G.R. No. 184098 November 25, 2008
AMADO TAOPA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

On April 2, 1996, the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office of Virac, Catanduanes seized a truck loaded with illegally-cut lumber covered with abaca fiber and arrested its driver, Placido Cuison. Cuison pointed to petitioner Amado Taopa and a certain Rufino Ogalesco as the owners of the lumber. Taopa, Ogalesco, and Cuison were charged with violating Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705 (the Revised Forestry Code), as amended, for possession and transport of forest products without legal documents. The Regional Trial Court found all three guilty. Only Taopa and Cuison appealed to the Court of Appeals, which acquitted Cuison but affirmed Taopa’s conviction, modifying his penalty. Taopa now seeks acquittal, alleging the prosecution failed to prove he owned the lumber since he was not in the truck when it was seized.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner Amado Taopa’s conviction for violation of Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction with modification of the penalty. The Court held that the prosecution proved Taopa’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of driver Placido Cuison established Taopa’s active participation, as the truck was loaded in front of Taopa’s house and Taopa and Ogalesco were accompanying the truck up to the point of seizure, demonstrating dominion and control over the lumber. Their act of running away at the sight of the police was indicative of guilt. The Court, however, modified the penalty. Violation of Section 68 of P.D. No. 705 is punished as qualified theft under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code. With the lumber’s market value at P67,630, the imposable penalty under Article 310 in relation to Article 309 is reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods (14 years, 8 months, 1 day to 20 years) plus an additional 4 years for the excess value. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term is within the range of the penalty next lower (prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal minimum, or 10 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months). The maximum term is the sum of the additional years and the medium period of reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods. The Court ultimately sentenced Taopa to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 20 years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, with accessory penalties.