FACTS
The DENR, together with police officers, apprehended a truck that was parked
along the highway after its driver failed to produce proper supporting documents to
show authorization for carrying lumber.
The next day, Petitioners Jackson Padiernos, Jackie Roxas, Rolando Mesina, and
others, upon the order of Santiago Castillo, carried and took away the truck – this
despite the police officers giving warning shots. The petitioners were, however,
apprehended at a military checkpoint.
The prosecution accused the petitioners as accessories to the crime of illegal
possession of lumber, a violation under P.D. 705 or the Revised Forestry Code of
the Philippines.
Based on the Information, the petitioners took away the truck that carried the
undocumented lumber to prevent its use as evidence and to avoid its confiscation
and forfeiture, to wit:
“confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there
unlawfully, feloniously and willfully take and carry away the
aforementioned ten wheeler truck with Plate No. TFZ-747 so it could not be
used as evidence and avoid confiscation and forfeiture in favor of the
government as tool or instrument of the crime.”
The petitioners admitted they knew that the truck, which was owned by Castillo,
had been involved in the illegal transportation/possession of the seized lumber.
They also said they initially refused to go, but later went, after Castillo assured
them that there was no problem with the truck.
In their defense, the petitioners contended that they cannot be held liable as
accessories for violation of PD 705 because the DENR officers and police officers
had already discovered the crime and had, in fact, control over the truck when the
petitioners drove it towards Nueva Ecija. Article 19 of the RPC only punishes
accessories who prevent the discovery of the crime.
On the other hand, the prosecution maintained that the petitioners' acts were aimed
at preventing the discovery of the crime. Without the truck, said the prosecution,
the petitioners could easily produce the necessary transportation documents to
account for the entire volume of the confiscated lumber.
Both the Regional Trial Court of Baler, Aurora and the Court of Appeals held the
petitioners accessories to the crime; thus, the present petitione before the Supreme
Court.
ISSUE
Whether or not the petitioners should be held liable as accessories for the crime of
illegal possession of lumber, in violation of PD 705.
RULING
No, the petitioners are not liable as accessories to the crime.
Article 19, paragraph 2 defines "accessories" as those who, with knowledge of the
commission of the crime and without having participated therein, either as
principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission by concealing
or destroying the body of the crime, its effects or instruments, in order to
prevent its discovery.
In the present case, the crime punishable under P.D. 705 - the illegal possession
of lumber - had already been discovered at the time the petitioners took the
truck. This discovery led to the confiscation of the truck and the loaded lumber on
Nov. 15, 2002. The petitioners took the truck on Nov. 16, 2002, after its
confiscation.
In these lights, the petitioners are not liable as accessories to the crime charged in
the Information as the legal definition of the technical term "accessories" does not
coincide with the factual allegations in the Information that serves as the actual
criminal charge against the petitioners.
The petitioners, however, committed the criminal offense of obstruction of justice,
defined under Section 1(b) of P.D. No. 1829.
Under Section 1(b) of P.D. 1829, the crime of obstruction of justice is committed
through the following acts:
Section 1. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period, or a fine
ranging from 1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who
knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the
apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal
cases by committing any of the following acts:
xxxx
(b) altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper, record, document,
or object, with intent to impair its verity, authenticity, legibility, availability, or
admissibility as evidence in any investigation of or official proceedings in
criminal cases, or to be used in the investigation of, or official proceedings in
criminal cases; xxx"
The factual allegations in the Information clearly charge the accused of taking and
carrying away the truck so that it could not be used as evidence and to avoid
its confiscation and forfeiture in favor of the government as a tool or
instrument of the crime.
The petitioners also intentionally suppressed the truck as evidence, with the
intent to impair its availability and prevent its use as evidence in the criminal
investigation or proceeding for violation of P.D. 705.
The Supreme Court reversed the CA's findings and held the petitioners guilty of
Section 1(b) of P.D. 1829.
