People Of The Philippines v. Que
People of the Philippines v. Wilson B. Que, G.R. No. 120365, December 17, 1996
- Criminal Law
- Procedural (Remedial Law)
- illegal possession of lumber
- Section 68 P.D. 705
- Revised Forestry Code
- E.O. 277
- malum prohibitum
- warrantless search of moving vehicle
- probable cause
- fruit of the poisonous tree
- custodial investigation
- DENR Administrative Order No. 59
- Certificate of Lumber Origin
- tanguile
I. Facts of the Case
Wilson B. Que was apprehended in Laoag City by the Provincial Task Force on Illegal Logging while transporting a ten-wheeler truck loaded with coconut slabs that concealed sawn tanguile lumber, without the required legal documents. He was charged with and convicted by the RTC of violating Section 68 of P.D. 705, as amended by E.O. 277, and appealed to the Supreme Court, questioning the legal basis of the charge, the legality of the warrantless search, and the violation of his custodial rights.
Two weeks before March 8, 1994
SPO1 Dexter Corpuz of the Provincial Task Force on Illegal Logging received information that a ten-wheeler truck with plate number PAD-548 loaded with illegally cut lumber would pass through Ilocos Norte. The Task Force patrolled General Segundo Avenue in Laoag City several times.
March 8, 1994
At about 1:00 a.m., SPO1 Corpuz, SPO1 Zaldy Asuncion and SPO1 Elmer Patoc posted themselves at the corner of General Segundo Avenue and Rizal Street. Thirty minutes later they saw truck PAD-548, followed it and apprehended it at the Marcos Bridge.
March 8, 1994
The truck carried driver Wilfredo Cacao, Wilson Que and an unnamed person; the driver identified Que as owner of the truck and cargo. SPO1 Corpuz found coconut slabs, and Que told him sawn lumber was inserted between them.
March 8, 1994
Asked for the certificate of lumber origin, certificate of transport agreement, auxiliary invoice, DENR receipt and forest ranger certification, Que presented none. He could show only a CENRO Sanchez Mira, Cagayan certification covering the coconut slabs for transport to Urdaneta, Pangasinan.
March 8, 1994
Que was brought to the Provincial Task Force office at the provincial capitol, where he again admitted that sawn lumber was under the coconut slabs. At 10:00 a.m., the Task Force and three CENRO personnel examined the cargo and confirmed that coconut slabs concealed 258 pieces of sawn tanguile lumber (3,729.3 board feet, 8.79 cubic meters), valued at P93,232.50.
June 23, 1994
Que was charged before the RTC of Laoag with violation of Section 68 of P.D. 705, as amended by E.O. 277, for possessing the lumber without the necessary permit, license or authority.
Que denied the charge, claiming the lumber came from private land timber permits issued to Enrica Cayosa and Elpidio Sabal, who allegedly gave it to him as payment for hauling services. He objected to the lumber's admission as the fruit of an illegal search and seizure and of an uncounselled extrajudicial admission.
The RTC found Que guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua with accessory penalties, cancelled his bail bond, and ordered the lumber and truck confiscated. It reasoned that he could present no document for the lumber, that he concealed it under the coconut slabs, and that his alleged March 3, 1994 letter to CENRO was not credible.
Que appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the absence of legally required documents for possession (no regulations specifying them), the illegal search and seizure, and the violation of his custodial investigation rights.
II. Issues
Whether accused-appellant can be convicted under Section 68 of P.D. 705, as amended by E.O. 277, for possessing timber without legal documents when no existing forest laws and regulations at the time of E.O. 277's enactment specified the required documents.
Whether or not possession of forest products without the required legal documents is punishable even if the cutting, gathering or collecting of the products was legal.
Whether the 258 pieces of tanguile lumber were obtained through an unlawful warrantless search and seizure and are inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree.
Whether accused-appellant's right to counsel during custodial investigation was violated.
III. Ruling
Whether accused-appellant can be convicted under Section 68 of P.D. 705, as amended by E.O. 277, for possessing timber without legal documents when no existing forest laws and regulations at the time of E.O. 277's enactment specified the required documents.
Que can be convicted. The phrase 'existing forest laws and regulations' refers to the rules in force at the time of possession, not at the time E.O. 277 was enacted.
How the Court reasoned
- Section 68 punishes possession of timber or forest products without the legal documents required under existing forest laws and regulations.
- Que argued that when E.O. 277 was enacted no regulation specified the required documents, so no crime could arise.
- The Court read the phrase as referring to laws and regulations existing when the timber is possessed, not when the amendment was enacted.
- DENR Administrative Order No. 59, series of 1993, specifies the documents needed to transport lumber, including a Certificate of Lumber Origin, and was in force in March 1994.
- Que had none of the required documents, so his possession of the lumber was an offense under Section 68.
“The phrase should be construed to refer to laws and regulations existing at the time of possession of timber or other forest products.”
Rule applied
Section 68, P.D. 705 (Revised Forestry Code), as amended by E.O. 277; DENR Administrative Order No. 59, series of 1993, Section 3 (3.3 Lumber)
Whether or not possession of forest products without the required legal documents is punishable even if the cutting, gathering or collecting of the products was legal.
Possession of timber without the required documents is punishable regardless of whether the cutting or gathering was legal. Mere possession without papers completes the crime.
How the Court reasoned
- Section 68 punishes two distinct offenses: (1) cutting, gathering, collecting or removing timber without authority, and (2) possessing timber without the legal documents.
- Que relied on private land timber permits allegedly issued to others to show the lumber had a legal source.
- For the possession offense the legality of the source is immaterial, because the act is malum prohibitum (wrong because the law prohibits it), so criminal intent need not be shown.
- The offense is complete once there is possession without the proper documents.
- Que's possession of the 258 pieces of tanguile lumber without any documentation therefore constituted the offense.
“Mere possession of forest products without the proper documents consummates the crime.”
Rule applied
Section 68, P.D. 705, as amended by E.O. 277 (possession of timber without legal documents as an offense distinct from illegal cutting; malum prohibitum)
Whether the 258 pieces of tanguile lumber were obtained through an unlawful warrantless search and seizure and are inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree.
The warrantless search of the moving truck was valid because the police had probable cause, so the lumber was lawfully seized and admissible in evidence.
How the Court reasoned
- The Constitution bars unreasonable searches and seizures, and evidence obtained in violation is inadmissible, but a search of a moving vehicle is a recognized exception to the warrant requirement because the vehicle can quickly leave the area.
- Such a search is valid if officers have probable cause to believe the vehicle carries contraband.
- Probable cause existed here: a reliable tip about a truck with plate number PAD-548 carrying illegal lumber, the truck matching that description, Que's admission that lumber was hidden under the coconut slabs, and his failure to produce any documents.
- Given this probable cause, the extensive search of the truck without a warrant was justified.
- The lumber was lawfully seized and was properly admitted in evidence; it was not fruit of the poisonous tree.
“The foregoing circumstances are sufficient to prove the existence of probable cause which justified the extensive search of appellant's truck even without a warrant.”
Rule applied
Article III, Section 2, 1987 Constitution; jurisprudence on warrantless searches of moving vehicles (People v. Bagista, 214 SCRA 63)
Whether accused-appellant's right to counsel during custodial investigation was violated.
The Court did not need to rule on the custodial investigation issue because it would not change the finding of guilt.
How the Court reasoned
- Que claimed his admissions to the Task Force were made without counsel during custodial investigation.
- Even without those admissions, the lumber was lawfully seized and the absence of required documents was established.
- The conviction rests on the possession of the lumber without documents, which is proven independently of any uncounselled admission.
- Therefore the Court found it unnecessary to resolve whether his custodial rights were violated, and the appeal was dismissed.
“IN VIEW WHEREOF, the instant appeal is DISMISSED.”
Rule applied
Article III, Section 3(2), 1987 Constitution (inadmissibility of evidence obtained in violation of custodial rights)
Doctrines
The phrase 'existing forest laws and regulations' in Section 68 of P.D. 705, as amended by E.O. 277, refers to the laws and regulations existing at the time of possession of the timber or forest products, not at the time of the amendment's enactment.
Section 68 of P.D. 705 punishes two distinct offenses: (1) cutting, gathering, collecting or removing timber without authority, and (2) possession of timber or forest products without the required legal documents. The latter is malum prohibitum, so mere possession without proper documents consummates the crime regardless of the legality of the source.
A warrantless search of a moving vehicle is valid when the officers have probable cause, such as a reliable tip, a matching vehicle, the occupant's admission and the absence of required documents; evidence thus seized is admissible.
Final Disposition
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The decision of the Regional Trial Court of Laoag convicting accused-appellant Wilson B. Que of violation of Section 68 of P.D. 705, as amended by E.O. 277, is AFFIRMED.
Notes
The Court found it unnecessary to resolve the custodial investigation issue because the conviction stands on the lawfully seized lumber and the absence of documents. The ruling answer for Issue 4 is inferred from the dismissal of the appeal.