SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 224071. January 9, 2017.]
EDGARDO RUIN y TENOSO and MARIO GUANZON y GUROBAT, petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 09 January 2017 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 224071: EDGARDO RUIN y TENOSO and MARIO GUANZON y GUROBAT v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
This resolves the Petition 1 assailing the Decision 2 dated December 29, 2015 and Resolution 3 dated March 29, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 36098, which found petitioners Edgardo Ruin y Tenoso and Mario Guanzon y Gurobat guilty of illegal possession of forest products.
On February 27, 2007, the police received a report that a truck loaded with illegally possessed timber was on standby in San Agustin, Pili, Camarines Sur. 4 Police Chief Intelligence Officer SPO3 Eduardo Rabang (SPO3 Rabang) immediately organized two (2) teams to verify the report. 5
At the site, the police officers saw the truck parked beside the road. Inside the truck were truck driver Edgardo Ruin y Tenoso (Ruin) and his hired helper, Mario Guanzon y Gurobat (Guanzon). 6 Ruin and Guanzon were waiting for Noel Gaspi Espiritu (Espiritu), owner of the transported timber, to arrive. 7
SPO3 Rabang approached the truck and saw flitches of wood loaded in it. 8 He asked for the documents necessary for the transport of the timber, but Ruin and Guanzon failed to present anything. 9 Eighty-one (81) flitches of wood were found in the truck. 10 Later, Espiritu arrived in his motorcycle and introduced himself as the owner of the flitches of wood. 11 The police officers escorted Ruin, Guanzon, and Espiritu to the police station. 12
Police Investigator PO2 Dominic Abiog (PO2 Abiog) prepared a spot report and photographed the truck and the flitches of wood. 13 He took these items into police custody 14 and prepared a Custody Receipt. 15
On the same day, SPO3 Rabang coordinated with Edmundo Atanacio (Atanacio) from the Office of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Naga City. 16 Atanacio conducted a scaling of the confiscated flitches of wood by measuring the length, width, and thickness of each board foot. 17
Based on Atanacio's Scale Report and PO2 Abiog's Custody Receipt, the 81 flitches of wood were valued at P150,633.00, or at P30.00 per board foot. 18
An Information for violation of Section 78 of Pres. Decree No. 705 (Revised Forestry Code), as amended by Exec. Order No. 277 and renumbered by Rep. Act No. 7161, was filed against Ruin, Guanzon, and Espiritu. 19 The Information reads:
That on or about the 27th day of February, 2007 at around five o'clock in the afternoon, in Barangay San Agustin, Pili, Camarines Sur, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Court, the above named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess and transports [sic] 81 flitches of wood belonging to the Philippine Mahogany group specie, 4,184.50 board feet with an estimated value of One Hundred Fifty Three Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Three Pesos (P153,633.00) without the necessary permit, license and documents required by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to the damage and prejudice of the Republic of the Philippines.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW. 20
The prosecution presented the testimonies of SPO3 Rabang, PO2 Abiog, and PO2 Joffrey Matamorosa of the 504th Police Provincial Mobile Group, as well as of Atanacio of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Naga City. 21 They asserted that Ruin, Guanzon, and Espiritu conspired to possess and transport the flitches of wood without a permit. 22
Espiritu jumped bail. Thus, only Ruin and Guanzon were presented as witnesses for the defense. 23 They interposed denials, alibis, and lack of intent to commit the offense charged against them. 24 EcTCAD
In the Decision 25 dated March 4, 2013, the Regional Trial Court found that the defense witnesses' testimonies contradicted each other "on some material points" 26 and convicted Ruin, Guanzon, and Espiritu. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing[,] judgment is hereby rendered convicting accused Edgardo Ruin, Mario Guanzon and Noel Espiritu of the crime for which they stood charged and [they are] hereby sentenced to suffer an Indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years of Reclusion Temporal as maximum; and ordering the confiscation in[]favor of the government the lumber described in Exhibit B.
SO ORDERED. 27
In the Decision 28 dated December 29, 2015, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court's conviction of Ruin and Guanzon, but modified the penalty for the offense. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pili, Camarines Sur, Branch 32 is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION in that the accused-appellants are sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day to three (3) years, six (6) months, and twenty (20) days of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
SO ORDERED. 29 (Emphasis in the original)
The Court of Appeals denied 30 the Motion for Reconsideration on March 29, 2016.
Aggrieved, petitioners Edgardo Ruin y Tenoso and Mario Guanzon y Gurobat appealed before this Court. 31
On August 24, 2016, this Court required respondent People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, to comment. 32 In its Comment, 33 respondent maintains that all the elements of illegal possession of lumber have been established, 34 and that lack of intent and good faith are not proper defenses, as the crime is mala prohibita. 35
For resolution is the sole issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioners' conviction.
We deny the Petition.
Intent to commit the crime is not necessary in crimes punishable by a special law, including the Revised Forestry Code. 36 The Court of Appeals correctly found that petitioners conspired to possess and transport the flitches of wood without the required permit in violation of Section 77 of the Revised Forestry Code:
SECTION 77. Cutting, gathering and/or collecting timber or other products without license. — Any person who shall cut, gather, collect, or 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 existing forest laws and regulations, shall be punished with the penalties imposed under Arts. 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code[.] (Emphasis supplied)
Villarin v. People37 has held that there are two (2) distinct and separate offenses punished under this provision, thus:
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. 38 (Emphasis supplied)
In the second offense, it is immaterial whether the cutting, gathering, collection, and removal of forest products are legal. 39 This is because mere possession of forest products, without the required documents, already consummates the crime. 40
Possession under the Revised Forestry Code includes not only actual possession, but also constructive possession. 41 Actual possession exists when the object of the crime is in the immediate physical control of the accused. 42 On the other hand, constructive possession exists when the object of the crime is under one's dominion and control. 43
Here, the Court of Appeals correctly held that petitioners are guilty of Section 77 of the Revised Forestry Code, specifically, of violating the second offense under this provision. 44 All the elements have been duly proven by the prosecution.
First, it is beyond reasonable doubt that the flitches of wood in petitioners' possession had no proper permits, license, and documents required by law. 45 The unrebutted 46 testimony of prosecution witness SPO3 Rabang establishes this fact. In addition, nowhere in the proceedings before the Regional Trial Court did petitioners present any permit, license, or document that would effectively assail SPO3 Rabang's positive assertion. HSAcaE
Second, petitioners had both actual and constructive possession of the flitches of wood. When SPO3 Rabang accosted petitioners, they had physical (actual) possession, and were exercising dominion and control (constructive possession) over the forest products. 47
Violation of Section 77 of the Revised Forestry Code is punished with the penalty under the Revised Penal Code provision on theft. 48 Specifically, Article 309 (1) 49 of the Revised Penal Code provides for the penalty of prision mayor minimum and medium, in the maximum term, if the value of the thing exceeds P22,000.00. Article 309 (1) also adds one (1) year for every P10,000.00 in excess of P22,000.00, but in no case shall the total exceed 20 years.
The 81 flitches of wood were valued at P150,633.00. 50 This amount, subtracted by P22,000.00, and then divided by P10,000 51 yields to 12 years more to be added 52 to the basic penalty of prision mayor minimum and medium, in the maximum term. Thus:
P150,633.00 - P22,000.00 = P128,633.00
P128,633.00/P10,000.00 = 12.36 = 12 years
The penalty of prision mayor minimum and medium, in its maximum term, is eight (8) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day to 10 years. 53 This number of years plus 12 years would exceed the cap of 20 years set by law. As Article 309 limits the maximum penalty to 20 years, the imposable penalty is then 20 years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court of Appeals correctly took the minimum imposable penalty within the range of the penalty next lower in degree. 54 The penalty next lower in degree to the minimum imposable penalty of prision mayor maximum and minimum is prision correccional medium and maximum. The range of prision correccional medium and maximum is two (2) years, four (4) months, and (1) one (1) day to six (6) years. 55
Thus, the Court of Appeals did not err in imposing the indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day to three (3) years, six (6) months, and 20 days of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods as minimum, to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated December 29, 2015 and Resolution dated March 29, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 36098, which affirmed with modification the Decision dated March 4, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court, are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 12-27. The Petition was filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
2.Id. at 70-85. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Romeo F. Barza and Agnes Reyes-Carpio of the First Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3.Id. at 94-96. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Romeo F. Barza and Agnes Reyes-Carpio of the First Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
4.Id. at 71, Court of Appeals Decision.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 48, Regional Trial Court Decision.
8.Id. at 71.
9.Id. at 71-72.
10.Id. at 44.
11.Id. at 72.
12.Id. at 102, Comment.
13.Id. at 72.
14.Id.
15.Id. at 83.
16.Id. at 72.
17.Id.
18.Id. at 46.
19.Id. at 44.
20.Id.
21.Id. at 72.
22.Id.
23.Id.
24.Id. at 72-75.
25.Id. at 44-52. The Decision was penned by Acting Presiding Judge Jose C. Sarcilla of Branch 32, Regional Trial Court, Pili, Camarines Sur.
26.Id. at 76.
27.Id. at 52.
28.Id. at 70-85.
29.Id. at 84-85.
30.Id. at 94-96.
31.Id. at 12-27.
32.Id. at 98.
33.Id. at 99-115.
34.Id. at 109-111.
35.Id. at 111-112.
36.Monge v. People, 571 Phil. 472, 479 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
37. 672 Phil. 155 (2011) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].
38.Id. at 170.
39.Monge v. People, 571 Phil. 472, 478 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
40.Id.
41.Villarin v. People, 672 Phil. 155, 174 (2011) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].
42.Id.
43.Id.
44.Rollo, pp. 77-78.
45.Id. at 81.
46.Id. at 79.
47.Id. at 81.
48. Pres. Decree No. 705 (1975), sec. 77 provides:
SECTION 77. Unlawful Possession of Implements and Devices Used by Forest Officers. — Imprisonment for a period of not less than (2) nor more than four (4) years and a fine of not less than one thousand pesos (P1,000.00), nor more than ten thousand (P10,000.00) pesos in addition to the confiscation of such implements and devices, and the automatic cancellation of the license agreement, lease, license or permit, if the offender is a holder thereof, shall be imposed upon any person who shall, without authority from the Director or his authorized representative, make, manufacture, or has in his possession any government marking, hatchet or other marking implement, or any marker, poster, or other devices officially used by officers of the Bureau for the marking or identification of timber or other products, or any duplicate, counterfeit, or imitation thereof, or make or apply a government mark on timber or any other forest products by means of any authentic or counterfeit device, or alter, deface, or remove government marks or signs, from trees, logs, stumps, firewoods or other forest products, or destroy, deface, remove or disfigure any such mark, sign, poster or warning notices set by the Bureau to designate the boundaries of cutting areas, municipal or city forest or pasture, classified timber land, forest reserve, and areas under the national park system or to make any false mark or imitation of any mark or sign herein indicated; Provided, That if the offender is a corporation, partnership or association, the officers and directors thereof shall be liable.
49. REV. PEN. CODE, art. 309 provides:
Article 309. Penalties. — Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by:
1. The penalty of prisión 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 [P22,000], the penalty shall be the maximum period of the one prescribed in this paragraph, and one year for each additional ten thousand pesos [P10,000], but the total of the penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. . .
50. Rollo, p. 46.
51. Disregarding any amount less than P10,000.
52. REV. PEN. CODE, art. 309.
53. See People v. Cristobal, 662 Phil. 164 (2011) [Per J. Bersamin, Third Division].
54. Rollo, p. 84.
55. Gonzaga v. People, G.R. No. 195671, January 21, 2015 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2015/january2015/195671.pdf> [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].