Leynes v. People Of The Philippines
Leynes v. People, G.R. No. 224804, September 21, 2016
- Criminal Law
- Procedural (Remedial Law)
- Philippine Fisheries Code
- Section 94 R.A. 8550
- conversion of mangrove forest
- malum prohibitum
- good faith
- tax declaration
- Certificate of Non Coverage
- fishpond lease agreement
- judicial admission
- Letter of Appeal
I. Facts of the Case
Efren R. Leynes, with Alan and Javier Leynes, was charged with violating Section 94 of the Philippine Fisheries Code (R.A. No. 8550) for cutting mangroves and building a dike and outlet (prinsa) in a mangrove forest at Polillo, Quezon without a fishpond lease agreement. Efren claimed he only improved an existing fishpond in good faith, relying on his grandfather's tax declaration and a DENR Certificate of Non Coverage. The RTC and the CA convicted him, and he appealed to the Supreme Court.
July 9, 2009
At Sitio Bigyan, Barangay Sibulan, Polillo, Quezon, Efren, Alan and Javier Leynes allegedly cut mangrove trees and excavated, built a dike and installed an outlet (prinsa) in about one-half hectare of mangrove forest, making it a fishpond without any lease agreement, license or permit.
An Information for violation of Section 94 of R.A. No. 8550 was filed against the three accused. Efren and Alan pleaded not guilty at arraignment, Javier remained at large, and trial proceeded after pre-trial.
The defense argued that building dikes and installing the prinsa were rehabilitation and improvement, not conversion. They said the area had been a fishpond since 1970 and was once owned by Efren's grandfather, Emilio Leynes, who held a tax declaration. They also said Efren acted in good faith under a DENR Certificate of Non Coverage.
April 25, 2014
The RTC convicted Efren and sentenced him to six years and one day to twelve years of imprisonment and a fine of P80,000. It held that the grandfather's tax declaration did not justify continued possession and improvements, because issuing a tax declaration over land not classified as alienable and disposable is criminal under Section 75 of P.D. No. 705. It also held that the Certificate of Non Coverage does not exempt the grantee from environmental laws, and that only a fishpond lease agreement under Section 45 of R.A. 8550 could exempt him from Section 94.
April 25, 2014
The RTC dismissed the case against Alan for failure to prove conspiracy or his participation, and archived the case against Javier, who remained at large.
December 3, 2015
The CA affirmed Efren's conviction in CA-G.R. CR No. 36638. It treated the admission of destruction of the mangrove area in his Letter of Appeal as a judicial admission, conclusive against him absent a showing of palpable mistake.
Efren appealed to the Supreme Court, maintaining that he did not convert the mangroves and that he acted in good faith.
II. Issues
Whether or not petitioner Efren R. Leynes committed conversion of mangroves punishable under Section 94 of R.A. No. 8550.
Whether or not good faith, the tax declaration, and the Certificate of Non Coverage exempt petitioner from criminal liability under Section 94 of R.A. No. 8550.
Whether or not petitioner's statement in his Letter of Appeal constitutes a judicial admission sufficient to sustain his conviction.
III. Ruling
Whether or not petitioner Efren R. Leynes committed conversion of mangroves punishable under Section 94 of R.A. No. 8550.
Efren converted the mangrove forest within the meaning of Section 94. Cutting trees, excavating, building a dike and installing a prinsa changed the mangrove forest from its natural state.
How the Court reasoned
- Conversion of a mangrove forest has three elements: the site is a mangrove forest, it was converted into a fishpond, and the accused made the conversion. The first and third elements were not disputed.
- The Court gave 'conversion' its plain meaning of changing from one form or state to another.
- Cutting trees, constructing a dike, installing a prinsa and excavating altered the natural structure of the mangrove forest.
- Efren's argument that these acts were only rehabilitation or improvement failed. Even if the area was already a fishpond when he inherited it, continuing to introduce improvements and use it, knowing it was a mangrove forest, makes him criminally liable.
- The law also punishes conversion into any other purpose, not only into fishponds.
- Mangroves include many plant families, so cutting any tree in the mangrove forest, whatever its species, is conversion.
“By cutting a tree in the mangrove forest, regardless of its species, Efren caused conversion of the same.”
Rule applied
Section 94, Republic Act No. 8550 (Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998)
Whether or not good faith, the tax declaration, and the Certificate of Non Coverage exempt petitioner from criminal liability under Section 94 of R.A. No. 8550.
Neither good faith, the tax declaration nor the Certificate of Non Coverage excuses Efren. The offense is malum prohibitum, so intent and good faith do not matter, and only a fishpond lease agreement could exempt him.
How the Court reasoned
- R.A. No. 8550 is a special law, and violations of it are malum prohibitum (wrong because prohibited by law). Criminal intent and good faith are therefore immaterial.
- A tax declaration over land that is not alienable and disposable gives no right to possess or improve it. Issuing such a declaration is itself punishable under Section 75 of P.D. No. 705, so it cannot shield him from liability.
- The DENR Certificate of Non Coverage does not exempt the grantee from compliance with environmental laws and permitting requirements.
- Only a fishpond lease agreement under Section 45 of R.A. 8550 could have exempted Efren from Section 94, and he had none.
“As a special law, failure to comply with the same being malum prohihitum, intent to commit it or good faith is immaterial.”
Rule applied
Section 94 and Section 45, R.A. No. 8550; Section 75, P.D. No. 705; the malum prohibitum doctrine for special laws
Whether or not petitioner's statement in his Letter of Appeal constitutes a judicial admission sufficient to sustain his conviction.
The statement in Efren's Letter of Appeal is a binding judicial admission that supports his conviction. He showed no palpable mistake to overcome it.
How the Court reasoned
- In his Letter of Appeal Efren admitted the destruction of the mangrove area.
- Judicial admissions are legally binding on the party who makes them and are conclusive unless shown to be made through palpable mistake.
- Efren did not show any palpable mistake, so the admission stands.
- Together with the undisputed elements of the offense, the admission sufficiently sustains the conviction.
“Judicial admissions are legally binding on the party making the admissions.”
Rule applied
Rule on judicial admissions (Rule 129, Section 4, Rules of Court), as applied in Alfelor v. Halasan
Doctrines
Violation of Section 94 of R.A. No. 8550 (conversion of mangrove forest) is malum prohibitum; criminal intent and good faith are immaterial.
Conversion of a mangrove forest is given its plain meaning, a change from one form or state to another. Cutting any tree in a mangrove forest, regardless of species, and excavating, building dikes or installing outlets in it constitute conversion. Continued improvement of an existing fishpond within a mangrove forest is also punishable.
A tax declaration over land that is not alienable and disposable gives no right to possess or improve it and does not shield the holder from criminal liability.
A DENR Certificate of Non Coverage does not exempt the grantee from environmental laws; only a fishpond lease agreement under Section 45 of R.A. No. 8550 can exempt a person from liability under Section 94.
Judicial admissions are legally binding on the party making them and are conclusive absent a showing of palpable mistake.
Final Disposition
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 3 December 2015 in CA-G.R. CR No. 36638 is AFFIRMED in toto. Petitioner Efren R. Leynes remains convicted of violating Section 94 of R.A. No. 8550, with imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twelve (12) years, as maximum, and a fine of P80,000.00.
Notes
The case is a Resolution of the Third Division penned by Justice Perez. The decision preview was truncated, so the Court's reasoning is drawn from the chunk extractions.