Villarin and Latayada vs People

Aug 31, 2011

FACTS:
Petitioners Latayada and 3 others (Brgy Capt Sudaria, Bailo and Boyatac were charged with
violation of Sec 68 of PD 705.
The Office of the City Prosecutor, CDO City, included Crisostomo Villarin (Villarin), then Barangay
Captain of Pagalungan, Cagayan de Oro City in the complaint. The dismissal of the complaint
against Sudaria was likewise recommended.
Alleged in the information is that the petitioners on or about January 13, 1996, in Pagalungan,
Cagayan de Oro City, confederating and mutually helping one another, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously gathered and possessed sixty-three (63) pieces flitches of varying sizes belonging to
the Apitong specie without any authority and supporting documents as required under existing
forest laws and regulation to the damage and prejudice of the government.
Petitioners filed for a Motion for Reinvestigation with the OMB, but was denied.
-

They alleged that the Joint Affidavit 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.

The RTC proceeded with the arraignment.

Petitioners Defense:
-

Petitioners contend that they decided to repair the impassable Pagalungan bridge
due to the clamor of the residents of Brgys. Tampangan, Pigsag-an, Tuburan, and Taglinao.
The project was allegedly with concurrence of the Brgy, Council.

Villarin commissioned Boyatac to inquire from Sudaria about the availability of timber
without first informing the City Engineer. 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.

RTCs RULING
-

RTC found Villarin, Boyatac (deceased), and Latayada guilty beyond reasonable doubt for
violation of Sec. 68 of RFC.

Baillo was acquitted for lack of evidence.

RTC was not impressed by the lame excuse of Petitioners. The fact remains though that
the said forest products were obtained without the necessary authority and legal
documents required under existing forest laws and regulations

CA affirmed RTCs ruling en toto.

ISSUES:
1. WoN the evidence presented by the respondents were insufficient to prove their guilt
beyond reasonable doubt
2. WoN possession of timber without intent is punishable
HELD:
1. YES. 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.
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.
Corpus 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" 5 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."
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 convict
Hence, guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Yes.
Mere possession of forest products without the proper
punishable under par. 2 sec. 68 of the Revised Forestry Code.

documents

is

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. "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."
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.

Ruzol v. Sandiganbayan
April 17, 2013
Velasco, Jr., J.
Ish Guidote
Local Government
FACTS:

Leovegildo R. Ruzol was the mayor of General Nakar, Quezon from 2001 to 2004.
Earlier in his term, he organized a Multi-Sectoral Consultative Assembly composed of
civil society groups, public officials and concerned stakeholders with the end in view of
regulating and monitoring the transportation of salvaged forest products within the
vicinity of General Nakar.
At the organizational meeting for the assembly, the participants agreed that to regulate
the salvaged forests products, the Office of the Mayor, through Ruzol, shall issue
a permit to transport after payment of the corresponding fees to the municipal
treasurer.
From 2001 to 2004, two hundred twenty-one (221) permits to transport salvaged forest
products were issued to various recipients, of which forty-three (43) bore the signature of
Ruzol while the remaining one hundred seventy-eight (178) were signed by his coaccused Guillermo T. Sabiduria (Sabiduria), then municipal administrator of General
Nakar.
221 Informations for violation of Art. 177 of the RPC or for Usurpation of Authority or
Official Functions were filed against Ruzol and Sabiduria.
o Claimed that the authority to issue such permits belonged to the DENR and has not
been devolved to the Local Government. Ruzols issuance of the subject permits
constitutes usurpation of the official functions of the DENR.
Ruzols defense:
o As Chief Executive of the municipality of General Nakar, Quezon, he is authorized
to issue permits to transport forest products pursuant to RA 7160 which give the
LGU not only express powers but also those powers that are necessarily implied
from the powers expressly granted as well as those that are necessary, appropriate
or incidental to the LGUs efficient and effective governance.
Invoked the General Welfare Clause (16, LGC)
o RA 7160 has devolved certain functions and responsibilities of the DENR to the
LGU. And the permits to transport were issued pursuant to the devolved function to
manage and control communal forests with an area not exceeding fifty (50) square
kilometers.
o Under (a) Section 5, Article X of the Constitution, (b) Section 129, Chapter I, Title
One Book II of R.A. 7160, and (c) Section 186, Article Five, Chapter 5, Tile One,
Book II of R.A. 7160, the municipality is granted the power to create its own
sources of revenue and to levy fees in accordance therewith.
o The only kind of document the DENR issues relating to log, timber or lumber is
denominated Certificate of Timber Origin or CTO for logs and Certificate of
Lumber Origin or CLO for lumber.
o No proof of conspiracy between the two accused.
o The DENR directly sanctioned and expressly authorized the issuance of the 221
Transport permits through the Provincial Environment and natural Resources officer
Rogelio Delgado Sr., in a Multi-Sectoral Consultative Assembly.
Sandiganbayan: Acquitted Sabiduria but found Ruzol guilty as charged.
o Cited 5, PD 705 (Forestry Code): [The DENR] shall be responsible for the
protection, development, management, regeneration, and reforestation of forest
lands; the regulation and supervision of the operation of licensees, lessees and
permittees for the taking or use of forest products therefrom or the occupancy or
use thereof

o
o

Likewise invoked EO 192 (Reorganizing the DENR).

Finally, citing RA 7160, determined that since the authority relative to salvaged
forest products was not included in the above enumeration of devolved functions,
the correlative authority to issue transport permits remains with the DENR, and
thus cannot be exercised by the LGUs.

ISSUES/HELD:
1. WoN the authority to monitor and regulate the transportation of salvaged forest product
is solely with the DENR, and no one else. (NO)
2. WoN the permits to transport issued by Ruzol are valid. (NO)
3. WoN Ruzol is guilty of usurpation of official functions. (NO)
RATIO:
1. The LGU also has, under the LGC of 1991, ample authority to promulgate rules,
regulations and ordinances to monitor and regulate salvaged forest products,
provided that the parameters set forth by law for their enactment have been
faithfully complied with.
While the DENR is, indeed, the primary government instrumentality charged with the
mandate of promulgating rules and regulations for the protection of the environment and
conservation of natural resources, it is not the only government instrumentality clothed
with such authority.
While the law has designated DENR as the primary agency tasked to protect the
environment, it was not the intention of the law to arrogate unto the DENR the exclusive
prerogative of exercising this function. Whether in ordinary or in legal parlance, the word
primary can never be taken to be synonymous with sole or exclusive.
The General Welfare Clause of the LGC states:

Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessaril
implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for it
efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of th
general welfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local government units sha
ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promot
health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage an
support the development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities
improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice, promote full employmen
among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience o
their inhabitants.

Pursuant to the aforequoted provision, municipal governments are clothed with authority
to enact such ordinances and issue such regulations as may be necessary to carry out
and discharge the responsibilities conferred upon them by law, and such as shall be
necessary and proper to provide for the health, safety, comfort and convenience,
maintain peace and order, improve public morals, promote the prosperity and general
welfare of the municipality and its inhabitants, and ensure the protection of property in
the municipality.
There is a clear merit to the view that the monitoring and regulation of salvaged forest
products through the issuance of appropriate permits is a shared responsibility which
may be done either by DENR or by the LGUs or by both.
o DAO 1992-30: LGUs shall share with the national government, particularly
the DENR, the responsibility in the sustainable management and
development of the environment and natural resources within their
territorial jurisdiction.

2. The Permits to Transport issued by Ruzol are invalid for his failure to comply with
the procedural requirements set forth by law for its enforcement.
Ruzol insists that the permits partake of the nature of transport fees levied by the
municipality for the use of public roads.
Ruzol is correct to a point.
o Nevertheless, We find that an enabling ordinance is necessary to confer the subject
permits with validity.
o As correctly held by the Sandiganbayan, the power to levy fees or charges under
the LGC is exercised by the Sangguniang Bayan through the enactment of an
appropriate ordinance wherein the terms, conditions and rates of the fees are
prescribed.
Although We recognize the LGUs authority in the management and control of communal
forests within its territorial jurisdiction, We reiterate that this authority should be
exercised and enforced in accordance with the procedural parameters established by law
for its effective and efficient execution.
17, LGC provides that the LGUs authority to manage and control communal forests
should be pursuant to national policies and is subject to supervision, control and review
of DENR.
Before an area may be considered a communal forest, the following requirements must
be accomplished: (1) an identification of potential communal forest areas within the
geographic jurisdiction of the concerned city/municipality; (2) a forest land use
plan which shall indicate, among other things, the site and location of the communal
forests; (3) a request to the DENR Secretary through a resolution passed by the
Sangguniang Bayan concerned; and (4) an administrative order issued by DENR
Secretary declaring the identified area as a communal forest.
In the present case, the records are bereft of any showing that these requirements were
complied with.
3. Razols guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Art. 177 of the RPC provides:

Usurpation of authority or official functions. Any person who shall knowingly and falsel
represent himself to be an officer, agent or representative of any department or agency of th
Philippine Government or of any foreign government, or who, under pretense of official position
shall perform any act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the Philippin
Government or any foreign government, or any agency thereof, without being lawfully entitled t
do so, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.

There are two ways of committing the crime:

o First, by knowingly and falsely representing himself to be an officer, agent or
representative of any department or agency of the Philippine Government or of any
foreign government. (Usurpation of authority)
o Second, under pretense of official position, shall perform any act pertaining to any
person in authority or public officer of the Philippine Government or any foreign
government, or any agency thereof, without being lawfully entitled to do so.
(Usurpation of official functions)
In the present case, Ruzol stands accused of usurpation of official functions for
issuing 221 permits to transport salvaged forest products under the alleged pretense
of official position and without being lawfully entitled to do so, such authority properly
belonging to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
However, contrary to the ruling of the Sandiganbayan, We find that a careful scrutiny of
the events surrounding this case failed to prove that Ruzol is guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of committing the crime of usurpation of official functions of the DENR.
o We note that this case of usurpation against Ruzol rests principally on the
prosecutions theory that the DENR is the only government instrumentality that can
issue the permits to transport salvaged forest products.

But erstwhile discussed at length, the DENR is not the sole government agency
vested with the authority to issue permits relevant to the transportation of
salvaged forest products, considering that, pursuant to the general welfare clause,
LGUs may also exercise such authority.
Moreover, Ruzol acted in good faith.
o The conduct of a public consultation was a sign supporting Ruzols good intentions
to regulate and monitor the movement of salvaged forest products to prevent
abuse and occurrence of untoward illegal logging.
o

DISPOSITION: Acquitted.

DENR vs DARAMAN
G.R. No. 125797, Feb 15, 2002
FACTS:
Daraman and Narciso Lucenecio are charged with violation of Section 68 of Presidential Decree
No. 705 as amended by Executive Order No. 277 for having wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
gathered, collected and possessed seventy two (72) pieces of assorted sizes of lumber on or
about the 30th day of November, 1993 at about 1:00 oclock in the afternoon, at Barangay
Bulao, Municipality of San Jorge, Province of Samar.
On November 30, 1993, Pablo Opinion, DENRs Forest Ranger, stopped a vehicle driven by
Gregorio Daraman which contained 62 pcs of lumber of assorted sizes and wood shavings
inside. Daraman informed him that the vehicle was owned by his employer, Narciso Lucenecio of
the Holy Cross Funeral Services in Calbayog City. Daraman told Opinion that he and his
companions went to Brgy. Blanca Aurora to secure some wood shavings (for cushion in the
coffin) from the furniture shop owned by Asan and in exchange for this, Asan merely asked him
a favor of loading his assorted lumbers in the vehicle to be brought to his (Asans) house in
Barangay Abrero, Calbayog City. Daraman failed to present the documents for the assorted
lumber, stating that Asan adviced him to reply, when asked, that the papers showing the
authorization for the lumber were in the formers shop in Barangay Blanca Aurora. Pablo
Opinion, however, did not take his word and he instead impounded the vehicle together with the
assorted lumber.
DENR-Community and Environment and Natural Resources Office (DENR-CENRO) of Catbalogan,
Samar conducted administrative confiscation proceedings on the seized lumber and vehicle in
the presence of private respondents. Daraman and Lucenecio failed to present documents to
show the legality of their possession and transportation of the lumber seized. Hence, CENRO
Officer Marciano T. Talavera recommended to the Regional Executive Director (RED) the final
confiscation of the seized lumber and conveyance.
RTCs ruling:
RTC acquitted both accused for insufficiency of evidence and considered that the vehicle was an
effect of the crime and hence, ordered its delivery to Daraman.
-

The prosecution failed to sufficiently establish that accused Gregorio Daraman had taken
or kept control of the lumber subject of the motion which would thereby demonstrate that
he had possession of the subject forest products. Instead, as established by the evidence
it was a certain Asan who owned the subject lumber.
It ruled that the Motion for Reconsideration was untenable on procedural and substantive
grounds. Since Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Feliciano Aguilar did not sign the Motion,
the RTC deemed his silence a sign of his disapproval of the Motion.
Sec. 68-1 of P.D. 705 contemplates a situation where the owner of the vehicle is himself a
violator of P.D. 705 or has been found to have conspired with any other persons who
committed the violation of Sec. 68 of P.D. 705 or consented to the use of his vehicle in
violating the said law. In the present case as shown by the evidence, neither the Holy
Cross Funeral Parlor or its owner accused Narciso Lucenecio has committed a violation of
P.D. 705 nor the driver, Daraman.
The decision has not been appealed.

Petitioners Contentions:

The RTC overstepped its jurisdiction when it ordered the return of the disputed
vehicle, because the vehicle had already become government property by virtue of the
forfeiture Order issued by DENR on January 26, 1994. The DENR secretary or his duly
authorized representative, under Section 68-A of PD 705 as amended by EO 277, may
order the confiscation and disposition of all conveyances -- by land, water or air -- used in
illegally cutting, gathering, removing, possessing or abandoning forest product
Petitioner alleges that the RTC misinterpreted the law when it held that Section 68-A,
PD 705 contemplated a situation in which the very owner of the vehicle was the
violator or was a conspirator with other violators of that law. Department Order
No. 54, Series of 1993, provides that the proceedings for the confiscation and the
forfeiture of the conveyance shall be directed against its owner, and that lack of
knowledge of its illegal use shall not bar its forfeiture.

ISSUES:
1. WoN the RTC had jurisdiction to release the confiscated vehicle
2. WoN the trial court misconstrued PD 705, as amended
3. WoN the release of the vehicle to private respondents would defeat the purpose and
undermine the implementation of forestry laws
HELD:
1. No. Jurisdiction is conferred by substantive law. The jurisdiction of the RTC covers the
confiscation of the timber or forest products as well as the machinery,
equipment, implements and tools illegally used in the area where the timber or
forest products are found while it is the DENR that has jurisdiction over the
confiscation of forest products and, to stress, all conveyances used in the
commission of the offense. Section 68 reads:
"Section 68. 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.
"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."
Section 68-A, in contrast, provides:
"SEC. 68-A. Administrative Authority of the Department Head or His Duly
Authorized Representative to Order Confiscation. -- In all cases of violations of this
Code or other forest laws rules and regulations, the Department Head or his duly
authorized representative, may order the confiscation of any forest products
illegally cut, gathered, removed, or possessed or abandoned, and all conveyances
used either by land, water or air in the commission of the offense and to dispose of
the same in accordance with pertinent laws, regulations or policies on the matter."
Machinery is a collective term for machines and appliances used in the industrial arts;
equipment covers physical facilities available for production, including buildings,
machineries and tools; and implements pertains to whatever may supply a want,
especially an instrument, tool or utensil. These terms do not include

conveyances that are specifically covered by Section 68-A. The implementing

guidelines of Section 68-A define conveyance in a manner that includes "any type or class
of vehicle, craft, whether motorized or not, used either in land, water or air, or a
combination thereof or any mode of transport used in the movement of any forest
product."20
2. Yes. The court affirms petitioners allegation that the RTC misinterpreted the law when
it held that Section 68-A, PD 705 contemplated a situation in which the very owner of
the vehicle was the violator or was a conspirator with other violators of that
law. Department Order No. 54, Series of 1993, provides that the proceedings for the
confiscation and the forfeiture of the conveyance shall be directed against its owner, and
that lack of knowledge of its illegal use shall not bar its forfeiture.
The guilt or the innocence of the accused in the criminal case is immaterial, because
what is punished under Section 68 is the transportation, movement or conveyance of
forest products without legal documents. The DENR secretary or the authorized
representatives do not possess criminal jurisdiction; thus, they are not capable
of making such a ruling, which is properly a function of the courts.
3. Yes. The preamble of the amendment in EO 277 underscores the urgency to conserve the
remaining forest resources of the country for the benefit of the present and future
generations. Our forest resources may be effectively conserved and protected
only through the vigilant enforcement and implementation of our forestry
laws. Strong paramount public policy should not be degraded by narrow
constructions of the law that frustrate its clear intent or unreasonably restrict
its scope.