GALO MONGE, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N
TINGA, J.:
This is a Petition for Review
1
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court whereby petitioner
Galo Monge petitioner! assails the "e#ision
$
of the Court of %ppeals dated $& 'une $((5
whi#h affir)ed his #onvi#tion as well as the dis#harge of a##used *dgar Poten#io
Poten#io! as a state witness.
The fa#tual ante#edents follow. +n $( 'uly 1,,4, petitioner and Poten#io were found by
barangay tanods -erdan and Molina in possession of and transporting three .! pie#es of
)ahogany lu)ber in /arangay -anto "o)ingo, 0riga City. Right there and then, the
tanods de)anded that they be shown the re1uisite per)it and2or authority fro) the
"epart)ent of *nviron)ent and 3atural Resour#es "*3R! but neither petitioner nor
Poten#io was able to produ#e any.
.
Petitioner fled the s#ene in that instant whereas
Poten#io was brought to the poli#e station for interrogation, and thereafter, to the "*3R4
Co))unity *nviron)ent and 3atural Resour#es +ffi#e "*3R4C*3R+!.
4
The "*3R4
C*3R+ issued a sei5ure re#eipt for the three pie#es of lu)ber indi#ating that the ite)s,
totaling 66 board feet of )ahogany valued at P1,,$5.((, had been sei5ed fro) Poten#io.
5

7ater on, petitioner was arrested, but Poten#io8s whereabouts had been un9nown sin#e the
ti)e of the sei5ure
:
until he surfa#ed on . 'anuary 1,,&.
6

%n infor)ation was filed with the Regional Trial Court of 0riga City, /ran#h .5 #harging
petitioner and Poten#io with violation of -e#tion :&
&
of Presidential "e#ree P.".! 3o.
6(5,
,
as a)ended by *;e#utive +rder *.+.! 3o. $66, series of 1,,6. The in#ulpatory
portion of the infor)ation reads<
That on or about the $(
th
day of ='uly 1,,4>, at about ,<.( o8#lo#9 in the )orning, in
/arangay -to. "o)ingo, 0riga City, Philippines and within the ?urisdi#tion of this
@onorable Court, the above4na)ed a##used, #onspiring, #onfederating with ea#h other,
without any authority of law, nor ar)ed with ne#essary per)it2li#ense or other
do#u)ents, with intent to gain, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
transport and have in their possession three .! pie#es of Mahogany of assorted
=di)ension> with a=n> appropriate volu)e of seventy4seven 66! board feet or point
eighteen (.1&! #ubi# )eter with a total )ar9et value of P1,,$5.((, Philippine #urren#y,
to the da)age and pre?udi#e of the "*3R in the aforesaid a)ount.
C+3TR%RA T+ 7%B.
1(

%t the $: 3ove)ber 1,,: arraign)ent, petitioner entered a negative plea.
11

Trial ensued. +n 16 'une 1,,6, -erdan testified on the #ir#u)stan#es of the apprehension
but for failing to appear in #ourt for #ross e;a)ination, his testi)ony was stri#9en out.
1$

+n 1: 'anuary 1,,&, Poten#io was dis#harged to be used as a state witness on )otion of
the prose#utor.
1.
%##ordingly, he testified on the #ir#u)stan#es of the arrest but #lai)ed
that for a pro)ised fee he was )erely re1uested by petitioner, the owner of the log, to
assist hi) in hauling the sa)e down fro) the )ountain. Poten#io8s testi)ony was
)aterially #orroborated by Molina.
14
Petitioner did not #ontest the allegations, e;#ept that
it was not he but Poten#io who owned the lu)ber. @e la)ented that #ontrary to what
Poten#io had stated in #ourt, it was the latter who hired hi) to bring the log fro) the site
to the saw)ill where the sa)e was to be sawn into pie#es.
15

The trial #ourt found petitioner guilty as #harged. Petitioner was i)posed nine ,! years,
four 4! )onths and one 1! day to ten 1(! years and eight &! )onths of prision mayor
in its )ediu) and )a;i)u) periods and ordered to pay the #osts.
1:

%ggrieved, petitioner elevated the #ase to the Court of %ppeals where he #hallenged the
dis#harge of Poten#io as a state witness on the ground that the latter was not the least
guilty of the offense and that there was no absolute ne#essity for his testi)ony.
16
The
appellate #ourt dis)issed this #hallenge and affir)ed the findings of the trial #ourt.
@owever, it )odified the penalty to an indeter)inate prison senten#e of si; :! years of
prision correccional as )ini)u) to ten 1(! years and eight &! )onths of prision mayor
as )a;i)u).
1&
@is )otion for re#onsideration was denied, hen#e the present appeal
whereby petitioner reiterates his #hallenge against the dis#harge of Poten#io.
The petition is utterly un)eritorious.
Petitioner and Poten#io were #aught in flagrante delicto transporting, and thus in
possession of, pro#essed )ahogany lu)ber without proper authority fro) the "*3R.
Petitioner has never denied this fa#t. /ut in his atte)pt to e;onerate hi)self fro)
liability, he #lai)s that it was Poten#io, the owner of the lu)ber, who re1uested his
assistan#e in hauling the log down fro) the )ountain and in transporting the sa)e to the
saw)ill for pro#essing. The #ontention is unavailing.
-e#tion :& of P.". 3o. 6(5, as a)ended by *.+. 3o. $66, #ri)inali5es two distin#t and
separate offenses, na)ely< a! the #utting, gathering, #olle#ting and re)oving of ti)ber or
other forest produ#ts fro) any forest land, or ti)ber fro) alienable or disposable publi#
land, or fro) private land without any authorityC and b! the possession of ti)ber or other
forest produ#ts without the legal do#u)ents re1uired under e;isting laws and
regulations.
1,
"*3R %d)inistrative +rder 3o. 5, series of 1,,. spe#ifies the do#u)ents
re1uired for the transport of ti)ber and other forest produ#ts. -e#tion . thereof )aterially
re1uires that the transport of lu)ber be a##o)panied by a #ertifi#ate of lu)ber origin
duly issued by the "*3R4C*3R+. 0n the first offense, the legality of the a#ts of #utting,
gathering, #olle#ting or re)oving ti)ber or other forest produ#ts )ay be proven by the
authori5ation duly issued by the "*3R. 0n the se#ond offense, however, it is i))aterial
whether or not the #utting, gathering, #olle#ting and re)oval of forest produ#ts are legal
pre#isely be#ause )ere possession of forest produ#ts without the re1uisite do#u)ents
#onsu))ates the #ri)e.
$(

0t is thus #lear that the fa#t of possession by petitioner and Poten#io of the sub?e#t
)ahogany lu)ber and their subse1uent failure to produ#e the re1uisite legal do#u)ents,
ta9en together, has already given rise to #ri)inal liability under -e#tion :& of P.". 3o.
6(5, parti#ularly the se#ond a#t punished thereunder. The dire#t and affir)ative
testi)ony of Molina and Poten#io as a state witness on the #ir#u)stan#es surrounding the
apprehension well establishes petitioner8s liability. Petitioner #annot ta9e refuge in his
denial of ownership over the pie#es of lu)ber found in his possession nor in his #lai)
that his help was )erely soli#ited by Poten#io to provide the latter assistan#e in
transporting the said lu)ber. P.". 3o. 6(5 is a spe#ial penal statute that punishes a#ts
essentially malum prohibitum. %s su#h, in prose#utions under its provisions, #lai)s of
good faith are by no )eans reliable as defenses be#ause the offense is #o)plete and
#ri)inal liability atta#hes on#e the prohibited a#ts are #o))itted.
$1
0n other words, )ere
possession of ti)ber or other forest produ#ts without the proper legal do#u)ents, even
absent )ali#e or #ri)inal intent, is illegal.
$$
0t would therefore )a9e no differen#e at all
whether it was petitioner hi)self or Poten#io who owned the sub?e#t pie#es of lu)ber.
Considering the overwhel)ing body of eviden#e pointing to nothing less than petitioner8s
guilt of the offense #harged, there is no #ogent reason to reverse his #onvi#tion.
Petitioner8s #hallenge against Poten#io8s dis#harge as a state witness )ust also fail. 3ot a
few #ases established the do#trine that the dis#harge of an a##used so he )ay turn state
witness is left to the e;er#ise of the trial #ourt8s sound dis#retion
$.
li)ited only by the
re1uire)ents set forth in -e#tion 16,
$4
Rule 11, of the Rules of Court. Thus, whether the
a##used offered to be dis#harged appears to be the least guilty and whether there is
ob?e#tively an absolute ne#essity for his testi)ony are 1uestions that lie within the
do)ain of the trial #ourt, it being #o)petent to resolve issues of fa#t. The dis#retionary
?udg)ent of the trial #ourt with respe#t this highly fa#tual issue is not to be interfered
with by the appellate #ourts e;#ept in #ase of grave abuse of dis#retion.
$5
3o su#h grave
abuse is present in this #ase. -uffi#e it to say that issues relative to the dis#harge of an
a##used )ust be raised in the trial #ourt as they #annot be addressed for the first ti)e on
appeal.
$:

Moreover and )ore i)portantly, an order dis#harging an a##used fro) the infor)ation in
order that he )ay testify for the prose#ution has the effe#t of an a#1uittal.
$6
+n#e the
dis#harge is ordered by the trial #ourt, any future develop)ent showing that any or all of
the #onditions provided in -e#tion 16, Rule 11, have not a#tually been fulfilled will not
affe#t the legal #onse1uen#e of an a#1uittal.
$&
%ny witting or unwitting error of the
prose#ution, therefore, in )oving for the dis#harge and of the #ourt in granting the
)otion no 1uestion of ?urisdi#tion being involved will not deprive the dis#harged a##used
of the benefit of a#1uittal and of his right against double ?eopardy. % #ontrary rule would
#ertainly be unfair to the dis#harged a##used be#ause he would then be faulted for a
failure attributable to the prose#utor. 0t is in#on#eivable that the rule has adopted the
abhorrent legal poli#y of pla#ing the fate of the dis#harged a##used at the )er#y of
anyone who )ay handle the prose#ution.
$,
0ndeed, the only instan#e where the testi)ony
of a dis#harged a##used )ay be disregarded is when he deliberately fails to testify
truthfully in #ourt in a##ordan#e with his #o))it)ent,
.(
as provided for in -e#tion 1&,
Rule 11,. Poten#io lived up to his #o))it)ent and for that reason, petitioner8s #hallenge
against his dis#harge )ust be dis)issed.
B@*R*D+R*, the petition is "*30*" and the assailed de#ision of the Court of %ppeals
is %DD0RM*".