PLAI

← All case digests

Case digest

Aquino v. People Of The Philippines

Aquino v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 165448, July 27, 2009

G.R. No. 165448July 27, 2009Ponente: CARPIO, J.
  • Criminal Law
  • Section 68 PD 705
  • illegal cutting of timber
  • permit to cut
  • Benguet pine trees
  • DENR
  • conspiracy
  • forest ranger
  • criminal liability
  • acquittal

Read the full decision

I. Facts of the Case

Ernesto Aquino, a forest ranger at the DENR-CENRO, was charged with violation of Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705 for overseeing the cutting of pine trees at Teachers' Camp, Baguio City. While DENR issued a permit for a limited number of dead Benguet pine trees for repairs, the cutting operations resulted in additional trees being cut beyond what the permit covered, prompting the filing of a criminal information against Aquino and others.

  1. For Teachers' Camp, Sergio Guzman applied with the DENR for a permit to cut 14 dead Benguet pine trees (total volume 13.37 m3) for repairs, and DENR conducted a pre-issuance inspection team visit on 19 May 1993.

  2. 19 May 1993

    Before issuance of the permit, a team composed of members from CENRO and forest ranger Michael Cuteng inspected the trees to be cut.

  3. DENR Executive Director Sabado T. Batcagan issued a permit allowing cutting of 14 trees subject to conditions, including utilization as lumber and fuel-wood, replacement planting of 140 pine seedlings, and that any violation would be punishable under Section 68 of PD 705 as amended; the permit also had an expiration period (10 days or until authorized volume exhausted) and was non-transferable.

  4. 23 July 1993

    Forest rangers received information that pine trees were being cut at Teachers' Camp without proper authority and found Ernesto Aquino supervising the cutting, together with other supervisors and sawyers. They found 23 tree stumps; only 12 were covered by the permit, with volumes and forest charges computed for trees cut with and without permit.

  5. An Information for violation of Section 68 of PD 705 was filed against Aquino, Cuteng, Nacatab, Masing, and Santiago for cutting pine trees without legal documents as required by forest laws and DENR Circular No. 05, Series of 1989.

  6. During trial, witnesses testified to Aquino’s alleged supervision and possession of the permit; Aquino denied knowledge of the permit limitations and claimed he was left unable to prevent overcutting, and he argued that he was not properly informed of the specific authorized trees.

  7. On 26 May 1994, the RTC convicted Aquino, Cuteng, and Santiago beyond reasonable doubt and ordered indemnification to the Government based on market value of trees cut without permit and forest charges; it acquitted Nacatab and Masing on reasonable doubt.

  8. 5 June 1997

    The Court of Appeals modified the RTC decision: it acquitted Cuteng and Santiago on reasonable doubt but found Aquino guilty and reduced the penalty; it also deleted the award of damages.

  9. 24 September 2004

    The Court of Appeals denied Aquino’s motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.

  10. Aquino filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, arguing that he should not be convicted under Section 68 of PD 705 because the evidence did not prove beyond reasonable doubt the acts punished by that provision and that conspiracy could not be sustained given the acquittal of co-accused.

II. Issues

1
Criminal Law

Whether Ernesto Aquino is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705.

III. Ruling

Issue 1Criminal Law

Whether Ernesto Aquino is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705.

No

Ernesto Aquino was acquitted because the Supreme Court found that, on the evidence and considering the distinct and separate offenses under Section 68 of PD 705, he could not be convicted under that provision, and conspiracy was not sustained due to the acquittal of co-accused.

How the Court reasoned

  1. The Supreme Court treated Section 68 of PD 705 as punishing distinct and separate acts, requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the particular act(s) defined and penalized by the applicable paragraph.
  2. On the facts established at trial, the evidence did not support Aquino’s conviction under the specific acts punished by Section 68 of PD 705.
  3. The Court likewise considered the applicability of the last paragraph of Section 68 of PD 705 and found that Aquino did not fall within the class of persons covered (e.g., an officer of a partnership, association, or corporation who ordered the cutting, gathering, or collection, or a person in possession of the pine trees).
  4. The Court found that conspiracy could not be sustained because the prosecution’s theory depended on the participation of co-accused, yet the co-accused were acquitted, undermining the basis for establishing a conspiratorial scheme involving Aquino.
“Petitioner Ernesto Aquino is ACQUITTED of the charge of violation of Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705.”

Rule applied

Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705, as amended by Executive Order No. 277 (1987); principles on criminal liability and conspiracy in light of acquittal of co-accused

Doctrines

1

Under Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705, the provision punishes distinct and separate offenses; an accused must be shown beyond reasonable doubt to have committed the specific act(s) contemplated by the applicable paragraph before conviction may be sustained.

2

Conspiracy cannot be maintained when the evidentiary basis for a conspiratorial participation fails, particularly when the co-accused whose participation was essential to the theory are acquitted.

Final Disposition

WHEREFORE , we GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the 5 June 1997 Decision and 24 September 2004 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 17534. Petitioner Ernesto Aquino is ACQUITTED of the charge of violation of Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705. Neither could petitioner be liable under the last paragraph of Section 68 of PD 705 as he is not an officer of a partnership, association, or corporation who ordered the cutting, gathering, or collection, or is in possession of the pine trees.

Notes

The Supreme Court’s acquittal turned on the insufficiency of proof that Aquino committed the acts penalized by the particular wording of Section 68 of PD 705, and on the inapplicability of the last paragraph of the same provision to Aquino’s status, aside from the collapse of conspiracy due to co-accused acquittals.