FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243925. December 2, 2021.]
STEVE WANKEY y MAYOMIS, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 2, 2021which reads as follows: HEITAD
"G.R. No. 243925 (Steve Wankey y Mayomis, petitioner, v. People of the Philippines, respondent).
This is an Appeal by Certiorari1 of the June 29, 2018 Decision 2 and December 17, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 40038, whereby the CA affirmed the finding of the Regional Trial Court of La Trinidad, Benguet, Branch 10 (RTC) that Steve Wankey y Mayomis (petitioner) is guilty of illegal possession and transportation of timber, and modified the penalty to imprisonment for four years, two months, and one day of prision correccional as minimum, to nine years, and five months of prision mayor as maximum, in view of the enactment of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10951.
Antecedents
An information was filed charging petitioner, Jerry T. Calias (Calias), and Rogelio A. Almora (Almora; collectively, the accused) of violating Section 77 4 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 705, otherwise known as the Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines, as amended, 5 the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about the 5th day of November 2005, along Halsema Highway, Shilan, Municipality of La Trinidad, Province of Benguet, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding one another, without any lawful permit or authority whatsoever granted by competent authority to them, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly possess, control and transport Benguet pine lumber having a total volume of 1,976 board feet with total market value of FIFTY FIVE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED TWENTY EIGHT PESOS (P55,328.00), Philippine Currency, to the detriment and prejudice of the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, in violation of the said law. 6
When arraigned, the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. After pre-trial was terminated, trial on the merits ensued. 7
Version of the prosecution
On October 28, 2005, the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) Regional Office of the Philippine National Police received information from an informant that an Isuzu Elf truck was transporting illegally cut Benguet pinewood to be distributed in La Trinidad and Benguet. The truck, according to the informant, was traversing the Halsema Highway at that moment. Based on this information, the CIDG formed a team comprised of SPO4 Jerry Fernandez 8(SPO4 Fernandez), PO2 William Mendoza, and Police Inspector Rodolfo Villafuerte, to conduct surveillance operations in Halsema Highway. 9
On November 4, 2005, the CIDG received additional information from the same informant that there was a blue Isuzu Elf truck carrying illegal pinewood traversing the Halsema Highway. The team proceeded to the area and continued their surveillance. At around 8:30 p.m., they noticed and tried to flag down an Elf truck without license plates. The truck did not stop so the police officers gave chase and were able to halt the vehicle in front of the provincial capitol. SPO4 Fernandez approached the truck and saw petitioner in the driver's seat, with Calias and Almora on the passenger's side. When SPO4 Fernandez inquired about the absence of license plates and the contents of the truck, petitioner admitted that the truck was not registered and that the truck was loaded with cut Benguet pinewood. Petitioner failed to produce any document or permit for the lumber and pointed to Calias as its owner. The truck and the accused were brought to the CIDG office in Baguio City. 10
Consequently, the truck, together with its load of lumber, was turned over to the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) for scaling and inventory. The CENRO reported that the seized pine lumber had a total volume of 1,976 board feet with a value of P55,328.00. It also certified that no permit to cut and transport was issued by the office in connection with the seized pine lumber. 11
Version of the defense
On November 4, 2005, Almora hired petitioner's Isuzu Elf truck to haul lumber for delivery to Puguis, La Trinidad from Lower Acop, Tublay. Petitioner, in turn, hired Calias as helper. En route to Puguis, the accused were flagged down by police officers because the truck had no license plates. Petitioner explained that his license plates were confiscated and showed a temporary operator's permit issued by the Land Transportation Office to the police officers. When the police officers discovered that the truck was loaded with lumber and asked for its permit, Almora failed to show any document. The accused were then arrested and brought to the CIDG office in Baguio City. 12
The RTC Ruling
In its March 14, 2017 Decision, 13 the RTC found the accused guilty of the crime charged:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby finds Accused, ROGELIO ALMORA y ALFREDO, JERRY CALIAS y TIPAYNO and STEVE WANKEY y MAYOMIS, GUILTY, beyond reasonable doubt as principals by direct participation in the crime of Violation of Section 77 of P.D. No. 705 for illegal possession and transportation of timber. Following People v. Taopa, they are hereby ordered to suffer an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment of ten years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twenty years of reclusion temporal as maximum, and to pay the cost of the suit.
The conveyance as well as the lumber subject of this case shall be disposed of by the DENR and forfeited in favor of the government in accordance with existing laws, rules and regulations.
SO ORDERED. 14
The RTC ruled that the prosecution was able to prove the elements of the crime, and that the warrantless search and seizure conducted by the police officers were valid given that the latter had probable cause to suspect that the accused were committing an offense. The CIDG team was on a surveillance operation based on a confidential tip when it spotted an Isuzu Elf truck, the same model described by the informant, travelling without license plates. The RTC found these circumstances sufficient probable cause for the CIDG team to stop the vehicle and search the same for any contraband. 15
As to the penalty, the RTC sentenced the accused to suffer an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for 10 years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum, applying Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code 16(RPC) and the Indeterminate Sentence Law. 17
Only petitioner appealed to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In its June 29, 2018 Decision, the CA agreed with the RTC's finding of guilt, but modified the penalty:
FOR THE STATED REASONS, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court dated March 14, 2017 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION in that accused-appellant Steve Wankey y Mayomis is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to 9 years, 5 months of prision mayor, as maximum.
SO ORDERED. 18
The CA explained that P.D. No. 705 is a special law that penalizes mere possession of forest products without the proper documents; ergo, the prosecution needs only to prove petitioner's intent to possess the timber, regardless of whether it is actual or constructive. It noted how petitioner admitted in open court that they were hauling undocumented lumber with the intent to deliver it from Lower Acop to Puguis. Petitioner, as owner and driver of the Isuzu Elf truck, exercised full control over the motor vehicle loaded with undocumented pinewood. Such circumstances show that he, along with his co-accused, violated the law. 19
On the admissibility of the seized lumber, the CA agreed with the RTC that records establish that the warrantless search conducted by the police officers was valid as it was premised on a reasonable ground of suspicion which was supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to stop a vehicle to be searched, i.e., the police officers were conducting a surveillance operation on account of a verified tip when accused drove by in a truck with no license plates that matched the description of the informant. 20
Anent the penalty, the CA modified the same in light of the enactment of R.A. No. 10951. 21 It ratiocinated:
x x x [The penalty] must be modified in light of the recent enactment of R.A. No. 10951 that took effect on September 17, 2017. Although appellant committed the crime before the effectivity of R.A. No. 10951, the law expressly provides for retroactive effect when it is favorable to the accused.
Violation of Section 77 of P.D. No. 705, as amended, is penalized as qualified theft under Article 310 22 in relation to Article 309 of the [RPC]. The penalty prescribed is dependent on the value of the stolen property. Here, the stolen pine lumbers (sic) had a total volume of 1,976 board feet and was valued at P55,328.00, on the basis of the inventory and scaling conducted by the DENR, in consonance with the value contained in the Inventory and Scale Report, and Statement of Computation of Forest Charges.
With the aggregate value of the stolen lumber pegged at P55,328.00, the penalty prescribed is prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term should be taken from the penalty prescribed in its medium period, or 9 years, 4 months and 1 day to 10 years and 8 months, there being no modifying circumstances. The minimum term shall be taken from the penalty next lower in degree, i.e., prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, in any of its periods, or anywhere from 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 8 years. 23
In its December 17, 2018 Resolution, the CA denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration for being a mere rehash of his previous arguments. 24
Petitioner asks the Court to review factual findings, alleging that the judgment of the RTC and the CA were based on a misapprehension of facts. He maintains that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and that the seized pinewood were inadmissible as evidence against him for being fruits of the poisonous tree. He contends that the police officers had sufficient time, from when they first received information from the informant, to apply for a search warrant. Petitioner further alleges that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding who gave the police officers the confidential tip were contradictory and puts into doubt the regularity of the surveillance operation. Lastly, petitioner posits that he was able to prove that he had no intent to possess the lumber subject of this case as his intent was "merely to drive and earn x x x from Almora who hired his truck." 25
The Ruling of the Court
The petition must fail.
At the outset, the Court emphasizes that only questions of law are allowed in an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Factual findings of the RTC are conclusive and binding on this Court, especially when affirmed by the CA. 26 The record is bereft of any showing that the lower courts overlooked or misinterpreted facts or circumstances of weight and substance which, thus, limits this Court from reviewing such factual findings.
The offenses specified in P.D. No. 705 are malum prohibitum. Hence, mere possession of forest products without the proper documents consummates the crime, and lack of criminal intent is not a valid defense. 27 The actual possession of petitioner and his co-accused of the undocumented lumber, which petitioner admitted during trial, is undisputed. Therefore, he cannot shield himself from liability on the pretext that his intent was "merely to drive and earn x x x from Almora who hired his truck."
On the admissibility of the seized undocumented lumber, this Court has ruled that a search of a moving vehicle is an instance where a warrantless search and seizure may be conducted by peace officers. This exception is easy to understand. It is impracticable to obtain a warrant when the search is conducted on a mobile ship, on an aircraft, or in other motor vehicles since they can quickly be moved out of the locality or jurisdiction where the warrant must be sought. 28 The only issue We should determine is whether there was probable cause to justify such warrantless search and seizure. 29
Records show that petitioner, along with his co-accused, were flagged down while travelling in a truck with no license plates that matched the description given by the informant. Instead of halting the vehicle, they avoided the police officers and sped away. 30 These circumstances are sufficient to justify a reasonable belief on the part of the law enforcers that the vehicle contained objects which were instruments of some offense. 31 As such, the warrantless search and subsequent seizure of the undocumented lumber are valid, thus rendering the seized items admissible in evidence against petitioner.
On the allegation of contradictory testimonies of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the details leading to the surveillance operation, it is well to stress that what remains paramount is the witness' consistency in relating the principal elements of the crime and the positive and categorical identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the same. 32 The contradictory statements by the prosecution witnesses in this case pertain to minor details, such as the source of the information regarding the truck, which do not affect the elements of the commission of the crime. As long as the testimonies of the witnesses corroborate one another on material points, minor inconsistencies therein cannot destroy their credibility. Inconsistencies on minor details do not undermine the integrity of a prosecution witness. 33
Moreover, the lower court's determination of witness credibility will seldom be disturbed on appeal, unless significant matters have been overlooked. Reversal of these findings becomes even more inappropriate when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. 34 Again, no such significant matters are present in this case.
Finally, the Court finds the CA's modification of the penalty in accord with law and jurisprudence.
All told, no reversible error was committed by the CA in its ruling.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The June 29, 2018 Decision and December 17, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 40038 are AFFIRMEDin toto.
SO ORDERED." Lopez, M., J., no part; Dimaampao, J., designated additional member per Raffle dated November 17, 2021.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; rollo, pp. 12-31.
2.Id. at 33-46; penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez (now a Member of the Court), with Associate Justices Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, concurring.
3.Id. at 48-50.
4.Cutting, Gathering and/or Collecting Timber or Other Forest Products without License. — Any 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 existing forest laws and regulations, shall be punished with the penalties imposed under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code: x x x.
5. Republic Act No. 7161 (1991) and Executive Order No. 277 (1987).
6.Rollo, p. 78.
7. Almora absconded mid-trial, so he was tried in absentia.
8. Also referred to as SPO4 Jerry Mendoza in some parts of the rollo.
9.Rollo, pp. 34 and 79.
10.Id. at 34-35, 79.
11.Id. at 80.
12.Id. at 35, 80-81.
13.Id. at 78-87; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Emmanuel Cacho-Rasing.
14.Id. at 86-87.
15.Id. at 81-83.
16. Section 77 of P.D. No. 705 provides that illegal possession and transportation of timber shall be punished with the penalties imposed under Articles 309 (penalties for theft) and 310 (qualified theft) of the RPC.
17.Rollo, pp. 83-86.
18.Id. at 45.
19.Id. at 40-43.
20.Id. at 37-39.
21. An Act Adjusting the Amount or the Value of Property and Damage on Which a Penalty is Based, and the Fines Imposed under the Revised Penal Code, Amending for the Purpose Act No. 3815, Otherwise Known as "The Revised Penal Code," as Amended.
Section 81 of the law modified Article 309 of the RPC, thus:
Art. 309. Penalties. — Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by:
xxx xxx xxx
3. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the property stolen is more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000) but does not exceed Six hundred thousand pesos (P600,000).
22.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 article, 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 other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.
23.Rollo, pp. 43-45.
24.Id. at 48-50.
25.Id. at 19-25.
26.Ligtas v. People, 766 Phil. 750, 762-763 (2015).
27. See Villarin v. People, 672 Phil. 155, 174 (2011).
28.People v. Mariacos, 635 Phil. 315, 330 (2010).
29.Epie v. Ulat-Marredo, 547 Phil. 535, 541 (2007).
30.Rollo, pp. 38-39.
31.Epie v. Ulat-Marredo,supra note 29, 541-542.
32.People v. Gerola, 813 Phil. 1055, 1066 (2017).
33.People v. Moreno, G.R. No. 191759, March 2, 2020.
34.People v. ZZZ, G.R. No. 229209, February 12, 2020.