Republic of the
Supreme Court
FIRST DIVISION
|
CRISOSTOMO VILLARIN and |
|
G.R. No. 175289 |
||
|
ANIANO LATAYADA, |
|
|
||
|
Petitioners, |
|
Present: |
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, |
||
|
- versus - |
|
BERSAMIN, |
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
VILLARAMA, JR., JJ. |
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
PEOPLE OF THE |
|
Promulgated: |
||
|
Respondent. |
|
August 31, 2011 |
||
|
||||
x - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
Mere
possession of timber without the legal documents required under forest laws and
regulations makes one automatically liable of violation of Section 68,
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 705,[1]
as amended. Lack of criminal intent is
not a valid defense.
This petition for review on certiorari seeks to reverse the June 28, 2005 Decision[2] of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 26720 which affirmed in all respects
the Judgment[3]
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 38, Cagayan De Oro City, finding petitioners
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 68, P.D. No. 705, as
amended. Likewise assailed in this
petition is the September
22, 2006 Resolution[4] denying
petitioners Motion for
Reconsideration.[5]
Factual Antecedents
In a Criminal Complaint[6] filed
before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 4, Cagayan de Oro City by
Marcelino B. Pioquinto (Pioquinto), Chief of the Forest Protection and Law
Enforcement Unit under the TL Strike Force Team of Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR), petitioner Aniano Latayada (Latayada) and three
others namely, Barangay Captain
Camilo Sudaria (Sudaria) of Tagpangi, Cagayan de Oro City, Marlon Baillo
(Baillo) and Cipriano Boyatac (Boyatac), were charged with violation of Section
68, P.D. No. 705 as amended by Executive Order No. 277.[7]
Subsequently, however, the Office of the City Prosecutor
of Cagayan de Oro City issued a Resolution[8] dated
March 13, 1996 recommending the filing of an Information for the aforesaid
charge not only against Latayada, Baillo and Boyatac but also against
petitioner Crisostomo Villarin (Villarin), then Barangay Captain of Pagalungan, Cagayan de Oro City. The dismissal of the complaint against
Sudaria was likewise recommended. Said
Resolution was then approved by the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao through a
Resolution[9] dated
May 9, 1996 ordering the filing of the Information in the RTC of Cagayan de Oro
City.
Thus, on October 29, 1996, an Information[10] was filed against petitioners Villarin and Latayada and their
co-accused Baillo and Boyatac, for violation of Section 68, P.D. No. 705 as
follows:
That on or about January 13, 1996, in Pagalungan, Cagayan
de Oro City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
pursuant to RA 7975, the accused, Crisostomo Villarin, a public officer being
the Barangay Captain of Pagalungan, this City, with salary grade below 27,
taking advantage of his official position and committing the offense in
relation to his office, and the other above-named accused, all private
individuals, namely: Marlon Baillo, Cipriano Boyatac, and Aniano Latayada,
confederating and mutually helping one another did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously gather and possess sixty-three (63) pieces flitches
of varying sizes belonging to the Apitong specie with a total volume of Four
Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Six (4,326) board feet valued at P108,150.00,
without any authority and supporting documents as required under existing
forest laws and regulation to the damage and prejudice of the government.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[11]
On
January 14, 1997, Villarin, Boyatac and Baillo, filed a Motion for
Reinvestigation.[12]
They alleged that the Joint Affidavit[13]of the
personnel of the DENR which became one of the bases in filing the Information
never mentioned Villarin as one of the perpetrators of the crime while the
accusations against Baillo and Boyatac were not based on the personal knowledge
of the affiants. They also asserted that
their indictment was based on polluted sources, consisting of the sworn
statements of witnesses like Latayada and Sudaria, who both appeared to have
participated in the commission of the crime charged.
Instead
of resolving the Motion for Reinvestigation, the RTC, in its Order[14] dated
January 27, 1997, directed Villarin, Boyatac, and Baillo to file their Motion
for Reinvestigation with the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao, it being the
entity which filed the Information in Court. On March 31, 1997, only Villarin filed a
Petition for Reinvestigation[15] but
same was, however, denied by the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao in an Order[16] dated
May 15, 1997 because the grounds relied upon were not based on newly discovered
evidence or errors of fact, law or irregularities that are prejudicial to the
interest of the movants, pursuant to Administrative Order No. 07 or the Rules
of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman in Criminal Cases. The Office of
the Ombudsman-Mindanao likewise opined that Villarin was directly implicated by
Latayada, his co-accused.
The RTC thus proceeded with the
arraignment of the accused who entered separate pleas of not guilty.[17] Thereafter, trial ensued.
The Version of
the Prosecution
On December 31, 1995, at around five
oclock in the afternoon, prosecution witness Roland Granada (
At six oclock in the evening of the
same day, Barangay Captain Angeles
Alarcon (Alarcon)[22] noticed
that the pile of timber was already placed near the bridge. Since she had no knowledge of any scheduled
repair of the Batinay bridge she was surprised to discover that the timber
would be used for the repair. After
inquiring from the people living near the bridge, she learned that Latayada and
Boyatac delivered the timber.[23]
Another
prosecution witness, Ariel Palanga (Palanga), testified that at seven oclock in
the morning of January 1, 1996, Boyatac bought a stick of cigarette from his
store and requested him to cover the pile of timber near the bridge for a fee. Palanga acceded and covered the pile with coconut
leaves.[24]
On January 13, 1996, at around ten
oclock in the morning, prosecution witness Juan Casenas (Casenas), a radio and
TV personality of RMN-TV8, took footages of the timber[25] hidden
and covered by coconut leaves. Casenas also took footages of more logs inside a
bodega at the other side of the bridge.
In the following evening, the footages were shown in a news program on
television.
On the same day, members of the DENR
Region 10 Strike Force Team measured the timber which consisted of 63 pieces of
Apitong flitches and determined that it totaled 4,326 board feet[26] and
subsequently entrusted the same to Alarcon for safekeeping.
Upon further investigation, it was
learned that the timber was requisitioned by Villarin, who was then Barangay Captain of Pagulangan, Cagayan
de Oro City. Villarin gave Sudaria the
specifications for the requisitioned timber.
Thereafter, Boyatac informed Villarin that the timber was already
delivered on December 31, 1995.[27]
On January 18, 1996, Felix Vera Cruz
(Vera Cruz), a security guard at the DENR Region 10 Office, received and signed
for the confiscated timber since the property custodian at that time was not
around.
The filing of the aforestated Information
followed.
The Version of
the Defense
In response to the clamor of the
residents of Barangays Tampangan,
Pigsag-an, Tuburan and Taglinao, all in Cagayan De Oro City, Villarin, decided
to repair the impassable Batinay bridge.
The project was allegedly with the concurrence of the Barangay Council.
Pressured to immediately commence
the needed repairs, Villarin commissioned Boyatac to inquire from Sudaria about
the availability of timber without first informing the City Engineer. Sudaria
asked for the specifications which Villarin gave. Villarin then asked Baillo and Boyatac to
attend to the same. When the timber was
already available, it was transported from Tagpangi to Batinay. However, the timber flitches were seized by
the DENR Strike Force Team and taken to its office where they were received by
Vera Cruz, the security guard on duty.
Ruling of the
Regional Trial Court
In its Memorandum filed before the
trial court, the defense notified the court of Boyatacs demise.[28] However, the trial court did not act on such
notice. Instead, it proceeded to rule on
the culpability of Boyatac. Thus, in its
Judgment, the trial court found herein petitioners and the deceased Boyatac
guilty as charged. On the other hand, it
found the evidence against Baillo insufficient.
The dispositive portion of the Judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing findings, judgment is hereby
rendered finding the accused Crisostomo Villarin, Cipriano Boyatac and Aniano
Latayada guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 68 of Presidential
Decree No. 705 as amended, and hereby sentences each of them to suffer an
indeterminate sentence of twelve (12) years of prision mayor as minimum to
seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal as maximum.
Accused Marlon Baillo is hereby acquitted for lack of evidence.
SO ORDERED.[29]
In reaching said conclusions, the
RTC noted that:
Without an iota of
doubt, accused Crisostomo Villarin, being then a Barangay Captain of
Pagalungan, Cagayan de Oro City, was the one who procured the subject flitches,
while accused Aniano Latayada and Cipriano Boyatac mutually helped him and each
other by transporting the flitches from Sitio Batinay to the
Petitioners filed a Motion for
Reconsideration[31]
which was denied by the
RTC in its Order[32] dated
August 20, 2002.
Ruling of the
Court of Appeals
Petitioners filed an appeal which
was denied by the CA in its Decision dated June 28, 2005. The dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view
of all the foregoing, the judgment of the court a quo finding [d]efendant-[a]ppellants
Crisostomo Villarin, Cipriano Boyatac and Aniano Latayada GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt for violating Sec. 68 of Presidential Decree 705 is hereby
AFFIRMED in toto. No pronouncement as to cost.
SO ORDERED.[33]
Petitioners
filed a Motion for Reconsideration[34] which
the appellate court denied for lack of merit in its Resolution[35]
promulgated on September 22, 2006.
Issues
Undeterred, petitioners filed the
instant petition raising the following issues:
1.
WHETHER X X X THE COURT OF APPEALS[,] ON [THE] MATTER OF
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION[,] DECIDED NOT IN ACCORD WITH JURISPRUDENCE OF THE
SUPREME COURT;
2.
WHETHER X X X THE COURT OF APPEALS DEPARTED FROM WHAT THE
SUPREME COURT HAS ALWAYS BEEN SAYING, THAT, TO CONVICT AN ACCUSED ALL ELEMENTS
OF THE CRIME MUST BE PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT and;
3.
WHETHER X X X THE COURT OF APPEALS[,] IN AFFIRMING THE
PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE COURT A QUO[,] DEPARTED FROM JURISPRUDENCE THAT EVEN IN
CRIMES [INVOLVING] VIOLATION OF SPECIAL LAWS[,] SPECIAL CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE
GIVEN TO CIRCUMSTANCES THAT [CAN BE CONSIDERED AS MITIGATING HAD THE VIOLATION
BEEN PENALIZED UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE, IN ORDER TO REDUCE PENALTY].[36]
Petitioners argue that the refusal
of the Ombudsman to conduct a reinvestigation is tantamount to a denial of the
right to due process. As Villarin was
indicted in the Information despite his not being included in the criminal
complaint filed by Pioquinto of the TL Strike Force Team of the DENR, they
claim that he was not afforded a preliminary investigation. They also bewail the fact that persons who
appear to be equally guilty, such as Sudaria, have not been included in the
Information. Hence, they argue that the
Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying their petition for
reinvestigation because it deprived Villarin of his right to preliminary
investigation and in refusing and to equally prosecute the guilty. They contend that the Ombudsman should not
have relied on the prosecutors Certification[37]
contained in the Information to the effect that a preliminary investigation was
conducted in the case.
Moreover,
petitioners contend that the evidence was insufficient to prove their guilt
beyond reasonable doubt since they had no intention to possess the timber and
dispose of it for personal gain. They
likewise claim that there was failure on the part of the prosecution to present
the timber, which were the object of the offense.
Our Ruling
The petition is unmeritorious.
Villarin was properly afforded his right to due process.
Records show that the investigating prosecutor
received a criminal complaint charging Sudaria, Latayada, Baillo and Boyatac
with violation of Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended.[38] The said complaint did not state the known
addresses of the accused. Neither was
the notarized joint-affidavit of the complainants attached thereto. The
subpoena issued to the accused and the copy of their counter-affidavits were
also not part of the record. Moreover,
the complaint did not include Villarin as a respondent. However, said infirmities do not constitute
denial of due process particularly on the part of Villarin.
It
is evidently clear from the Resolution dated March 13, 1996 of the Office of
the City Prosecutor that Villarin and all the accused participated in the
scheduled preliminary investigation that was conducted prior to the filing of
the criminal case.[39] They knew about the filing of the complaint
and even denied any involvement in the illegal cutting of timber. They were also given the opportunity to submit
countervailing evidence to convince the investigating prosecutor of their
innocence.
Foregoing
findings considered, there is no factual basis to the assertion that Villarin
was not afforded a preliminary investigation.
Accordingly, we find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Office
of the Ombudsman-Mindanao in denying Villarins motion for
reconsideration. It validly relied on
the certification contained in the Information that a preliminary investigation
was properly conducted in this case. The
certification was made under oath by no less than the public prosecutor, a
public officer who is presumed to have regularly performed his official duty.[40] Besides, it aptly noted that Villarin was
implicated by x x x Latayada in his affidavit dated January 22, 1996 before Marcelino
B. Pioquinto, Chief, Forest Protection and Law Enforcement Unit. The denial of Villarin cannot prevail over the
declaration of witnesses.[41]
Moreover, the absence of a proper
preliminary investigation must be timely raised and must not have been waived. This is to allow the trial court to hold the
case in abeyance and conduct its own investigation or require the prosecutor to
hold a reinvestigation, which, necessarily involves a re-examination and
re-evaluation of the evidence already submitted by the complainant and the
accused, as well as the initial finding of probable cause which led to the
filing of the Informations after the requisite preliminary investigation.[42]
Here, it is conceded that Villarin
raised the issue of lack of a preliminary investigation in his Motion for
Reinvestigation. However, when the
Ombudsman denied the motion, he never raised this issue again. He accepted the Ombudsman's verdict, entered a
plea of not guilty during his arraignment and actively participated in the trial
on the merits by attending the scheduled hearings, conducting
cross-examinations and testifying on his own behalf. It was only after the trial court rendered
judgment against him that he once again assailed the conduct of the preliminary
investigation in the Motion for Reconsideration.[43] Whatever argument Villarin may have regarding
the alleged absence of a preliminary investigation has therefore been mooted. By entering his plea, and actively
participating in the trial, he is deemed to have waived his right to
preliminary investigation.
Petitioners also contend that Sudaria
should also have been included as a principal in the commission of the
offense. However, whether Sudaria should
or should not be included as co-accused can no longer be raised on appeal. Any right that the petitioners may have in
questioning the non-inclusion of Sudaria in the Information should have been
raised in a motion for reconsideration of the March 13, 1996 Resolution of the
Office of the City Prosecutor which recommended the dismissal of the complaint
against Sudaria.[44] Having failed to avail of the proper
procedural remedy,
they are now estopped from assailing his non-inclusion.
Two Offenses Penalized Under Sec. 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705.
Section
68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended, provides:
Section 68. Cutting, Gathering and/or Collecting Timber
or Other
There are two distinct and separate
offenses punished under Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, to wit:
(1)
Cutting, gathering,
collecting and removing timber or other forest products from any forest land,
or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private land
without any authorization; and
(2)
Possession of
timber or other forest products without the legal documents required under
existing forest laws and regulations.[45]
The
Information charged petitioners with the second offense which is consummated by
the mere possession of forest products without the proper documents.
We
reviewed the records and hold that the prosecution had discharged the
burden of proving
all the elements of the offense charged.
The evidence of the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that
petitioners were in custody of timber without the necessary legal
documents. Incidentally, we note that several
transcripts of stenographic notes (TSNs) were not submitted by the trial
court. No explanation was provided for
these missing TSNs. Notwithstanding the
incomplete TSNs, we still find that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable
doubt petitioners culpability.
The
prosecution adduced several documents to prove that timber was confiscated from
petitioners. It presented a Tally Sheet[46] to
prove that the DENR Strike Force Team examined the seized timber on January 13,
1996. The number, volume and appraised
value of said timber were also noted in the Tally Sheet. Seizure receipts were also presented to prove
that the confiscated timber were placed in the custody of Alarcon[47] and eventually
taken to the DENR Office.[48] There was
a photograph of the timber taken by the television crew led by Casenas.[49]
The
prosecution likewise presented in evidence the testimonies of eyewitnesses
More
significantly, Villarin admitted that he was the one who commissioned the
procurement of the timber[51] for the
repair of the Batinay bridge. He even
deputized Boyatac to negotiate with Sudaria and gave Latayada P2,000.00 to
transport the logs. Boyatac later
informed him of the delivery of timber. However,
he could not present any document to show that his possession thereof was legal
and pursuant to existing forest laws and regulations.
Relevant
portions of the testimony of Villarin are as follows:
Q As
Barangay Captain of Pagalungan, of course, you heard reports prior to the
incident on December 31, 1995 that Barangay Captain Camilo Sudaria was also
engaged in supplying forest products like forest lumber?
A Yes,
because I always go to Cagayan de Oro and I can always ride on his jeepney.
Q And you
were sure that information of yours was received by you and not only by one but
several persons from Barangay Tagpangi even up to Barangay Pagalungan?
A Thats
true because he even has a record with the police.
Q And you
learned [this] prior to January 1995?
A Yes,
Sir.
Q And
your information was even to the effect that Sudaria was supplying illegally
cut lumber regularly?
A What I
have noticed because I always ride on his jeep wherein lumber was being loaded,
the lumber will be taken when it arrived in Lumbia, kilometer 5.
Q Even if
there were already raids being conducted to the person of Camilo Sudaria, still
he continued to load illegally cut lumber?
A He slowed
down after several arrest because maybe he was ashamed because he was the
Barangay Captain of Tagpangi.
Q And his
arrest and the slackening of his activities of illegally cut lumber occurred
prior to June 1995?
A Yes,
sir.
Q [In spite]
of your knowledge that he is engaged [in] illegally cut[ting] forest products,
you as Barangay Captain of Pagalungan transacted with him for the purpose of
acquiring lumber [for] the bridge at Pagalungan?
A As we
rode together in his jeep, he informed me that he has some lumber to be used
to build his house and he told me he will sell it for the repair of the bridge
in Pagalungan.
Q And
because of that, in addition, you sent him the specifications of materials for
the repair of the bridge in Pagalungan?
A I let
Boyatac go to him and [inquire] from him if he has those specifications.
Q And he
communicated to you that he has available lumber of those specification?
A Yes, because
he sent to Boyatac some requirements of the specifications and he let me sign
it.
Q And
after that, you closed the [deal] with Sudaria?
A Yes,
because I sent somebody to him and we did not talk anymore.
Q And
thereafter on December 31, 1995, according to your testimony before, Aniano
Latayada delivered the lumber flitches you ordered on board the passenger jeep
of Camilo Sudaria?
A When
the specifications were given, we were informed that the lumber were already
there. So, it was delivered.
Q Who
informed you that the lumber were already delivered?
A Boyatac.
Q And he
is referring to those lumber placed alongside the
A Yes,
Sir.
Q And
even without personally inspecting it, you immediately paid Latayada the
compensation for the delivery of those lumber?
A There
was already an advance payment for his delivery.
Q To whom
did you give the advance?
A To
Latayada.
Q You
have not given the amount to Camilo Sudaria?
A No,
Sir.
Q In
fact, the money that you paid to Latayada was specifically for the
transportation of the lumber from Tagpangi to Batinay bridge?
A Yes,
Sir.
PROS. GALARRITA:
Q And
at that time, you paid Latayada P2,000 as payment of the lumber?
A Yes,
Sir.
COURT:
Q Did you
pay Latayada?
A Yes,
Sir.
Q How
much?
A P2,000.
Q And you
gave this to the conductor?
A Yes,
Sir.
Q You
told the conductor to pay the money to Latayada?
A Yes,
sir.
Q What
did the conductor say?
A The
conductor said that the money was for the payment for the transporting of
lumber from Tagpangi.[52] (Underscoring ours.)
Violation of
Sec. 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705, as amended,
is
malum
prohibitum.
As
a special law, the nature of the offense is malum
prohibitum and as such, criminal intent is not an essential element. However, the prosecution must prove that
petitioners had the intent to possess (animus
possidendi) the timber.[53]
Possession, under the law, includes not only actual possession, but also
constructive possession. Actual
possession exists when the [object of the crime] is in the immediate physical
control of the accused. On the other
hand, constructive possession exists when the [object of the crime] is under
the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise
dominion and control over the place where it is found.[54]
There
is no dispute that petitioners were in constructive possession of the timber without the requisite legal documents. Villarin and Latayada were personally
involved in its procurement, delivery and storage without any license or permit
issued by any competent authority. Given
these and considering that the offense is malum
prohibitum, petitioners contention that the possession of the illegally
cut timber was not for personal gain but for the repair of said bridge is,
therefore, inconsequential.
Corpus Delicti is the Fact of the Commission of the Crime
Petitioners
argue that their convictions were improper because the corpus delicti had not been established. They assert that the
failure to present the confiscated timber in court was fatal to the cause of
the prosecution.
We
disagree. [C]orpus delicti refers to
the fact of the commission of the crime charged or to the body or substance of
the crime. In its legal sense, it does
not refer to the ransom money in the crime of kidnapping for ransom or to the
body of the person murdered[55] or, in
this case, to the seized timber. Since
the corpus delicti is the fact of the
commission of the crime, this Court has ruled that even a single witness
uncorroborated testimony, if credible, may suffice to prove it and warrant a
conviction therefor. Corpus delicti may even be established
by circumstantial evidence.[56]
Here,
the trial court and the CA held that the corpus
delicti was established by the documentary and testimonial evidence on
record. The Tally Sheet, Seizure
Receipts issued by the DENR and photograph proved the existence of the timber
and its confiscation. The testimonies of the petitioners themselves stating in
no uncertain terms the manner in which they consummated the offense they were
charged with were likewise crucial to their conviction.
We
find no reason to deviate from these findings since it has been established
that factual findings of a trial court are binding on us, absent any showing
that it overlooked or misinterpreted facts or circumstances of weight and
substance.[57]
The legal precept applies to this case in which the trial courts findings were
affirmed by the appellate court.[58]
The Proper
Penalty
Violation
of Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended, is penalized as qualified theft
under Article 310 in relation to Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The pertinent portions of these provisions
read:
Art. 310. Qualified Theft
The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two
degrees than those respectively specified in the next preceding articles, if
committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the
property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts
taken from the premises of the plantation or fish taken from a fishpond or
fishery, or if property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon,
volcanic eruption, or any calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.
Art. 309. Penalties. Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by:
1. The penalty of prision mayor
in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more
than 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos; but if the value of the
thing stolen exceeds the latter amount, the penalty shall be the maximum period
of the one prescribed in this paragraph, and one year for each additional ten
thousand pesos, but the total of the penalty which may be imposed shall not
exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory
penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of
this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision
mayor or reclusion temporal, as
the case may be. x x x
The
Information filed against the petitioners alleged that the 63 pieces of timber
without the requisite legal documents measuring 4,326 board feet were valued at
P108,150.00. To prove this allegation,
the prosecution presented Pioquinto to testify, among others, on this amount.
Tally Sheets and Seizure Receipts were also presented to corroborate said
amount. With the value of the timber
exceeding P22,000.00, the basic penalty is prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods to be imposed in
its maximum, the range of which is eight (8) years, eight (8) months and one (1)
day to ten (10) years. Since none of the
qualifying circumstances in Article 310 of the RPC was alleged in the
Information, the penalty cannot be increased two degrees higher.
In
determining the additional years of imprisonment, P22,000.00 is to be
deducted from P108,150.00, which results to P86,150.00. This remainder must be divided by P10,000.00,
disregarding any amount less than P10,000.00. Consequently, eight (8) years must be added
to the basic penalty. Thus the maximum
imposable penalty ranges from sixteen (16) years, eight (8) months and one (1)
day to eighteen (18) years of reclusion
temporal.
Applying
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum imposable penalty should be taken anywhere
within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, without considering the
modifying circumstances. The penalty one
degree lower from prision mayor in
its minimum and medium periods is prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods, the range of which is from
two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. Thus, the RTC, as affirmed by the CA,
erroneously fixed the minimum period of the penalty at twelve (12) years of prision mayor.
Finally,
the case against Boyatac must be dismissed considering his demise even before
the RTC rendered its Judgment.
WHEREFORE,
the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated June 28, 2005 and
the Resolution dated September 22, 2006 in CA-G.R. CR No. 26720 are AFFIRMED with the modificationS
that petitioners Crisostomo Villarin and Aniano Latayada are each sentenced to suffer
imprisonment of two (2) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to sixteen
(16) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The complaint against Cipriano Boyatac is
hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, 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 Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Revised Forestry Code of the
[2] CA
rollo, pp. 135-148; penned by
Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro and concurred in by Associate Justices
Arturo G. Tayag and Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr.
[3] Records,
pp. 162-173; penned by Judge Maximo G.W. Paderanga.
[4] CA
rollo, pp. 158-159; penned by
Associate Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices
Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores and Mario V. Lopez.
[5]
[6] Records,
p. 4.
[7] Dated
July 25, 1987 and is entitled as Amending
Section 68 Of Presidential Decree No. 705, As Amended, Otherwise Known As The
Revised Forestry Code Of The Philippines, For The Purpose Of Penalizing
Possession Of Timber Or Other Forest Products Without The Legal Documents
Required By Existing Forest Laws, Authorizing The Confiscation Of Illegally
Cut, Gathered, Removed And Possessed Forest Products, And Granting Rewards To
Informers Of Violations Of Forestry Laws, Rules And Regulations.
Section
1 thereof reads:
Section
1. Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705, as amended, is hereby amended to
read as follows:
Section
68. Cutting, Gathering and/or Collecting
Timber, or Other
The
Court 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.
[8] Records,
pp. 7-10.
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] Folder
of Exhibits, p. 4; executed by Laurence Amiscaray, Roy Cabaraban, Pedro
Morales, Jr. and Arthur Roda, to the effect that their investigation revealed
that the cutting of trees was done under the supervision of Boyatac and Baillo.
[14] Records,
p. 34-A.
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18] TSN,
October 14, 1997, pp. 3-10.
[19] TSN,
October 16, 1997, p. 51.
[20]
[21]
[22] She
was a Barangay Kagawad of Barangay Pagalungan, Cagayan de Oro City
at the time of the commission of the crime subject of this case. She later succeeded petitioner Villarin as Barangay Captain.
[23] TSN,
October 16, 1997, pp. 13-14.
[24] TSN,
October 14, 1997, p. 25.
[25] TSN,
January 20, 1998, p. 6.
[26] Joint
Affidavit; supra note 13.
[27] TSN,
June 2, 1998, pp. 8-9.
[28] Records,
pp. 140, 145.
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33] CA
rollo, p. 147.
[34] Supra
note 5.
[35] Supra
note 4.
[36] Rollo, pp. 17-18.
[37] Records,
p. 3.
[38] Id
at 4.
[39]
[40] RULES
OF COURT, Rule 131, Section 3(m).
[41] Records,
p. 75
[42] Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan, 484 Phil. 899,
923 (2004).
[43] Records,
pp. 181-197.
[44] Aquino v. Hon. Mariano, 214 Phil. 470,
474. (1984)
[45] Aquino v. People, G.R. No. 165448, July
27, 2009, 594 SCRA 50, 58.
[46] Exhibit
A, Folder of Exhibits, p. 1.
[47] Exhibit
B, id. at 2.
[48] Exhibit
C, id. at 3.
[49] Exhibit
J, id. at 11.
[50] TSN,
October 14, 1997, pp. 4-7; TSN, October 16, 1997, pp. 41-42.
[51] See
Reply to Peoples Comment, pp. 2-3; rollo,
pp. 125-126.
[52] TSN,
June 2, 1998, pp. 4-12.
[53] People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 177777,
December 4, 2009, 607 SCRA 377, 391, citing People
v. Tira, G.R. No. 139615, May 28, 2004, 430 SCRA 134.
[54]
[55] Rimorin, Sr. v. People, 450 Phil. 465,
474 (2003).
[56]
[57]
[58]