People v. Telen
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Police officers, while on patrol, noticed a cargo truck loaded with lumber. Upon chasing and intercepting the truck, the driver, Benito Genol, admitted to not having the required documents for the lumber. Genol stated that the lumber belonged to appellant Pastor Telen and identified the truck's owner. The lumber was inspected by forest rangers and found to be 41 pieces of Dita and 10 pieces of Antipolo lumber, totaling 1,560.16 board feet. Procedural History: Pastor Telen and his co-accused were charged with violation of Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705. They pleaded not guilty. The trial court convicted Pastor Telen and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, while acquitting Alfonso Dator and Benito Genol. The confiscated lumber was ordered confiscated and sold at public auction. The Petition: The accused-appellant, Pastor Telen, appealed the decision, assigning errors concerning his conviction, the penalty imposed, and the valuation of the confiscated lumber.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 68, P.D. 705, as amended. Whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed, considering the established value of the confiscated lumber.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court with modification, sentencing appellant Pastor Telen to six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of guilt for violation of Section 68, P.D. 705: The Court held that the fact of possession by the appellant of the assorted lumber and his subsequent failure to produce the required legal documents from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) constitute criminal liability for violation of Presidential Decree No. 705. The Court emphasized that the crime is considered mala prohibita, meaning the mere act of violating the law is punishable, and the motive or intention of the appellant is immaterial. The Court found that the appellant's claim of verbal permission from an officer-in-charge of the DENR was insufficient to overcome the established fact of his lack of legal documents. Furthermore, the Court noted that the appellant did not exert efforts to corroborate his claim by presenting the said officer as a witness during the trial. The Court also clarified that even if the lumber came from planted trees on private land, a certification from the CENRO concerned that the forest products came from a titled land or tax declared alienable and disposable land must still accompany the shipment, which the appellant failed to provide. On the issue of the penalty imposed: The Court found the appellant's contention regarding the penalty to be untenable. While the trial court imposed reclusion perpetua, the Supreme Court clarified that the penalty for violation of Section 68 of P.D. 705 is based on Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court noted that the prosecution failed to adduce conclusive evidence on the value of the lumber, which is essential for determining the penalty under the said articles. In the absence of definitive proof of value, and considering the attendant circumstances such as the appellant being a janitor and the lumber being for house renovation, the Court applied the minimum amount under Article 309, paragraph (6) of the Revised Penal Code, which pertains to simple theft with a value of P5.00, carrying a penalty of arresto mayor. However, since the violation of Section 68 of P.D. 705 is punished as qualified theft under Article 310, the penalty is increased by two degrees. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court modified the penalty to six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.
Main Doctrine
Possession of timber or other forest products without the legal documents required under existing forest laws and regulations constitutes a violation of Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705, and the motive or intention of the possessor is immaterial as the crime is considered mala prohibita.