Ruzol v. Hon. Sandiganbayan
Leovegildo R. Ruzol v. The Honorable Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 186739-960, April 17, 2013
- Political Law
- Criminal Law
- usurpation of official functions
- Article 177 Revised Penal Code
- salvaged forest products
- permit to transport
- general welfare clause
- local autonomy
- DENR
- Local Government Code
- good faith
- reasonable doubt
- pro hac vice
- illegal logging
I. Facts of the Case
Leovegildo R. Ruzol, then mayor of General Nakar, Quezon, issued or caused the issuance of 221 permits to transport salvaged forest products. He was charged before the Sandiganbayan with usurpation of official functions under Art. 177 of the Revised Penal Code, on the theory that such authority belonged exclusively to the DENR. The Sandiganbayan convicted him, and he appealed to the Supreme Court.
2001 to 2004
Ruzol served as mayor of General Nakar, Quezon. Early in his term he organized a Multi-Sectoral Consultative Assembly of civil society groups, public officials and stakeholders to regulate and monitor the transportation of salvaged forest products. PENRO Rogelio Delgado Sr. of the DENR and Bishop Julio Xavier Labayen were present at the organizational meeting.
At the assembly, the participants agreed that the Office of the Mayor, through Ruzol, would issue a permit to transport salvaged forest products after payment of fees to the municipal treasurer.
2001 to 2004
A total of 221 permits to transport salvaged forest products were issued. Forty-three bore Ruzol's signature and 178 were signed by his co-accused, municipal administrator Guillermo T. Sabiduria.
June 2006
221 Informations for Usurpation of Official Functions under Art. 177 of the RPC were filed against Ruzol and Sabiduria (Criminal Case Nos. SB-08-CRIM-0039 to 0259). They were accused of issuing permits to transport under pretense of official position and without being lawfully entitled, such authority belonging to the DENR, to the damage of the government.
Because the facts were undisputed, the parties agreed at pre-trial to dispense with testimonial evidence and submit the case for decision on documentary evidence and the stipulation of facts, then filed memoranda. Ruzol invoked RA 7160 and the general welfare clause, devolved DENR functions, that the permits were incidental to municipal transport fees, that they did not replace DENR CTO/CLO, lack of conspiracy, DENR (PENRO Delgado) sanction, and absence of any pretense of being a DENR officer.
December 19, 2008
The Sandiganbayan First Division acquitted Sabiduria on reasonable doubt but found Ruzol guilty of 221 counts of usurpation, sentencing him to six months and one day for each case, with the three-fold rule applying. It held that authority to issue transport permits for salvaged forest products belongs to the DENR under PD 705, EO 192 and DAO 2000-78 and was not devolved to LGUs under Sec. 17 of the LGC and DAO 1992-30. It also found that the municipal Revised Revenue Code and Environment Code had no provision supporting the permits, that no communal forest had been established, and it rejected good faith because Ruzol sought endorsements from NGOs, people's organizations and religious groups and asked for PENRO Delgado's presence.
Ruzol appealed to the Supreme Court seeking to nullify the Sandiganbayan decision. He argued that the DENR has no exclusive authority over transport of salvaged forest products and that he acted in good faith under the general welfare clause.
April 17, 2013
The Supreme Court, Third Division, held the petition partly meritorious. It disagreed that DENR has exclusive authority, but found the permits invalid for lack of an enabling ordinance and a communal forest. It acquitted Ruzol on reasonable doubt because he acted in good faith, resolving the case pro hac vice.
II. Issues
Whether the authority to monitor and regulate the transportation of salvaged forest products belongs solely and exclusively to the DENR.
Whether the permits to transport salvaged forest products issued by Ruzol as municipal mayor are valid, in the absence of an enabling ordinance and an established communal forest.
Whether Ruzol is guilty of usurpation of official functions under Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code.
III. Ruling
Whether the authority to monitor and regulate the transportation of salvaged forest products belongs solely and exclusively to the DENR.
The DENR is the primary agency for protecting the environment, but not the sole or exclusive one. Local government units share this responsibility and may regulate and monitor salvaged forest products, so requiring a local transport permit complements rather than usurps the DENR's authority.
How the Court reasoned
- The Sandiganbayan held that only the DENR may issue transport permits under PD 705, EO 192 and DAO 2000-78, and that this was not devolved to LGUs.
- The Court read these laws and found nothing in PD 705 or EO 192 that makes the DENR's role exclusive. Calling the DENR the 'primary' agency does not mean 'sole' or 'exclusive'.
- Under the principle of local autonomy and the general welfare clause (Sec. 16, LGC), LGUs may adopt rules, regulations and ordinances to protect the environment within their territory, as long as they comply with legal parameters.
- Environmental protection is a shared concern, consistent with Oposa v. Factoran and the constitutional policy of local autonomy.
- Ruzol issued the permits to regulate salvaged forest products in General Nakar and to prevent illegal logging.
- A local permit to transport is an additional measure complementing the DENR's duty to monitor forest resources; a transporter must still secure the DENR Wood Recovery Permit first.
“While the law has designated DENR as the primary agency tasked to protect the environment, it was not the intention of the law to arrogate unto the DENR the exclusive prerogative of exercising this function.”
Rule applied
Sec. 5, PD 705; Secs. 4 and 5, EO 192; Sec. 16 (general welfare clause), RA 7160; Sec. 5, Art. X, 1987 Constitution (local autonomy)
Whether the permits to transport salvaged forest products issued by Ruzol as municipal mayor are valid, in the absence of an enabling ordinance and an established communal forest.
The permits were invalid because the Sangguniang Bayan had enacted no ordinance authorizing them and no communal forest had been established in General Nakar. The mayor cannot regulate on his own without an enabling ordinance.
How the Court reasoned
- An LGU's power to regulate under the general welfare clause must be exercised through an ordinance enacted by the Sangguniang Bayan.
- The General Nakar Revised Municipal Revenue Code and Municipal Environment Code contained no provision on which the permits could be grounded.
- No communal forest had been established in the municipality, so the devolved power over communal forests did not apply.
- Without an ordinance for the regulation and transportation of salvaged products, the permits issued by Ruzol are infirm.
- The permits' invalidity, however, does not by itself make Ruzol criminally liable; that depends on the elements and intent required for the crime.
“Thus, in the absence of an ordinance for the regulation and transportation of salvaged products, the permits to transport issued by Ruzol are infirm.”
Rule applied
Secs. 16, 17, 129, 186, 447, 444, RA 7160 (Local Government Code); local legislative power must be exercised through ordinances
Whether Ruzol is guilty of usurpation of official functions under Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code.
Ruzol is not guilty of usurpation of official functions. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had the criminal intent, because he acted in good faith, so he is acquitted.
How the Court reasoned
- Art. 177 punishes a person who knowingly and falsely represents himself as an officer or performs an act pertaining to a person in authority or public officer under pretense of official position without being lawfully entitled.
- Usurpation is committed with criminal intent, so good faith is a valid defense.
- Ruzol issued the permits only after a multi-sectoral consultative assembly, which included the DENR's PENRO Delgado, and the permits were meant to curb illegal logging.
- The Sandiganbayan treated the seeking of endorsements and the PENRO's presence as showing bad faith, but the Court held that public consultation and DENR presence support good faith.
- Since the DENR is not the sole agency that may issue permits relevant to transport of salvaged forest products, and Ruzol did not pose as a DENR officer, the prosecution did not prove a 'criminal mind'.
- Because guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, the constitutional presumption of innocence prevails and acquittal follows, resolved pro hac vice.
“In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Ruzol possessed that "criminal mind" when he issued the subject permits.”
Rule applied
Art. 177, Revised Penal Code; good faith as a defense to a felony requiring criminal intent; Rule 133, Sec. 2, Rules of Court (proof beyond reasonable doubt)
Doctrines
The DENR is the primary, but not the sole or exclusive, agency with authority to protect the environment and regulate natural resources; 'primary' is not synonymous with 'sole' or 'exclusive'.
Under the principle of local autonomy and the general welfare clause, LGUs may enact ordinances to monitor and regulate salvaged forest products within their jurisdiction, complementing the DENR's authority, provided legal parameters are complied with.
A mayor cannot issue permits to transport salvaged forest products without an enabling ordinance from the Sangguniang Bayan; such permits are infirm.
Good faith is a defense to usurpation of official functions under Art. 177 of the RPC; where criminal intent is not proven beyond reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted.
Final Disposition
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The December 19, 2008 Decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case Nos. SB-08-CRIM-0039 to 0259 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused Leovegildo R. Ruzol is ACQUITTED on the basis of reasonable doubt of the crimes as charged.
Notes
The Court resolved the case pro hac vice (for this case only). It held the permits invalid for lack of an enabling ordinance but acquitted Ruzol on reasonable doubt due to good faith. Co-accused Sabiduria had already been acquitted by the Sandiganbayan.