SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 181111. August 17, 2015.]

JACKSON PADIERNOS y QUEJADA, JACKIE ROXAS y GERMAN and

ROLANDO MESINA y JAVATE , petitioners, vs . PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES , respondent.

DECISION

BRION , J : p

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari led by petitioners Jackson
Padiernos y Quejada (Padiernos), Jackie Roxas y German (Roxas) and Rolando Mesina
y Javate (Mesina). The petitioners seek the reversal of the Court of Appeals' (CA)
decision 1 dated May 10, 2007 and resolution 2 dated December 20, 2007 in CA-G.R. CR
No. 28920. The assailed CA rulings a rmed with modi cation the decision of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 66, Baler, Aurora in Criminal Case No. 3122.
The petitioners were charged as accessories to the crime of illegal possession
of lumber, in violation of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 705 or the Forestry Reform
Code of the Philippines. According to the Information, the petitioners took away the
truck that carried the lumber to prevent its use as evidence and to avoid its
confiscation and forfeiture. The Information specifically states as follows:
That at about 6:00 o'clock in the morning on November 15, 2002, in
Caragsacan, Dingalan, Aurora, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the aforesaid principals, confederating together and mutually helping one
another, did then and there, unlawfully, feloniously and willfully have in their
possession and control 818 pieces of lumber with a total volume of 10,253
board feet and valued at P133,289.00 loaded on a ten-wheeler truck with Plate
No. TFZ-747 and owned by the accused Santiago Castillo y Cruz without any
permit, license or documents from the proper authority and that at about
3:00 o'clock in the afternoon on the following day, November 16,
2002, the aforesaid accessories, confederating together and mutually
helping one another, did then and there unlawfully, feloniously and
willfully take and carry away the aforementioned ten wheeler truck
with Plate No. TFZ-747 so it could not be used as evidence and avoid
con scation and forfeiture in favor of the government as tool or
instrument of the crime. [emphasis and italics supplied] CAIHTE

CONTRARY TO LAW.
Accused Santiago Castillo (Santiago), Frederico Castillo (Frederico), and Roger
Mostera (Mostera) remain at large; accused Eddie Gatdula (Gatdula) pleaded not guilty
as principal to the crime; while petitioners Padiernos, Mesina, and Roxas pleaded
not guilty as accessories to the crime.
Prosecution's evidence
The presented evidence of the prosecution shows that on November 15, 2002,
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources O cer (DENRO) Felimon Balico
(Balico) approached a truck loaded with lumber, which was parked at a national
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 highway in Dingalan, Aurora (Dingalan). 3 The truck bore the name "JEROME" with Plate
No. TFZ-747. Balico requested from the truck driver, Frederico, and the truck helper,
Mostera, the lumber's supporting documents but they failed to produce any.
Balico reported the matter to SPO4 Ramil Gamboa (Gamboa) and SPO4 Romulo
Derit. Thereafter, he proceeded to the DENR o ce to report the incident. Some of the
DENROs represented that the transportation of the seized lumber had the required
permit but they, too, failed to produce any supporting document.
The DENRO group — composed of Balico, Tarcila Vivero (Vivero) and Rodolfo
Tumagan (Tumagan) — and the policemen, Gamboa and Romulo Derit, guarded the
truck loaded with lumber. 4
The DENRO group decided to transfer the truck and the lumber to the police
station at Poblacion. They transferred the lumber rst from November 15 to November
16, 2002, and left the truck at the national highway in Dingalan, guarded by the DENROs
and some police officers. 5
On November 16, 2002, accused Gatdula, Santiago, and petitioners Mesina,
Roxas, and Padiernos arrived at the place where the truck was being held in custody. 6
Santiago, who claimed ownership of the truck, 7 agreed with the DENROs and the
police o cers to bring the truck to the police station. Santiago gave the truck key to
Mesina who volunteered to drive the truck; while Padiernos asked Balico where the
seized lumbers were. 8
Mesina started the engine and Roxas, Santiago, and Padiernos immediately got
on board at the front of the truck. The DENRO group also got on board at the back of
the truck. SPO2 Renato Mendoza (Mendoza) and his companion, PO1 John Fajardo
(Fajardo) follow on a motorcycle.
Since the truck was then parked opposite the direction to the police station,
Balico thought that Mesina would maneuver the truck so that they could proceed to the
police station. To their surprise, Mesina increased the truck's speed and headed
towards the direction of Nueva Ecija, leaving behind their two policemen escorts 9 who
chased the truck and fired three warning shots. 10
As the truck sped faster, Balico yelled "Saklolo! Saklolo!" but the truck maintained
its speed. SPO2 Mendoza corroborated this testimony; he and Fajardo saw the three
DENROs waving but could not hear what they were saying.
When the truck had exited Dingalan, SPO2 Mendoza and Fajardo decided not to
pursue the truck anymore and simply reported the incident to the Philippine Army
stationed at Brgy. Tanawan.
The Philippine Army blocked the road with a 50-caliber machine gun and agged
down the truck at Brgy. Bagting, Gabaldon, Nueva Ecija. 11
As the truck passengers alighted, petitioner Padiernos uttered bad words to
them, saying that they had no right to apprehend the truck and the lumber. 12
Police o cers Gamboa, Joemar Balmores, Sagudang, Fajardo, and Mendoza 13
immediately proceeded to Brgy. Bagting where they found the DENRO group,
Padiernos, and Roxas. The DENROs and the policemen proceeded back to Dingalan,
with police officer Gamboa driving the truck to the police station compound.
Evidence for the defense
Mesina testi ed that on November 16, 2002, he was watching television with his
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 wife and children when his former employer, Santiago, arrived and asked him to bring
the latter's truck to Cabanatuan City. He refused Santiago's request because he knew
that the truck had been engaged in illegal activities; particularly, the truck had been
previously loaded with lumber that were confiscated. 14
Santiago insisted and assured him that he would take care of everything and that
there was really no problem with the truck. Mesina nally agreed and rode in Santiago's
car. Santiago asked him to fetch Roxas to accompany them. 15
Roxas was resting in his house when Santiago and Mesina arrived. Santiago
asked Roxas if he could drive his truck to Cabanatuan City. 16 Roxas refused because
he had already heard of the truck's apprehension, 17 but he nally relented after
Santiago assured him that there was no problem with the truck. They proceeded to
Caragsacan, Dingalan where the truck was parked. 18 On cross-examination, Roxas
testi ed that he knew very well that the vehicle was a "hot" truck but he relied on
Santiago's claim that the problem already been settled. 19
On their way to Caragsacan, Dingalan, they saw Padiernos at the waiting shed of
Aplayang Malaki, Dingalan. 20 According to Padiernos, he had been waiting for a ride to
Cabanatuan City from 12:30 to 1:30 p.m. but only Santiago's group came by. 21
Padiernos hitched a ride with them after learning that they would bring Santiago's truck
to Cabanatuan City. 22 Padiernos testi ed that he only learned where the truck was
parked when they reached Caragsacan. 23
On reaching the place where the truck was parked, they all alighted from the car
and walked towards the back of the truck; Padiernos crossed the street. Mesina saw
Santiago talk to DENRO Tumagan and several other persons for about 25 to 30
minutes. 24 DETACa

Thereafter, Santiago handed the truck keys to Mesina. 25 Padiernos seated

himself in the front cab of the truck with Santiago and Roxas, while Mesina took the
driver's seat. 26 Mesina drove the car towards Cabanatuan City upon Santiago's
instruction. 27
The petitioners unanimously testi ed that they did not hear people shouting or
tapping on the truck to stop them. 28 They also did not notice any motorcycle following
them as the truck's side mirrors were broken. They did not reach Cabanatuan City
because the Philippine Army flagged them down. 29
After the incident, Padiernos boarded a jeepney bound for Cabanatuan City while
Roxas and Mesina boarded a jeepney bound for Dingalan. 30
The RTC's ruling
The RTC convicted petitioners Padiernos, Mesina and Roxas as accessories to
the crime of violation of P.D. 705. 31
The RTC ruled that the petitioners had a common design to take away
the truck that earlier had been used in violating P.D. No. 705 or the Forestry
Reform Code. 32
The RTC found that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were
categorical, straightforward, and consistent; they had no improper motive to testify
falsely against the petitioners. 33 Thus, the RTC disregarded the petitioners' defense
that they did not intentionally take away the truck. 34
The RTC also found that the petitioners' testimonies and admissions established
their prior knowledge that the truck had been previously con scated for illegal
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 transport of forest products. This explains the reluctance of Mesina and Roxas to go
with Santiago in getting the truck. 35
The RTC further ruled that Padiernos' defense of denial fails in view of Balico's
testimony that Padiernos gave the DENROs a "tongue-lashing" as they had no
right to apprehend the truck and its cargo . 36 Padiernos' knowledge of the status
of the truck is also undeniable as he admitted his familiarity with the townsfolk of
Dingalan and its rampant problem of illegal transport of forest products. The RTC
concluded that the incident and the personalities involved could not have escaped
Padiernos' notice, yet he still went with them to get the truck. 37
Finally, the RTC disregarded the petitioners' claim that they did not hear the
policemen's warning shots and the DENROs' shouts because of the noisy engine and
the defective windows of the truck. The RTC had observed during its ocular inspection
of the truck that both windows were in order and sounds outside could be clearly heard
even with a running engine. 38
The CA's ruling
The CA a rmed the RTC's decision and adopted its factual ndings, but
modified the penalty imposed on the petitioners. 39
The CA considered the subject truck as an "instrument" in the commission of the
offense, within the meaning of Article 19, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
While the lumber had already been unloaded and placed in police custody, the truck still
served as the essential link to the discovery of the loaded undocumented lumber.
Similarly, its presentation as evidence is material in proving the commission of the
offense of violation of P.D. 705, as amended. 40
The CA added that since the petitioners' violation of P.D. 705 is mala prohibita,
their intent, motive, or knowledge need not be shown. Nevertheless, their defense of
denial must fail in view of the evidence on record and their own admissions that they
were aware of the truck's involvement in an illegal activity at the time that they drove it
towards Nueva Ecija. 41
The prosecution had also clearly established Padiernos's close association with
Santiago, Roxas, and Mesina. Padiernos previously facilitated Santiago's application for
mayor's permit as a lumber dealer; Roxas is a family friend of Padiernos and his father
is Padiernos's driver, while Mesina and Padiernos' are long-time acquaintances. 42
The Parties' Arguments
The petitioners argue that they could not be held liable as accessories for
violation of P.D. 705 because the DENROs and the police authorities had already
discovered the crime and had, in fact, control over the truck when the petitioners drove
it towards Nueva Ecija. 43 Article 19 of the RPC only punishes accessories who prevent
the discovery of the crime. 44
On the other hand, the respondent maintains that the petitioners' acts were
aimed at preventing the discovery of the crime. The respondent alleges that without the
truck, the accused in the present case could easily produce the necessary
transportation documents to account for the entire volume of the con scated lumber.
45 The respondent refers to the testimony of James Martinez of CENRO Dingalan who
tried to make it appear that the seized lumber had the proper transportation permit for
8,254 board feet and 261 pieces of lumber. This transportation permit did not tally ,
however, with the actual volume of the con scated lumber of 10,253 board feet,
totaling 818 pieces. 46
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 The Court's Ruling
We emphasize at the outset the well-settled doctrine that an appeal throws the
whole case wide open for review. An appeal therefore empowers, and even obligates,
the appellate court to correct errors as may be found in the appealed judgment even if
these errors have not been raised. It is likewise settled that when an accused appeals,
he opens the whole case for a new trial. 47 aDSIHc

The Court is therefore not precluded from determining the correct criminal
liability of the appealing accused, and from imposing the corresponding punishment in
accordance with the charges in the Information and the crime proved during trial.
Thus, in People v. Manalili, et al. , 48 the Court held that since the Information in
that case contained a speci c allegation of every fact and circumstance necessarily
constituting both the crimes of illegal possession of rearms and of murder, the
separate crime of multiple murder may be validly taken into account 49 in the resolution
of the appeal before the Court, although the appellants have been acquitted of illegal
possession of rearms. The Court ruled that the appellants in that case were fairly
apprised of the nature of the crime of multiple murder and granted a fair opportunity to
defend themselves.
Even with this premise, we nd that insofar as the petitioners are concerned, the
facts alleged in the Information and the crime proved in the present case do
not make the petitioners liable as accessories for violation of P.D. 705. They
are, however, liable for violation of Section 1 (b) of P.D. 1829.
The petitioners are not liable as accessories to the crime
The well-settled doctrine is that the allegations in the Information determine the
nature of the offense, and not the technical name that the public prosecutor assigns in
the preamble of the Information. From a legal point of view, and in a very real sense, the
accused is not concerned with the technical name of the crime of which he stands
charged. It in no way aids him in a defense on the merits. His attention should be
directed and his interest should be on the facts alleged. The real question is not "did
he commit a crime given in the law with some technical and speci c name,"
but "did he perform the acts alleged in the body of the information in the
manner therein set forth." 50
In the present case, the Information charges the petitioners of committing the
following acts:
. . . the aforesaid accessories , confederating together and mutually helping
one another, did then and there unlawfully, feloniously and willfully take and
carry away the aforementioned ten wheeler truck with Plate No. TFZ-
747 so it could not be used as evidence and avoid con scation and
forfeiture in favor of the government as tool or instrument of the
crime.
Applying the doctrine, the controlling charge against the petitioners is not the
allegation that they were accessories to the crime, which is merely the public
prosecutor's conclusion of law or the technical name of an accused's
criminal participation under Article 19 of the RPC , but the factual charges
against them. In short, their alleged acts control in de ning the crime for which they
should stand trial.
These material factual allegations pertain to their act of conspiring with each
other to take and carry away the subject truck so that it could not be used as evidence
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 and to avoid its con scation and forfeiture in favor of the government as tool or
instrument of the crime. Notably, the petitioners had been su ciently apprised of these
factual allegations, against which they should defend themselves.
Reading the facts alleged in the Information and proved at the trial, in relation
with the legal de nition of "accessories" under Article 19 of the RPC, we nd that the
RTC and the CA erred in convicting the accused as accessories to the crime of violation
of P.D. 705.
Article 19, paragraph 2 51 de nes "accessories" as those who, with knowledge of
the commission of the crime and without having participated therein, either as
principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission by
concealing or destroying the body of the crime, its effects or instruments, in
order to prevent its discovery .
Under this provision, the punished acts should have been committed for the
purpose of preventing the discovery of the crime. 52
In the present case, the crime punishable under P.D. 705 — the illegal
possession of lumber — had already been discovered at the time the petitioners
took the truck. This discovery led to the confiscation of the truck and the loaded lumber
on November 15, 2002. The petitioners took the truck on November 16, 2002, after its
confiscation.
In these lights, the petitioners are not liable as accessories to the crime charged
in the Information as the legal de nition of the technical term "accessories" does not
coincide with the factual allegations in the Information that serves as the actual
criminal charge against the petitioners.
The factual allegations in the Information
constitute the crime of obstruction of justice
under Section 1 (b) of P.D. 18 29
The petitioners, however, cannot go scot-free. The factual allegations in the
Information, while not constituting an offense committed by accessories under Article
19, paragraph 2 of the RPC, constitute instead the criminal offense of obstruction of
justice, which is de ned under Section 1 (b) of P.D. No. 1829 entitled "Penalizing
Obstruction of Apprehension and Prosecution of Criminal Offenders."
P.D. 1829 addresses the necessity of penalizing acts which obstruct or
frustrate or tend to obstruct or frustrate the successful apprehension and
prosecution of criminal offenders.
Under Section 1 (b) of P.D. 1829, the crime of obstruction of justice is
committed through the following acts: ETHIDa

Section 1. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period, or a ne

ranging from 1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person
who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the
apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of
criminal cases by committing any of the following acts:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper, record,
document, or object, with intent to impair its verity, authenticity, legibility,
availability, or admissibility as evidence in any investigation of or
o cial proceedings in criminal cases, or to be used in the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 investigation of, or o cial proceedings in criminal cases; . . ."
[emphasis supplied]
The factual allegations in the Information, as duly proved during trial ,
show that the petitioners' acts actually constituted a violation of Section 1 (b) above.
First, the Information duly alleges all the essential elements of the crime of
obstruction of justice under Section 1 (b).
The factual allegations in the Information clearly charge the accused of taking
and carrying away the truck so that it could not be used as evidence and to
avoid its con scation and forfeiture in favor of the government as a tool or
instrument of the crime.
In the present case, the truck that carried the undocumented lumber serves as
material evidence that is indispensable in the criminal investigation and prosecution for
violation of P.D. 705. Particularly, the truck is an indispensable link to the persons
involved in the illegal possession/transportation of the seized lumber as the permit for
the transportation of the lumber necessarily involves the truck and the lumber.
According to DENR forest ranger Rogelio Pajimna, 53 the transport of lumber should be
covered with supporting documents that should be in the possession of the
transporter.
Second, the petitioners deliberately took the truck or "suppressed" this
particular evidence. The term "suppress" means to subdue or end by force. 54
Speci cally, the petitioners intentionally suppressed the truck as evidence, with
the intent to impair its availability and prevent its use as evidence in the
criminal investigation or proceeding for violation of P.D. 705. This intent was
duly proved during trial.
It is undisputed that Santiago owns the truck, which serves as his link to the
illegal possession/transport of the seized lumber. Santiago had every reason and
motive to take his truck after its con scation. Without the truck, Santiago could be
exculpated and the forthcoming criminal investigation or proceedings for violation of
P.D. 705 would be frustrated.
The petitioners' intent to take and carry away the truck is established by their
knowledge of the status of the truck and their commission of the crime at Santiago's
prompting.
Notably, both the RTC and the CA correctly considered the testimonies of the
witnesses and the petitioners' admissions in ruling that the petitioners knew that the
truck had been involved in the illegal transportation/possession of the seized lumber.
Mesina admitted that he knew the truck's involvement in illegal activities
as it had been previously loaded with lumber that was confiscated.
According to Mesina, Roxas also initially refused to go with them
because he already heard the news of the truck's apprehension . Roxas
admitted that he only agreed to join Santiago and Mesina, after being assured that
there was no problem with the truck.
Padiernos' demeanor after the army agged them down establishes his
knowledge of the truck's involvement with the seized lumber. Padiernos uttered bad
words at the DENROs, saying they had no right to apprehend the truck and the lumber.
This testimony, together with his close association with the other petitioners, destroys
his flimsy defense of denial.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 The RTC's ndings during its ocular inspection of the truck also prove that the
petitioners deliberately drove the truck to Nueva Ecija despite evident knowledge of
the policemen's warning shots, tapping, and the DENROs shouting for help from the
back of the truck.
Clearly, these testimonies, the petitioners' admissions, and the ndings of the
trial court negate the petitioners' defense of denial of their intent to take the truck and
their knowledge of the truck's involvement in an illegal activity.
The unanimous factual ndings of the RTC and the CA — such as the petitioners'
close association with each other, their imsy defense of denial of their intent to take
away the truck, and the totality of their acts showing their common design to take the
truck — lead us to conclude that the petitioners had indeed mutually conspired with one
another to take away the truck to suppress it from being used as evidence in the
criminal investigation or proceeding for violation of P.D. 705.
Since the crime charged in the Information and the crime proved during trial point
to the petitioners' violation of P.D. 1829, we reverse the CA's ndings and nd the
petitioners guilty of Section 1 (b) of P.D. 1829.
Under Section 1 of the same law, the penalty for the crime of obstruction of
justice is prision correccional in its maximum period, or a ne ranging from P1,000.00
to P6,000.00 pesos, or both. 55
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition and REVERSE the Court of Appeals'
decision dated May 10, 2007, and its resolution dated December 20, 2007. We nd
petitioners Jackson Padiernos y Quejada, Jackie Roxas y German, and Rolando Mesina
y Javate GUILTY for violation of Section 1 (b) of P.D. 1829. They are hereby sentenced
to suffer the penalty of prision correccional for 4 years, 9 months, and 11 days to 5
years, 4 months, and 20 days. cSEDTC

SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Del Castillo, Leonen and Jardeleza, * JJ., concur.
Footnotes
* Designated as Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Jose C. Mendoza, per Ra e
dated August 17, 2015.
1. Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, concurred in by Associate Justices
Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., and Jose C. Mendoza, rollo, p. 77.
2. Id. at 92.

3. Id. at 36.
4. Id. at 34.
5. Id. at 36.
6. Id. at 33.
7. Id. at 34, 36, and 39.

8. Id. at 34 and 36.

9. Id. at 34.
10. Id. at 39.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 11. Id. at 34.
12. Id.
13. Id. at 39.

14. Id. at 42-44, testimony of Mesina.

15. Id.
16. Id. at 41.
17. Id. at 42-44, testimony of Mesina.
18. Id. at 41-42, testimony of Roxas.

19. Id. at 42.

20. Id. at 39-43, testimonies of Padiernos, Roxas and Mesina.
21. Id. at 39-40, testimony of Padiernos.
22. Id. at 42-44, testimony of Mesina.

23. Id. at 40.

24. Id. at 39-43, testimonies of Padiernos, Roxas and Mesina.
25. Id. at 40 and 43.
26. Id. at 39-43, testimonies of Padiernos, Roxas and Mesina.
27. Id. at. 43.

28. Id. at 39-43, testimonies of Padiernos, Roxas and Mesina.

29. Id. at 40, 42, and 43.
30. Id. at 42.
31. Id. at 131-132.
32. Id. at 130 and 132.

33. Id. at 127.

34. Id.
35. Id. at 128.
36. Id. at 129.

37. Id.
38. Id. at 130.
39. Id. at 75.
40. Id. at 60.
41. Id. at 68.

42. Id. at 70.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 43. Id. at 14.
44. Id. at 13.
45. Id.
46. Id. at 144-145.

47. People v. Llaguno, et al., G.R. No. 91262, January 28, 1998, 285 SCRA 124, 147.
48. 355 Phil. 652, 688-689 (1998).
49. The appellants in this case did not le a motion to quash the information that charges
two offenses; thus, they were deemed to have waived this objection.
50. Matrido v. People, 610 Phil. 203, 210-211 (2009).
51. Article 19. Accessories. — Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the
commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals
or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the following
manners: . . .

2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime or the effects or instruments thereof, in
order to prevent its discovery; . . .

52. People v. Versola, 170 Phil. 622, 632 (1977).

53. Rollo, pp. 37-38.
54. Black Law's Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 1291.
55. See Section 1 of P.D. 1829.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com