Idanan vs. People

Illegal possession of timber under Section 68 of PD 705 is malum prohibitum; criminal intent is not an essential element, but the prosecution must prove animus possidendi, and possession may be actual or constructive. A driver and passengers found in a truck loaded with narra lumber without legal documents are at least in constructive possession, and the violation is punishable as qualified theft under Articles 309 and 310 of the RPC.

Petitioners Ernie Idanan, Nanly Del Barrio, and Marlon Plopenio were among the accused charged with illegal possession of narra lumber under Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705, as amended, the Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines. The law regulates timber and other forest products and penalizes, among other acts, possession of timber or forest products without the legal documents required under forest laws and regulations. A violation is punishable as qualified theft under the Revised Penal Code.

On October 16, 2005, the PNP headquarters of the Municipality of Panganiban, Province of Catanduanes received information that a group of illegal loggers would be transporting narra flitches along Kilometer 11, 12, or 13 in Panganiban. At around 3:30 p.m., the OIC Chief of Police, P/Inspector Chito Oyardo, and five other policemen were patrolling Kilometer 12 in a motorbike and a compactor when they spotted an idling Isuzu Elf truck loaded with lumber. The policemen approached the truck and found Ernie Idanan as the driver, with Nanly Del Barrio and Marlon Plopenio as passengers; Roberto Vargas and Elmer Tulod were seen hauling lumber to be loaded into the truck. Petitioners could not produce any document authorizing them to transport lumber, so they were placed under arrest. PO1 Ferdinand Bobiles took photographs of the truck, the seized lumber, and the accused. Petitioners were first brought to the police station before being brought to Camp Camacho in Virac, Catanduanes.

The Information charged that on or about October 16, 2005, in Barangay San Miguel, Panganiban, Catanduanes, the accused, with intent to gain, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously possessed and controlled 29 pieces of narra lumber with a gross volume of 716.48 board feet or 1.69 cubic meter valued at Php275,844.80, loaded in a truck bearing Plate No. UMU-424 without the necessary permit, license or documents required under the existing laws, rules and regulations of the DENR.

According to the defense, Idanan, Del Barrio, and Plopenio were traversing Kilometer 12 when policemen flagged them down and one of the policemen borrowed the truck. Idanan, the driver, obliged. One policeman drove the truck for about 100 meters while petitioners trailed the truck by foot. They then saw the policemen load narra flitches into the truck. None of them questioned the police out of fear. To their surprise, they were then arrested and ordered to follow the policemen to the police station. Vargas and Tulod claimed that they were going to Caramoran and hitched a ride with Idanan.

The defense presented a Certification signed by Punong Barangay Elias D. Obierna and Barangay Tanod Benito P. Obierna certifying that the police intercepted the truck driven by Idanan, that it was found empty, and that the police officers asked the driver of the truck to deliver the logs to the Municipal Office/Police Office Station of Panganiban, Catanduanes. The Obiernas initially denied that they executed the Certification. Elias later clarified that while he signed the Certification, he was not present at the time of the apprehension and had no personal knowledge that the truck was empty; he claimed that Santiago Idanan forced him to sign the Certification. Benito was present during the incident and allegedly saw firewood on two trucks and heard the policemen instructing a certain son of Agoy to load the lumbers into the truck.

The RTC gave credence to the testimonies of the police officers, found no evidence of ill motive on their part, and relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. It also found that the 29 pieces of narra lumber had a gross volume of 1.69 cubic meters and an estimated value of P275,844.80.

• Failure to Prove Elements and Animus Possidendi: Petitioners maintained that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the offense charged; relying on an illegal possession of firearm case, they asserted that possession must be coupled with intent to possess and that their intent to possess the subject narra lumber must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Nature of Possession: Petitioners argued that their possession over the lumber was temporary, incidental, casual and harmless; Tulod and Vargas claimed they were merely hired to load the lumber on the truck, Idanan admitted the truck was owned by his father, and Del Barrio and Plopenio claimed they were merely present at the crime scene.
• Credibility and Planted Evidence: Petitioners noted that the Chief of Police's testimony was far from candid and straightforward because he had to be coached by the prosecutor on matters relative to the arrest; they accused the police officers of planting evidence because since the Chief of Police assumed his post, he had never apprehended anybody for illegal possession of lumber; they asserted their testimonies were candid and spontaneous and cited the barangay officials' testimonies as corroborating that the confiscated truck had no narra lumber on it.

• In Flagrante Delicto and Mere Possession: The OSG noted that petitioners were apprehended by the police officers in flagrante delicto as they were transporting 29 pieces of narra lumber along Kilometer 12 in Barangay San Miguel, Panganiban, Catanduanes without the required documentation; mere possession of timber or other forest products without the accompanying legal documents consummates the crime.
• Credibility and Frame-Up: The OSG defended the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and assailed the defense of frame-up as weak.

• Credibility and Frame-Up: Whether the prosecution witnesses were credible and the defense of frame-up was sufficiently substantiated.
• Elements and Animus Possidendi: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of illegal possession of lumber under Section 68 of PD 705, including intent to possess or animus possidendi.
• Constructive Possession: Whether petitioners were in actual or constructive possession of the 29 pieces of narra lumber without the required legal documents.
• Penalty and Executive Clemency: Whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua was properly imposed for violation of Section 68 of PD 705, as qualified theft, and whether executive clemency should be recommended.

• Credibility and Frame-Up: Yes. The prosecution witnesses were credible, and the defense of frame-up was unsubstantiated; the presumption of regularity in police performance was unrebutted.
• Elements and Animus Possidendi: Yes. Illegal possession of timber is malum prohibitum, so criminal intent is not essential, but the SC found intent to possess because petitioners offered no plausible excuse and failed to negate animus possidendi.
• Constructive Possession: Yes. Petitioners were at least in constructive possession of the lumber; Idanan as driver was presumed to have full control of the truck and knowledge of its load, while Del Barrio and Plopenio accompanied him, and no legal documents were shown.
• Penalty and Executive Clemency: Yes. Section 68 punishes the violation as qualified theft; using the value of P275,884.80, the penalty is reclusion perpetua, and the SC recommended executive clemency under Article 5 of the RPC.

• Credibility and Frame-Up: The SC began by assessing the prosecution witnesses' credibility, citing the rule that evidence must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself, such as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances. It found petitioners' statements that they did not complain or put up any resistance when arrested despite their innocence contrary to human nature and experience; they should have at least protested if they believed they were not committing any crime. The allegation of planted evidence was unsubstantiated. There was no proof that the police had the ill motive to falsely accuse and testify against petitioners, aside from the unsubstantiated and far-fetched allegation that the police wanted to impress their superiors. The presumption of regularity accorded to police officers was unrebutted.

• Elements and Animus Possidendi: Section 68 of PD 705 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 documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations. Petitioners were charged under the third category. Illegal possession of timber is an offense covered by a special law and is malum prohibitum; criminal intent is not an essential element of the offense. However, the prosecution must prove intent to possess or animus possidendi. The SC found petitioners failed to prove they did not have animus possidendi. They claimed they traveled almost three hours just to retrieve the cellular phone of Idanan's father from Jojo Cabrera in Barangay Poblacion, Panganiban, Catanduanes, but failed to locate Cabrera. They did not protest despite seeing that the policemen allegedly loaded lumber into the truck, and they did not complain when subsequently arrested. Idanan was the driver, presumed to exercise full control of the vehicle and to know what its load was. Having offered no plausible excuse, petitioners failed to prove to the SC's satisfaction that they did not have the animus possidendi of the narra lumber.

• Constructive Possession: Possession under the 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. 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. Conviction need not be predicated upon exclusive possession, and a showing of non-exclusive possession would not exonerate the accused; possession may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inference drawn therefrom. The SC found Idanan, Del Barrio, and Plopenio were, at the very least, in constructive possession of the timber without the requisite legal documents. They were found in the truck loaded with 29 pieces of narra lumber; Idanan admitted driving the truck while Del Barrio and Plopenio accompanied him. Idanan was the driver, presumed to exercise full control of the vehicle and to know its load. They offered no plausible excuse. Mere possession of timber or other forest products without the proper legal documents, even absent malice or criminal intent, is illegal; it would make no difference whether the ownership of the lumber pertains to only one accused. The possession of lumber was without any license or permit issued by any competent authority.

• Penalty and Executive Clemency: Violation of Section 68 of PD 705, as amended, is punishable as qualified theft under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that the 29 pieces of lumber measuring 716.48 board feet were valued at P275,884.80, evidenced by the Statement of Narra lumber materials presented in evidence and testified to by Basil Cesar Camba. Since the amount exceeds P22,000, the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods should be imposed in its maximum period. To determine the additional years of imprisonment prescribed in Article 309(1), the SC deducted P22,000 from P275,884.80, leaving P253,884.80; divided by P10,000, disregarding any amount below P10,000, yielding an incremental penalty of 25 years. This was added to the basic penalty of the maximum period of prision mayor minimum and medium periods, which has a range of 6 years and 1 day to 10 years; its maximum period is 8 years, 8 months and 1 day to 10 years. Had simple theft been committed, the penalty should have been 20 years of reclusion temporal. In qualified theft, the penalty is two degrees higher, so reclusion perpetua should be imposed. The SC noted that the penalty would be suffered by the driver and the helpers while the operator of the illegal logging business had not been apprehended. While sympathizing with petitioners, the SC applied the law in full force: dura lex sed lex. Pursuant to Article 5 of the RPC, and guided by jurisprudence on instances when the facts of the crime elicited compassion for the accused, the SC recommended executive clemency.

• Malum prohibitum and animus possidendi — Illegal possession of timber under Section 68 of PD 705 is a special law offense and malum prohibitum; criminal intent is not an essential element, but the prosecution must prove intent to possess or animus possidendi. Applied: the SC found petitioners failed to negate animus because they offered no plausible excuse and did not protest their arrest.
• Actual and constructive possession — Possession includes actual possession, where the object is in the immediate physical control of the accused, and constructive possession, where the object is under the dominion and control of the accused or he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found; conviction need not rest on exclusive possession, and non-exclusive possession does not exonerate. Applied: Idanan as driver was presumed to control the truck and know its load; Del Barrio and Plopenio accompanied him, so all were at least in constructive possession.
• Mere possession without legal documents — Mere possession of timber or other forest products without the proper legal documents, even absent malice or criminal intent, is illegal; ownership of the lumber is immaterial. Applied: the 29 pieces of narra lumber were possessed without any license or permit.
• Qualified theft penalty for Section 68 violations — A violation of Section 68 of PD 705 is punishable as qualified theft under Articles 309 and 310 of the RPC; the penalty is computed from the value of the timber and then increased by two degrees. Applied: the value exceeded P22,000, the incremental penalty was 25 years, and qualified theft carried reclusion perpetua.
• Executive clemency under Article 5, RPC — The court may recommend executive clemency when strict enforcement would result in a clearly excessive penalty considering the degree of malice and injury. Applied: the SC recommended clemency for petitioners, who were driver and helpers while the operator was not apprehended.

• "Illegal possession of timber 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 intent to possess or animus possidendi." — This defines the mental element for the third category of Section 68 violations and explains why criminal intent is not required but animus possidendi must still be shown.
• "Possession, under the 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." — This supplies the canonical definitions used to hold the driver and passengers liable even without exclusive physical control.
• "Mere possession of timber or other forest products without the proper legal documents, even absent malice or criminal intent, is illegal. It would make no difference at all whether the ownership of the lumber pertains to only one accused." — This states the core malum prohibitum rule and rejects ownership as a defense.
• "While we sympathize 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. But considering the facts about petitioners' participation in the crime, and guided by jurisprudence on instances when the facts of the crime elicited the Court's compassion for the accused, we recommend executive clemency." — This explains why the SC imposed the harsh penalty but still recommended clemency under Article 5 of the RPC.

• People vs. Capuno, 655 Phil. 226, 224 (2011) — Cited for the rule that evidence must not only proceed from a credible witness but must be credible in itself, as common experience and observation can approve as probable under the circumstances.
• Villarin vs. People, 672 Phil. 155, 174 (2011) — Cited for the requirement that in illegal possession cases, the prosecution must prove intent to possess or animus possidendi.
• People vs. Macabre, 613 Phil. 474, 483 (2009), citing People vs. Tira, 41A Phil. 152, 174 (2004) — Cited for the definitions of actual and constructive possession and the rule that conviction need not rest on exclusive possession.
• Monge vs. People, 571 Phil. 472, 479 (2008) — Cited for the rule that mere possession of timber or forest products without the proper legal documents, even absent malice or criminal intent, is illegal, and ownership is immaterial.
• Taopa vs. People, 592 Phil. 341, 345-346 (2008) — Cited for the rule that violation of Section 68 of PD 705 is punishable as qualified theft under Articles 309 and 310 of the RPC.
• People vs. Cristobal, 662 Phil. 164, 187-188 (2011) — Cited in the penalty computation for qualified theft under Section 68 of PD 705.
• People vs. Tomotorgo, 220 Phil. 617, 624 (1985) — Cited as a case where the SC recommended executive clemency after considering the evidence and the accused's circumstances.
• Mendoza vs. People, 675 Phil. 759 (2011) — Cited as a case where the SC recommended executive clemency despite applying the law to its full extent.

• Section 68, Presidential Decree No. 705, as amended (Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines) — Penalizes cutting, gathering, collecting, or removing timber or forest products without authority and possession of timber or forest products without the legal documents required under forest laws and regulations; petitioners were charged and convicted under the third category.
• Article 309, Revised Penal Code — Provides the penalties for theft based on the value of the property stolen; the SC used it to compute the base penalty because the value of the narra lumber exceeded P22,000.
• Article 310, Revised Penal Code — Punishes qualified theft with penalties two degrees higher than those for simple theft; the SC applied it to impose reclusion perpetua on petitioners.
• Article 5, Revised Penal Code — Directs the court to submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, a statement when strict enforcement would result in a clearly excessive penalty; the SC invoked it to recommend executive clemency.