GR 170308; (March, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 170308 March 7, 2008
Galo Monge, petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Galo Monge and Edgar Potencio were apprehended by barangay tanods in Iriga City on July 20, 1994, while transporting three pieces of mahogany lumber. Upon demand, they failed to produce any permit or authority from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Monge fled the scene, while Potencio was taken into custody. The DENR issued a seizure receipt for the lumber, valued at P1,925.00. Both were charged with violating Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705, as amended. During trial, Potencio was discharged as a state witness upon prosecution motion. He testified that Monge owned the lumber and hired him for transport. This was corroborated by a tanod. Monge claimed the opposite, asserting Potencio was the owner who hired him.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction and in upholding the discharge of his co-accused as a state witness.
RULING
The petition is without merit. Petitioner’s conviction stands. Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended, punishes two distinct acts: the unauthorized extraction of forest products, and the mere possession of such products without the required legal documents. The offense relevant here is possession without legal documents, which is malum prohibitum. The prosecution successfully established that petitioner and Potencio were in possession of and transporting the lumber without the requisite Certificate of Lumber Origin from the DENR. Petitioner’s denial of ownership and claim that he was merely hired by Potencio are irrelevant defenses. In a malum prohibitum offense, criminal liability attaches upon proof of the prohibited act, regardless of intent or claims of good faith. The positive testimonies of the state witness and the corroborating tanod sufficiently proved petitioner’s possession and lack of authority.
Furthermore, the discharge of Potencio as a state witness was proper. The trial court correctly found absolute necessity for his testimony, as the other apprehending officer’s testimony was stricken from the record. His testimony was substantially corroborated by another witness. The determination of who is the “least guilty” is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, which found Potencio less guilty as a mere hired helper, not the owner of the lumber. The appellate court committed no reversible error in affirming this discretionary ruling.