Momongan v. Omipon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Police officers apprehended Dionisio Golpe driving a truck loaded with illegally cut lumber. The truck and logs were impounded. A complaint was filed against Basilio Cabig, the alleged owner of the logs. Respondent Judge Rafael B. Omipon, after conducting a preliminary investigation, found a prima facie case against Cabig but ordered the release of the truck because its owner/driver, Golpe, was not charged. Procedural History: Regional Director Augustus L. Momongan of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) filed a complaint against Judge Omipon, alleging that the order releasing the truck violated Presidential Decree 705, as amended, and Administrative Order No. 59, Series of 1990. The complainant asserted that the judge had no authority to release the truck and that it should have been turned over to the DENR for disposition. The Petition: The complainant alleged that the respondent judge violated PD 705 and AO 59 by ordering the release of the truck, which should have been under the administrative jurisdiction of the DENR. The respondent judge explained that Golpe was primarily a hauler of sand and gravel and was merely requested by Cabig to transport the lumber. The judge considered Golpe's participation as lesser and potentially useful as a prosecution witness, and in the exercise of his sound discretion, ordered the release of the truck owned by Golpe, who was not charged in the complaint.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge violated Presidential Decree 705, as amended, and Administrative Order No. 59, Series of 1990, by ordering the release of the truck used in transporting illegally cut lumber. Whether the respondent judge committed a violation by not turning over the truck to the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) for appropriate disposition.
Ruling
The Court found the respondent judge's order to release the truck legally justifiable and dismissed the complaint against him. The Court held that the truck, though used in transporting illegally cut lumber, could not be confiscated and forfeited under Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code because its owner/driver, Dionisio Golpe, was not indicted in the criminal case. The Court also clarified that the administrative jurisdiction of the DENR to confiscate conveyances under PD 705 and AO 59 is distinct from the confiscation as a penalty under the Revised Penal Code and that the release of the truck by the judge did not negate the DENR's administrative authority.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the respondent judge violated PD 705 and AO 59 by ordering the release of the truck: The Court ruled that the respondent judge's order was legally justifiable. Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code provides for the forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and the instruments or tools used in its commission. However, this forfeiture cannot be done if the property belongs to a third person not liable for the offense. In this case, the truck owner/driver, Dionisio Golpe, was not indicted in the complaint filed against Basilio Cabig. Therefore, the truck could not be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government, even if Cabig were convicted. The judge, in exercising his sound discretion during the preliminary investigation, found no justification to continue holding the truck when its owner was not charged. The Court emphasized that the administrative jurisdiction of the DENR to confiscate conveyances under PD 705, Section 68-A, and AO 59, Series of 1990, is distinct from the confiscation as an additional penalty imposed upon conviction under the Revised Penal Code. The release of the truck by the judge did not render nugatory the administrative authority of the DENR Secretary, as the truck could still be seized administratively or through a reinvestigation and motion to include the owner/driver as a co-accused. On the issue of whether the respondent judge committed a violation by not turning over the truck to the CENRO: The Court found no mandatory duty on the part of the respondent judge to turn over the truck to the DENR. While Section 4 of AO 59 states that officials apprehending illegal logs and their conveyances should notify the nearest DENR field offices and turn over the items for proper action and disposition, this duty rests on the apprehending officials, in this case, the police. A period of two weeks elapsed between the seizure and the filing of the complaint, during which the police had sufficient time to turn over the truck to the DENR. The judge's role was to conduct a preliminary investigation. Therefore, the judge should not be visited with disciplinary sanction for not referring the truck to the DENR field office, as the primary responsibility for such turnover lay with the apprehending officers.
Main Doctrine
A judge's order releasing a vehicle used in transporting illegally cut lumber is legally justifiable if the owner/driver of the vehicle was not indicted, as forfeiture of the conveyance under Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code requires the owner to be liable for the offense. The administrative jurisdiction of the DENR to confiscate conveyances does not preclude a judge from exercising discretion in releasing such a vehicle during a preliminary investigation when the owner is not charged.