CRISOSTOMO VILLARIN and ANIANO LATAYADA, Petitioners,- versus -PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 175289 August 31, 2011
FIRST DIVISION D E C I S I O NDEL CASTILLO, J.:
Mere possession of timber
without the legal documents required under forest laws andregulations makes one
automatically liable of violation of Section 68, Presidential Decree(P.D.) No.
705, as amended. Lack of criminal intent is not a valid defense.
FACTS:Petitioner Aniano
Latayada (Latayada) and three others namely, Barangay CaptainSudaria of Tagpangi,
CDO, Baillo and Boyatac, were charged with violation of Section 68, P.D.No. 705
as amended by Executive Order No. 277. City Prosecutor recommended to
chargeVillarin as well.
The Version of the Defense:
In response to
the clamor of the residents of Barangays Tampangan, Pigsag-an,Tuburan and
Taglinao, all in Cagayan De Oro City, Villarin, decided to repair the
impassableBatinay bridge. The project was allegedly with the concurrence of the
Barangay Council.Pressured to immediately commence the needed repairs, Villarin
commissioned Boyatac toinquire from Sudaria about the availability of timber
without first informing the City Engineer.Sudaria asked for the specifications
which Villarin gave. Villarin then asked Baillo and Boyatacto attend to the
same. When the timber was already available, it was transported fromTagpangi to
Batinay. However, the timber flitches were seized by the DENR Strike Force
Teamand taken to its office where they were received by Vera Cruz, the security
guard on duty. RTCfound them guilty. CA affirmed.
ISSUE: WON mere possession
of timber without criminal intent is punishable.
HELD:"There are two
distinct and separate offenses punished under Section 68 of P.D.No. 705, to
wit:(1) Cutting, gathering, collecting and removing timber or other forest
productsfrom any forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public
land, or fromprivate land without any authorization; and(2) Possession of
timber or other forest products without the legal documentsrequired under
existing forest laws and regulations."The Information charged petitioners
with the second offense which isconsummated by the mere possession of forest
products without the proper documents.As a special law, the nature of the
offense is malum prohibitum and as such, criminal intent isnot an essential
element. "However, the prosecution must prove that petitioners had
theintent to possess (animus possidendi)" the timber. "Possession,
under the law, includes notonly 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
andcontrol of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and
control over theplace where it is found."There is no dispute that
petitioners were in constructive possession of the timberwithout the requisite
legal documents. Villarin and Latayada were personally involved in
itsprocurement, 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
therepair of said bridge is, therefore, inconsequential.
