Manila

THIRD DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 241872. October 13, 2021 ]

MARK ANTHONY NIETO AND FILEMON VICENTE, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

DECISION

ZALAMEDA, J.:

Illegal possession of timber or other forest products is an offense covered by special law and is
malum prohibitum. Thus, criminal intent is not an essential element of the offense. However, the
prosecution must prove the intent to perpetrate the act, which in this case is the intent to possess or
1
animus possidendi. Animus possidendi is a state of mind, the presence or determination of which is
largely dependent on attendant events in each case. It may be inferred from the prior or
2
contemporaneous acts of the accused, as well as the surrounding circumstances.

3 4
This Petition under Rule 45 seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision dated 12 April 2018
5
and Resolution dated 27 July 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 39731. The CA
6
affirmed the Decision dated 05 July 2017 of Branch 12, Regional Trial Court, Laoag City (RTC) in
Criminal Case No. 15226, finding petitioners Mark Anthony Nieto (Nieto) and Filemon Vicente
(Vicente) (collectively, Petitioners), guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 68 (now
7
Section 77) of Presidential Decree No. 705, as amended, otherwise known as Revised Forestry
Code of the Philippines (Revised Forestry Code).

Antecedents

The Information dated 16 July 2020 (Information) charged Nieto and Vicente with violation of
8
Section 68 (now Section 77) of the Revised Forestry Code. The Information states:

That on or about the 15th day of July 2012, in the City of Laoag,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused, together with John Does and Jane Does, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another, with intent to gain and
 without the legal document and authority from existing laws, did then
and tb.ere, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in their possession
and in the process of transporting 409 pieces Tanguile and White
Lauan of assorted sizes, with a total volume of 8,425.96 board feet
worth Ph[P] 416,298.00 and 154 pieces coco lumber of assorted [size]
with a total volume of 2,181.32 board feet worth Ph[P] 26,104.00,
loaded in a FUSO ten wheeler truck with plate no. BVJ 433, registered
under the name of Sps. Graciano and Ma. Corazon Valera of legal age,
and residents of 75 Burgos Street, Quirino, Solano, Nueva Viscaya as
evidenced by Certificate of Registration No. 08435428 and be
delivered to Pangasinan to the damage and prejudice of the
government in the aforestated amount.

9
CONTRARY TO LAW.

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution's evidence showed that on 15 July 2012, at approximately 1:40 p.m., PO1
Ronald Garrido was guarding a checkpoint in Brgy. 13, Barit, Laoag City when he received a text
message informing him that a green-colored Isuzu cargo truck with "CVG Trucking" mark was
loaded with illegally cut logs and would pass by said checkpoint. After some time, a truck matching
the description approached the checkpoint and the police officers flagged it down. After the truck
loaded with lumber stopped, the police officers requested for documents pertaining to the truck's
cargo and was shown several documents including a Transport/Transhipment Clearance in the
name of a certain Alfonso Bagasin. Finding it improper and insufficient, the police officers brought
Vicente (driver), Nieto (helper), and the truck to a police station in Brgy. 1, Laoag City and informed
the local office of Department of Environment and Natural Resources that they apprehended
10
persons transporting lumber without the appropriate and adequate documentation.

Subsequently, the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) officers
made an inventory and assessment of the value of the lumber being hauled by the truck in the
presence of the apprehending police officers. The results of the inventory and assessment revealed
that there were 409 pieces of Tanguile and White Lauan, and 154 pieces of coco lumber loaded in
11
the truck, with a value of ₱416,298.00 based on prevailing market prices. The forest products
confiscated were marked during the conduct of rescaling and reinventory done in the presence of
12
Court Sheriff Nicomedes C. Cantorna. Based on the Sheriff's Report, several pieces of lumber
have already deteriorated from the time of apprehension up to the time of the re-inventory due to
13
sunlight exposure and heavy rains.

Version of the Defense

Vicente and Nieto denied the accusations. In his testimony, Vicente claimed that on 14 July
2012, he was approached by a neighbor named Norma Diza (Diza) who told him he would be paid to
drive a ten-wheeler truck from Cagayan to San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte but was not informed of the
truck's cargo. Vicente further claimed that Diza went with him and Nieto when they started their trip
in Cagayan. In each checkpoint, Diza would alight from the truck and present documents to those
guarding the checkpoints. However, Diza alighted just before they reached the checkpoint where
they were apprehended. Vicente said he did not have any intention to violate the law as he was only
asked to drive the truck for a fee. Nieto opted not to testify claiming that he would merely be
14
corroborating Vicente's testimony.

Ruling of the RTC

After trial, the RTC rendered a Decision, finding Vicente and Nieto guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of violating Section 68 (now Section 77) of the Revised Forestry Code:

[W]HEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finding accused FILEMON VICENTE and
MARK ANTHONY NIETO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section
68 (now Section 77) of the Forestry Code, as amended, hereby sentences them to suffer each an
indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prison correccional, as
15
minimum, to seven (7) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prison mayor, as maximum. [...]

The RTC found Vicente and Nieto to be in constructive possession of the forest products without
the requisite legal documents. Considering that the offense is malum prohibitum, Vicente and Nieto's
contention that they were only hired by Diza to transport the lumber was inconsequential as mere
16
possession of forest products without the proper documentation consummates the crime.

Ruling of the CA

The CA, affirmed RTC's Decision dated 05 July 2017 and recommended to the President that
Vicente and Nieto be granted executive clemency pursuant to Article 5 of the Revised Penal
17
Code:

WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the instant appeal is

DENIED. The Decision dated 05 January 2017 of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 12, Laoag City in Criminal Case No. 15226 is
AFFIRMED.

Pursuant to Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code, considering the

degree of participation of accused-appellants (being merely the driver
and helper of the truck wherein the illegal logs were loaded) and the
penalty meted on them, it is respectfully recommended that they be
granted executive clemency by His Excellency the President of the
Philippines. For this purpose, furnish a copy of this decision to the
Office of the President, through Secretary of Justice, as well as the
Board of Pardon and Parole.
 18
SO ORDERED.

According to the CA, Vicente and Nieto were, at the very least, in constructive possession of the
forest products without the requisite legal documents. It was undisputed that Vicente was driving the
truck loaded with the forest products while Nieto accompanied him. The CA said that mere
possession of timber or other forest products without the proper legal documents, even absent
19
malice or criminal intent, is illegal.

The appellate court also did not find meritorious Vicente and Nieto's argument that the alleged
"discrepancies" between the lumber count in the scaling and inventory done upon apprehension and
done during trial should exonerate them. To begin with, the discrepancies have been sufficiently
explained by the fact that several pieces of lumber have already deteriorated from the time of
apprehension up to the time of re-inventory. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Vicente and Nieto
were found to be in possession of forest products without the proper documents enough to
20
consummate the crime.

Petitioners filed the Motion for Reconsideration dated 08 May 2018 but the CA denied it in its
21
Resolution dated 27 July 2018. Thus, the instant Petition. The People of the Philippines, through
22
the Office of the Solicitor General filed its Comment dated 20 March 2019.

Issue

The issue is whether or not CA committed reversible error m affirming the conviction of
Petitioners for violation of Section 68 (now Section 77) of the Revised Forestry Code.

Petitioners argue that the CA 1) erred in presuming that Vicente, being the driver, exercised full
control of the vehicle where the forest products were loaded, thus, in possession over the same, and
2) failed to appreciate the existence of equipoise principle regarding the alleged data discrepancies
in the tally sheet or inventory and in the sheriff's report.

Ruling of the Court

The Petition has no merit.

At the outset, We emphasize that the CA adopted the factual findings of the RTC. It is a settled
rule that findings of fact of the RTC, when affirmed by the CA, are accorded great respect and even
finality by this Court and are deemed final and conclusive when supported by the evidence on
23
record. Without any showing that the trial and the appellate courts overlooked certain facts and
24
circumstances that could substantially affect the outcome, their rulings must be upheld. Thus, this
Court relies on the RTC and the CA's common findings of fact in affirming the conviction. This Court
also notes that petitioners here raised the same arguments already passed upon and correctly
25
resolved by CA.

Moreover, this Court finds the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible. Evidence, to be
believed, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but it must be credible, such as
the common experience and observation of humankind can approve as probable under the
26
circumstances.

First, as correctly ruled by the RTC and the CA, Vicente, the truck driver, and Nieto, the
passenger accompanying Vicente, were both in possession of 409 pieces of Tanguile and White
Lauan, and 154 pieces of coco lumber, without the legal documents required under existing forest
laws and regulations, thus making them liable for violation of Section 68 (now Section 77) of Revised
27
Forestry Code.

Section 68 (now Section 77) of the Revised Forestry Code provides: SECTION 77. Cutting,
Gathering and/or collecting Timber, or Other Forest Products Without License. - Any person who
shall cut, gather, collect, removed timber or other forest products from any forest land, or timber from
alienable or disposable public land, or from private land, without any authority, or possess timber or
other forest products without the legal documents as required under existing forest laws and
regulations, shall be punished with the penalties imposed under Articles 309 and 310 of the
Revised Penal Code: Provided, That in the case of partnerships, associations, or corporations, the
officers who ordered the cutting, gathering, collection or possession shall be liable, and if such
officers are aliens, they shall, in addition to the penalty, be deported without further proceedings on
28
the part of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation.

Section 68 penalizes three categories of acts: (1) the cutting, gathering, collecting, or removing
of timber or other forest products from any forest land without any authority; (2) the cutting,
gathering, collecting, or removing of timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private
land without any authority; and (3) the possession of timber or other forest products without the legal
29
documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations.

Petitioners were charged under the third category or possessing Tanguile, White Lauan, and
coco lumber without the legal documents required under existing forest laws and regulations.

As discussed above, illegal possession of timber or other forest products is an offense covered
by special law and is malum prohibitum. Thus, criminal intent is not an essential element of the
offense. However, the prosecution must prove the intent to perpetrate the act, which in this case is
30
the intent to possess or animus possidendi. Animus possidendi is a state of mind, the presence or
determination of which is largely dependent on attendant events in each case. It may be inferred
from the prior or contemporaneous acts of the accused, as well as the surrounding
31
circumstances.
 Possession, under law, includes not only 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 and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control
over the place where it is found. Such fact of possession may be proved by direct or circumstantial
32
evidence and any reasonable inference drawn therefrom.

Based on the common findings of facts by the CA and the RTC, We find that Petitioners have
intent to possess and were in actual possession of the Tanguile, White Lauan, and coco lumber
without the requisite legal documents in violation of Section 68 (now Section 77) of Revised Forestry
33
Code. Vicente admitted that they were hired by Diza to drive a ten-wheeler truck from Cagayan to
34
San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte. Consequently, it was clearly established that Petitioners were on board
the color avocado green ten-wheeler truck loaded with forest products when they were apprehended
35
by police officers in Brgy. 13, Barit, Laoag City.

Vicente did not also dispute that the truck he was driving was loaded with pieces of Tanguile,
Lauan, and coco lumber. He only claimed that there was nothing illegal about it because the person
who hired them showed some documents and that they were able to pass through several
36
checkpoints from Pamplona, Cagayan to Bacarra, Ilocos Norte. Thus, petitioners who were in the
truck had actual possession for they had immediate physical control of the timber or the object of
crime.

Petitioners' defense of denying the accusation and that they have no intent to violate the law
because they were merely asked to drive for a fee is inconsequential and incredible. The belief that
there was nothing illegal about their possession and that they have some documentation, when the
RTC and the CA found otherwise, is in effect an assertion of good faith and mistake of law, which are
37
not proper defenses in this case. On the contrary, the fact that they tried to present some
documentation to defend their possession of the forest products, taken with the other circumstances,
shows that they knowingly and voluntarily possessed the products loaded in the truck. Their
38
possession was not merely temporary, incidental, casual, and harmless.

Moreover, Petitioners' argument that they were not the owners of the truck and timbers does not
deserve any merit. Mere possession of timber or other forest products without the proper legal
documents, even absent malice or criminal intent, is illegal. The fact that the person in possession
39
thereof is not the owner is irrelevant.

Second, Petitioners' reliance on the equipoise rule is likewise misplaced. The equipoise rule
provides that where the evidence in a criminal case is evenly balanced, the constitutional
presumption of innocence tilts the scales in favor of the accused. Petitioners' claim that the alleged
"discrepancies" between the lumber count in the scaling and inventory done upon apprehension and
done during trial should exonerate them. As the CA correctly found, the alleged "discrepancies" have
been sufficiently explained by the fact that several pieces of lumber have already deteriorated from
the time of apprehension up to the time of the reinventory due to sunlight exposure and heavy rains
40
as reflected in the Sheriff's Report of Court Sheriff Nicomedes C. Cantorna. Even assuming that
there were indeed discrepancies, the fact remains that petitioners were found to be in possession of
forest products without the proper documents, which by itself is sufficient to consummate the
crime.1a⍵⍴h!1

Thus, the equipoise rule invoked by petitioners cannot find application in their case because,
contrary to their submission, the evidence submitted to and evaluated by the RTC and the CA mount
high against petitioners' denial and ineffective and uncorroborated feigning of innocence. The total
evidence presented by both parties is asymmetrical, with the prosecution's submissions indubitably
demonstrating petitioners' guilt.

Violation of Section 68 (now Section 77) of the Forestry Code is punished as qualified theft with
41
the penalties imposed under Articles 309 and 310 of the RPC. However, the penalties under
42 43
Article 309 have been modified in view of the enactment of Republic Act No. 10951. Since the
total value of the timber or forest products illegally possessed by petitioners is ₱442,402.00, the
penalty under Article 309 of the RPC is prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
Pursuant to Article 310 of the RPC, the prescribed penalty shall be increased by two (2) degrees or
to prision mayor in its medium to maximum periods, which has a duration of eight (8) years and one
(1) day to twelve (12) years. 1a⍵⍴h!1

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and considering the lack of any mitigating or
aggravating circumstance, the Court finds it proper to impose upon Petitioners an indeterminate
penalty of five (5) years, five (5) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional, as minimum, to
44
nine (9) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.

Finally, while this Court sympathizes with the plight of petitioners who were merely following
orders and were consequently caught in possession of the lumber, we must still apply the law in full
force. Dura lex sed lex. However, considering the facts surrounding petitioners' participation in the
crime and guided by jurisprudence on instances when the facts of the crime elicited the Court's
45
compassion for the accused, this Court recommends executive clemency.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated

12 April 2018 and Resolution dated 27 July 2018 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 39731 affirming the Decision dated 05 July
2017 of Branch 12, Regional Trial Court, Laoag City in Criminal Case
No. 15226 finding petitioners Mark Anthony Nieto and Filemon Vicente
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 68 (now Section
77) of Presidential Decree No. 705, as amended, otherwise known as
Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines, is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. Petitioners are hereby sentenced to suffer an
 indeterminate penalty of five (5) years, five (5) months and eleven (11)
days of prision correccional, as minimum, to nine (9) years, four (4)
months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.

Pursuant to Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code, the Court shall

TRANSMIT the case to the Chief Executive, through the Department of
Justice, and RECOMMENDS the grant of executive clemency to
petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Leonen (Chairperson), Rosario, and Dimaampao, JJ., concur.

*
Carandang, J., on official leave.