People v. Villarin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Crisostomo Villarin and Aniano Latayada, along with others, were charged with violation of Section 68, Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 705, as amended by Executive Order No. 277. The charge stemmed from the alleged unlawful gathering and possession of sixty-three (63) pieces of Apitong specie flitches, totaling 4,326 board feet, valued at ₱108,150.00, without the required authority and supporting documents. The prosecution presented evidence that Latayada delivered the timber on December 31, 1995, and that Villarin, as Barangay Captain, commissioned its procurement for the repair of the Batinay bridge. The timber was subsequently seized by the DENR Strike Force Team. Procedural History: The Municipal Trial Court in Cities initially received a complaint against Latayada and others. The City Prosecutor's Office later recommended filing an Information against Villarin, Latayada, and two others, dismissing the complaint against Barangay Captain Sudaria. The Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao ordered the filing of the Information in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Villarin and co-accused filed a Motion for Reinvestigation, alleging lack of preliminary investigation and polluted sources. The RTC directed them to file the motion with the Ombudsman, which was denied. The RTC proceeded with the trial, finding Villarin, Boyatac (who died during trial), and Latayada guilty beyond reasonable doubt, while acquitting Baillo. The RTC ruled that while the motive of repairing the bridge was laudable, the forest products were obtained without necessary authority and legal documents. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision, and a subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioners sought review, raising issues concerning the denial of preliminary investigation, alleged departure from jurisprudence on proving all elements of the crime, and the imposition of penalty. They argued that Villarin was denied due process and that the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion. They also contended that the evidence was insufficient, as they lacked intent to possess the timber for personal gain and the confiscated timber was not presented in court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the preliminary investigation and the denial of reinvestigation by the Ombudsman, thereby allegedly violating petitioners' right to due process. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction despite the alleged insufficiency of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the intent to possess and the non-presentation of the confiscated timber. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the penalty imposed by the lower courts, considering circumstances that could be mitigating under the Revised Penal Code.
Ruling
The petition is unmeritorious. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, with modifications to the penalty imposed on petitioners Crisostomo Villarin and Aniano Latayada. The complaint against Cipriano Boyatac was dismissed due to his demise.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of preliminary investigation and due process: The Supreme Court held that Villarin was properly afforded his right to due process. Records indicated that Villarin and all accused participated in the preliminary investigation, had knowledge of the complaint, and were given the opportunity to submit countervailing evidence. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman in denying the motion for reconsideration, as it validly relied on the prosecutor's certification that a preliminary investigation was conducted. Furthermore, by entering a plea of not guilty and actively participating in the trial, Villarin waived his right to question the absence or irregularity of a preliminary investigation. The Court also noted that the issue of non-inclusion of Sudaria should have been raised earlier through a motion for reconsideration of the City Prosecutor's Resolution, and failure to do so estopped petitioners from assailing it on appeal. On the issue of sufficiency of evidence and corpus delicti, and the nature of the offense and criminal intent: The Supreme Court found that the prosecution discharged its burden of proving all elements of the offense charged beyond reasonable doubt. The offense under Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended, is the possession of timber or other forest products without the legal documents required by law. The Court found that petitioners were in constructive possession of the timber without the necessary legal documents, as evidenced by documentary proof (Tally Sheet, Seizure Receipts, photograph) and testimonial evidence from eyewitnesses. Villarin's admission of commissioning the procurement and Latayada's involvement in delivery further corroborated the prosecution's case. The Court clarified that corpus delicti refers to the fact of the commission of the crime, not the physical object itself, and can be established by documentary and testimonial evidence, including the accused's own admissions. The Court reiterated that violation of Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended, is a malum prohibitum offense, meaning criminal intent is not an essential element. However, the prosecution must prove the intent to possess (animus possidendi). The Court found that petitioners were involved in the procurement, delivery, and storage of the timber without proper authority, establishing constructive possession. Therefore, their contention that the possession was not for personal gain but for bridge repair was deemed inconsequential given the nature of the offense. On the proper penalty: The Court reviewed the penalty prescribed under Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended, which is based on qualified theft under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code. Given the value of the timber (₱108,150.00), the basic penalty should be prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, maximum period, plus an additional eight years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum imposable penalty should be taken from the penalty next lower in degree, which is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. The RTC and CA erroneously fixed the minimum period at twelve years of prision mayor. Thus, the Court modified the sentence to two (2) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to sixteen (16) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
Main Doctrine
Mere possession of timber without the legal documents required under forest laws and regulations makes one automatically liable for violation of Section 68, Presidential Decree No. 705, as amended. Lack of criminal intent is not a valid defense, as the offense is malum prohibitum, though the prosecution must prove intent to possess (animus possidendi).