Momongan vs.

judge omipon

Facts:

Dionisio Golpe was apprehended by police officers while he was driving his truck
loaded with illegally cut lumber. It was later found that a certain Basilio Cabig
owned the logs,thus, a complaint was filed against him. Judge Rafael
Omipon,the respondent in this case, found that a prima facie case exist against
Cabig but he ordered the release of the truck inasmuch as the
owner/driver,Golpe was not charged in the complaint.

Augustus momongon, the regional director of the Denr, filed the present
complaint against Judge Omipon alleging that his order releasing the truck used
in the transport of illegally cut forest products violated sec. 68 and 68-a of P.D
No. 705 and AO.No. 59,series of 1990. Momongon furfher claims that Judge
omipon is devoid of authority to release the truck despite the non -inclusion of
GOLPE in the complaint.

Issue:

Whether Judge omipon had authority to release the assailed truck and thus be
free from any disciplinary sanction.

Ruling:

Yes. Judge Omipon had the authority to order the release of the truck.

Although the Denr secretary or his duly authorized representatives have the
power to confiscate any illegally obtained or gathered forest products and all
conveyances used in the commission of theoffense,based on sec. 68-A and PD
NO. 705 and AO No. 59,this power is in relation to the administrative jurisdiction
of the DENR. The act of Judge omipon of releasing the truck did not violate PD
No. 705 and AO NO. 59 because his act did not render nugatory the
administrative authority of the DENR Secretary. The confiscation proceedings
under administrative order no. 59 is different from the confiscation under the
RPC, which is an additional penalty imposed in the event of conviction.

Momongan assails that Judge Omipon should have turned over the truck to the
community environment and natural resources office (CENRO). Judge Omipon
however had no mandatory duty to do so, and should therefore not be visited
with disciplinary action.
 People of the Philippines vs. CFI of Quezon

Facts:

Godofredo arrozal,Luis Flares and twenty other John Does were charged with the
crime of qualified theft of logs,defined and punished under sec. 68 of P.D 705.
The accused filed a motion to quash the information on the following grounds: 1.)
the facts charged do not constitute an offense; and 2.) the information does not
conform substantially to the prescribed form. The motion was granted by the trial
court. Consequently, a petition was filed with the Supreme Court questioning the
action of the trial court.

Issues:

1. whether the information charged an offense.

2. whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the case.

Ruling:

1.) Yes. The information properly charged an offense.

The sufficiency of the information hinges on the question of whether the

facts alleged,if hypothetically admitted,meet the essential elements of the
offense defined in the law. The elements of the crime qualified theft of logs are:
1.) that the accused cut,gathered,collected or removed timber or other forest
products, 2.) that the timber or other forest production cut,gathered,collected or
removed belongs to the government or to any private individual an 3.) that the
cutting,gathering,collecting or removing was without authority under a license
agreement,lease,license or permit granted by the state.

Failure to alleged were owned by the state does not affect the validity of
the information. Ownership is not an essential element of the offense and that
the failure to stipulate the fact of ownership of the logs is not material.
Furthermore,the logs were taken from a private woodland and not from a public
forest. The fact that only the State can grant a license agreement,license or a
lease does not make the state the owner of all the logs and timber products
produced in the Philippines including those produced in private woodlands.

2.) Yes. The trial court has jurisdiction over the case.

The trial court erred in dismissing the case on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter because the information was filed pursuant
to the complaint of a forest officer as prescribed in Sec, 80 of PD No. 705.
 The authority given to the forest officer to investigate reports and
complaints regarding the commission of offenses defined in PD. 705 by the said
last and penultimate paragraphs of Sec. 80

May be considered as covering only such reports and complaints as might be

brought to the forest officer assigned to the area by other forest officers or
employees of the Bureau of Forest Development, or any of the deputized officers
or officials, for violations of forest laws not committed in their presence.