People v. Que
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: SPO1 Dexter Corpuz received information that a ten-wheeler truck bearing plate number PAD-548, loaded with illegally cut lumber, would pass through Ilocos Norte. Acting on this information, members of the Provincial Task Force on Illegal Logging conducted patrols. On March 8, 1994, at approximately 1:30 AM, they spotted and apprehended the described truck at Marcos Bridge. On board were the driver, Wilfredo Cacao, accused-appellant Wilson B. Que, and an unnamed person. The driver identified the accused-appellant as the owner of the truck and its cargo. Upon inspection, the cargo was found to contain coconut slabs. Accused-appellant stated that sawn lumber was inserted between the coconut slabs. When asked for supporting documents for the lumber, accused-appellant failed to present any, only showing a certification from CENRO, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan, for the legal acquisition of the coconut slabs, intended for transport to Urdaneta, Pangasinan. Accused-appellant was brought to the Provincial Task Force office, where he again admitted to the presence of sawn lumber concealed within the coconut slabs. An examination by CENRO personnel confirmed the presence of 258 pieces of tanguile lumber, with a total volume of 3,729.3 board feet, valued at P93,232.50, concealed beneath the coconut slabs. Procedural History: On June 23, 1994, accused-appellant was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Laoag for violation of Section 68 of P.D. 705, as amended by E.O. 277. The Information alleged that accused-appellant, as owner of the truck, unlawfully possessed 258 pieces of tanguile lumber without the necessary permits, licenses, or authority, with intent of gain. Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty, claiming legal acquisition of the lumber from private land timber permits (PLTP) issued to Enrica Cayosa and Elpidio Sabal, and that the lumber was payment for his hauling services. He also moved for the exclusion of the lumber as evidence, arguing it was obtained through illegal search and seizure and uncounselled extrajudicial admission. The RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering the confiscation of the lumber and the truck. Accused-appellant appealed the decision. The Petition: Accused-appellant appealed his conviction, raising three assignments of error: (1) error in convicting him under Section 68 of PD 705 as amended by EO 277, arguing that EO 277 criminalized mere possession for the first time and did not specify required documents; (2) error in admitting evidence obtained in violation of his right against unlawful searches and seizures; and (3) error in admitting evidence obtained in violation of his right to counsel during custodial investigation.
Issue(s)
Whether accused-appellant is guilty of violation of Section 68 of P.D. 705, as amended by E.O. 277, for possession of timber without legal documents. Whether the seized lumber is admissible as evidence, considering allegations of illegal search and seizure and uncounselled extrajudicial admission.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, finding accused-appellant Wilson B. Que guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 68 of P.D. 705, as amended by E.O. 277. The Court sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered the confiscation of the seized lumber and the truck. The appeal was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue (Violation of Section 68, PD 705 as amended by EO 277): The Court held that accused-appellant's possession of the 258 pieces of tanguile lumber without any documentation clearly constitutes an offense under Section 68 of P.D. 705, as amended by E.O. 277. The Court rejected the appellant's argument that he could not be convicted if the cutting was legal, explaining that Section 68 penalizes two distinct offenses: (1) cutting, gathering, collecting, and removing forest products without authority, and (2) possession of forest products without legal documents. For the second offense, mere possession without proper documents consummates the crime, making it immaterial whether the source of the lumber was legal. This is because E.O. 277 considers the mere possession of timber or other forest products without proper legal documents as malum prohibitum. The Court found that accused-appellant failed to present any certificate of origin for the tanguile lumber, only for the coconut slabs, and that the lumber was deliberately concealed within the coconut slabs, indicating knowledge of the need for documentation and an intent to evade inspection. The certification for the coconut slabs explicitly permitted the transport of only coconut slabs, not lumber. On the second issue (Admissibility of evidence): The Court ruled that the seized lumber was admissible as evidence. It applied the exception to the rule on warrantless searches concerning moving vehicles, which allows such searches when the officers have probable cause to believe that they will find evidence of a crime. In this case, the police officers had received reliable information about a specific truck (plate number PAD-548) loaded with illegal lumber. They later spotted and apprehended the described truck. The accused-appellant's admission of the presence of lumber and his failure to present supporting documents for it, despite having documents for the coconut slabs, provided sufficient probable cause to justify the extensive search of the truck without a warrant. Therefore, the 258 pieces of tanguile lumber were lawfully seized and properly admitted as evidence. The Court also noted that the issue of violation of the right to counsel during custodial investigation became unnecessary given the lawful seizure of the evidence.
Main Doctrine
Mere possession of timber or other forest products without the legal documents required under existing forest laws and regulations consummates the crime under Section 68 of PD 705, as amended by EO 277, regardless of whether the cutting, gathering, collecting, or removal of the forest products was legal. The offense is considered malum prohibitum.