the Revised Forestry Code
of the Philippines, as amended by Executive Order (E.O.) No. 277, Series of
1987, in relation to Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code.
The
facts of the case are as follows:
On
1.
That the party of the First Part is an owner of Cargo
Trucks with place of business at
2. That the party of the Second Part is a businessman dealing in buy and sell of General Merchandise, dry goods and construction materials;
3. That the party of the Second Part will engage the services of the two (2) cargo trucks of the party of the First Part;
4. That the services agreed upon should be rendered by the party of the First Part on August 3, 1993 from Larapan, Linamon, Lanao del Norte to Dipolog City for an agreed amount of TEN THOUSAND (P10,000.00) Pesos per truck or a total of TWENTY THOUSAND (P20,000.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency for the carriage of cement and other merchandise owned by the party of the Second Part;
5.
That any legal controversy involving the cargo or of
and when the cargo trucks are not actually used for the purpose herein
stipulated, it is agreed that the same is the sole responsibility of the party
of the Second Part without any liability of the party of the First Part.[1]
In the evening of
That same morning of October 4, 1993,
Senior Inspector Rico Lacay Tome (then
Deputy Chief of Police of Ozamis City), while escorting Provincial Director
Dionisio Coloma at the ICC Arts Center in
Ozamis City, along with the members of the Special Operation Group, received a
dispatch from the 466th PNP Company situated at Barangay Bongbong,
Ozamis City, informing him that two trucks, a blue and green loaded with cement,
that were going towards Ozamis City did not stop at the checkpoint. Upon
receiving the report, Tome, along with PO2 Peter Paul Nuqui and PO3 Bienvenido
Real, boarded their patrol vehicle, a mini cruiser jeep, to intercept the two
trucks at Lilian Terminal,
At the Lilian Terminal, PO2 Nuqui,
who was the only one in uniform among the police officers, flagged down the two
trucks but the same just sped away and proceeded towards the direction of
According to Senior Inspector Tome,
he asked the driver who had alighted from the green truck why he did not stop at
the checkpoint but the latter did not answer. When he inquired what was loaded
in the truck, the driver replied that there is “S.O.P,” which means grease
money in street parlance.[4] This raised the suspicion of Tome that the
trucks were loaded with “hot items.”
Meanwhile, the blue truck which had
been speeding behind the green truck and was being driven by Sumagang was
intercepted by PO3 Real. Upon inspection, the police officers discovered piles
of sawn lumber beneath the cement bags in both trucks. Tome inquired if the drivers had a permit for
the lumber but the latter could not produce any.
The drivers were brought and turned
over to the investigator at the City Hall in
Afterwards, the group of Tome
proceeded back to the
Meanwhile, Ermelo delos Santos, Chief
of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources – Community and
Environment and Natural Resources Office (DENR-CENRO),[6]
after receiving a call from the Ozamis City Police Station that two trucks were
apprehended transporting sawn lumber without a permit and were brought to the
City Hall, sent Rolando Dingal, Forester of the DENR, together with Teodoro
Echavez, Juanito Taruc and Lucio Penaroya, to investigate.
Petitioner Tigoy and Sumagang
presented to Dingal the registration papers of the two trucks and appearing
therein was the name of Nestor Ong as the owner. After ascertaining that the
sawn lumber loaded on the two trucks did not have supporting documents, Dingal
and his companions scaled the subject lumber and prepared a tally sheet. Loaded in the blue Nissan ten-wheeler truck
were 229 pieces of lumber with a total volume of 6,232.46 board feet; and, in
the green Isuzu eight-wheeler truck, 333 pieces of lumber with a total volume
of 5,095.5 board feet.[7]
Consequently, the lumber and the vehicles were seized upon the order of the
DENR Regional Executive Director.[8]
On
That
on or about the 4th day of August, 1993 at Barangay Catadman, Ozamiz
City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping
each other, for a common design, did then and there willfully, unlawfully,
feloniously and illegally possess and transport without the necessary legal
documents nor permit from the lawful authorities, sawn dipterocarp lumbers (Philippine
Mahogany), in the following manner, to wit: accused Nestor Ong, being the owner
of 2 ten wheeler trucks with Plate Nos. GDA-279 and PNH-364 facilitated and
allowed the use and transport of above-stated sawn [lumber] from Larapan, Lanao
del Norte, but intercepted by the PNP authorities in Ozamiz City; while the
accused Lolong Bertodazo facilitated the loading and transport of said sawn
lumbers, while accused Nestor Sumagang y Lacson drove the Nissan 10 wheeler
cargo truck bearing Plate No. GDA-279 which was loaded with 333 pieces of said
sawn dipterocarp lumbers (Philippine Mahogany) of assorted sizes equivalent
[to] 5,095.5 board feet which was concealed under piled bags of cement, which
lumbers [were] valued at P134, 242.36; while accused Rodolfo Tigoy drove
the 8 wheeler Isuzu truck bearing Plate No. ONH-364, which was loaded and
transported with 229 pieces of sawn dipterocarp lumbers (Philippine Mahogany)
of assorted sizes equivalent to 6,232.46 board feet which was concealed under
piled bags of cement which lumbers [were] valued at P92,316.77 or total
value of P226,559.13, without, however, causing damage to the
government, inasmuch as the aforestated lumbers were recovered.
CONTRARY
to Section 68 of Presidential Decree 705, as amended by Executive Order No.
277, Series of 1987, in relation to Article 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal
Code.[9]
Ong
and petitioner Tigoy entered pleas of not guilty during the arraignment. Sumagang died after the case was filed while
the other co-accused, Lolong Bertodazo, was not arrested and has remained at
large.
On
WHEREFORE,
finding accused Nestor Ong and Rodolfo Tigoy [GUILTY] beyond reasonable doubt
of possession of dipterocarp lumber [VALUED] at more than P22,000.00
without the legal documents as required by existing laws and regulations,
penalized as qualified theft, this Court sentences them to an indeterminate
penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor to eighteen (18)
years and three (3) months of reclusion temporal. The lumber and the
conveyances used are forfeited in favor of the government. With costs.
The DENR is ordered to sell/dispose
of the lumber and conveyances in accordance with the existing laws, WITHOUT
DELAY. Let the Court of Appeals, Fourteenth Division, before which accused
Ong’s appeal of this Court’s denial of his action for replevin relative to his
trucks is pending, be furnished with a copy of this judgment.
With costs.
SO ORDERED.[10]
Declaring that “constructive
possession” of unlicensed lumber is not within the contemplation of Section 68
of P.D. No. 705, and for failure by the prosecution to prove the complicity of
Ong, the Court of Appeals
rendered its decision on March 6, 2000 modifying the ruling of the lower court,
thus:
WHEREFORE,
the judgment appealed from is hereby MODIFIED in that accused-appellant Nestor
Ong is acquitted for insufficiency of evidence and his two (2) trucks are
ordered returned to him. The conviction of Rodolfo Tigoy is upheld and the
decision dated
SO
ORDERED.[11]
On
Hence, this petition, with the following assignment of
errors:
I
THE
COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING “COLLUSION” BETWEEN LOLONG BERTODAZO AND
PETITIONER TIGOY;
II
THE
COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN COMPLETELY DISREGARDING THE AFFIDAVIT OF LOLONG
BERTODAZO AGAINST HIS PENAL INTEREST;
III
THE
COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING PETITIONER TIGOY TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE
LUMBER HE WAS TRANSPORTING; AND,
IV
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT PETITIONER TIGOY HAD ACTUAL AND PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE UNDOCUMENTED LUMBER.[12]
Stated
otherwise, the core issue presented is whether or not petitioner Tigoy is
guilty of conspiracy in possessing or transporting lumber without the necessary
permit in violation of the Revised Forestry Code of the
Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as
amended by E.O. No. 277, otherwise known as the Revised Forestry Code of the
Section
68. Cutting, Gathering and/or
Collecting Timber or Other
There
are two ways of violating Section 68 of the above Code: 1) by cutting,
gathering and/or collecting timber or other forest products without a license;
and, 2) by possessing timber or other forest products without the required legal
documents.
Petitioner
was charged with and convicted of transporting lumber without a permit which is
punishable under Section 68 of the Code. He, Sumagang and the rest of their companions
were apprehended by the police officers in flagrante delicto as
they were transporting the subject lumber from Larapan to
Petitioner maintains that he could
not have conspired with Lolong Bertodazo as he did not know about the
unlicensed lumber in the trucks. He believed that what he was transporting were
bags of cement in view of the contract between Ong and Bertodazo. Also, he was
not around when Bertodazo loaded the trucks with the lumber hidden under the
bags of cement.
This contention by petitioner,
however, was not believed by the lower court. In declaring that petitioner connived with
Bertodazo in transporting the subject lumber, the court a quo noted:
x x x The evidence of the prosecution established that the two drivers of accused Ong refused to stop at a checkpoint, a fact admitted by both in their affidavit, Exhs. “E” and “E-2”. Likewise, the two drivers refused to stop on the national highway near a bus terminal when required by a uniformed policeman. When finally accosted, one of the drivers, whom witness Tome identified as the driver of the green truck, Sumagang, but who actually was Tigoy (as he was the driver of the green truck and who came to the road block first, being the lead driver) offered “S.O.P.” which to witness Tome meant that the trucks were carrying “hot items.”
Why would the drivers refuse to stop
when required? Did they fear inspection of their cargo? Why would “S.O.P.”
(which in street parlance is grease money) be offered to facilitate the passage
of the trucks? The only logical answer to all these questions is that the
drivers knew that they were carrying contraband lumber. This Court believes that
the drivers had knowledge of the fact that they were transporting and were in
possession of undocumented lumber in violation of law.[13]
In offenses considered as mala
prohibita or when the doing of an act is prohibited by a special law such
as in the present case, the commission of the prohibited act is the crime
itself. It is sufficient that the
offender has the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law,
and that it is done knowingly and consciously.[14]
Direct proof of previous agreement to
commit an offense is not necessary to prove conspiracy.[15] Conspiracy
may be proven by circumstantial evidence.[16]
It may be deduced from the mode, method and manner by which the offense is
perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused when such acts point to a
joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.[17]
It is not even required that the participants have an agreement for an
appreciable period to commence it.[18]
Petitioner’s actions adequately show
that he intentionally participated in the commission of the offense for which
he had been charged and found guilty by both the trial court and the Court of
Appeals.
Finding that petitioner’s conviction
was reached without arbitrariness and with sufficient basis, this Court upholds
the same. The Court accords high respect to the findings
of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the collective testimonies of
the witnesses, its assessment of the probative weight of the evidence of the
parties as well as its conclusions[19] especially
when these are in agreement with those of the Court of Appeals, which is the
case here. As a matter of fact, factual findings of the trial court, when
adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally final and
conclusive.[20]
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the
Decision and Resolution, dated
Costs against petitioner.
SO
ORDERED.
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chairperson
Associate Justice
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution and the Division Acting Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] Records,
Exhibit “1,” p. 237.
[2] TSN,
[3] TSN,
[4] CA
Rollo, p. 50.
[5] TSN,
[6] The
original and exclusive jurisdiction over the confiscation of “all conveyances
used either by land, water or air in the commission of the offense and to
dispose of the same” is vested in the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) Secretary or a duly authorized representative. The DENR has
the supervision and control over the enforcement of forestry, reforestation,
parks, game and wildlife laws, rules and regulations (Sections 5 and 7 of P.D.
No. 705).
[7] CA
Rollo, pp. 174-176.
[8] Records,
Exhibit “D,” p. 240.
[9] Rollo,
pp. 25-26.
[10] CA
Rollo, pp. 51-52.
[11] Rollo,
p. 38.
[12]
[13] Rollo,
p. 191.
[14]
[15] Serrano
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123896,
[16] People
v. Miranda, G.R. No. 123917,
[17] People
v. Gomez, G.R. No. 128378,
[18] People
v. Miranda, supra note 16.
[19] People
v. Sibonga, G.R. No. 95901,
[20] Serrano
v. Court of Appeals, supra note 15, states: “Factual findings of the
trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals , are final and
conclusive , and may not be reviewed on appeal except: (1) when the inference
made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is a grave
abuse of discretion; (3) when the finding is grounded entirely on speculations,
surmises or conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is based
on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the Court of Appeals, in making its
findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the
admissions of both appellant and appellee; (6) when the findings of fact are
conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (7)
when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not
disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a
different conclusion; and, (8) when the findings of fact are premised on the
absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.”