View full case

RODOLFO TIGOY v. CA

FACTS:

On August 3, 1993, Nestor Ong entered into a Contract to Transport with Lolong Bertodazo, involving the transportation of construction materials from Larapan, Lanao del Norte to Dipolog City. Ong instructed his truck drivers, Nestor Sumagang and Rodolfo Tigoy, to bring the trucks to Bertodazo for loading on the evening of October 3, 1993. The drivers then checked the condition of the trucks and left them in Larapan overnight.

The next morning, Senior Inspector Tome received information about two trucks loaded with cement that did not pass through a checkpoint. Tome and his team intercepted the trucks at Barangay Manabay and found sawn lumber underneath the cement bags. As a result, Tigoy and Sumagang were detained, while Bertodazo and the other passengers were released. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) sent investigators who seized the lumber and vehicles.

Subsequently, on October 6, 1993, an Information was filed against Ong, Sumagang, Bertodazo, and Tigoy for the possession of forest products without a legal permit.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether there was collusion between Lolong Bertodazo and petitioner Tigoy.

  2. Whether the affidavit of Lolong Bertodazo, which is against his penal interest, should have been considered.

  3. Whether petitioner Tigoy had knowledge of the lumber he was transporting.

  4. Whether petitioner Tigoy had actual and physical possession of the undocumented lumber.

  5. Whether the petitioner knew about the unlicensed lumber being transported

  6. Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove conspiracy

RULING:

  1. The Court of Appeals found no collusion between Lolong Bertodazo and petitioner Tigoy. It also disregarded the affidavit of Lolong Bertodazo against his penal interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of petitioner Tigoy, finding him guilty of possessing and transporting lumber without the necessary permit.

  2. The Court found that the petitioner's contention that he did not know about the unlicensed lumber was not credible, and the lower court's finding that he connived with the other driver in transporting the lumber was upheld.

  3. The Court ruled that conspiracy may be proven by circumstantial evidence and that it is not necessary to have direct proof of a previous agreement to commit an offense. The Court found that the petitioner's actions showed intentional participation in the commission of the offense. Therefore, the conviction was upheld.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Constructive possession of unlicensed lumber is not within the contemplation of Section 68 of P.D. No. 705.

  • In determining guilt, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt.

  • The belief of a person that the cargo he is transporting is legal does not exempt him from liability if it is proven that he had knowledge of the prohibited nature of the goods.

  • Possession of undocumented lumber without the required legal documents is punishable under Section 68 of the Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines.

  • In offenses considered mala prohibita, the commission of the prohibited act is the crime itself. It is sufficient that the offender has the intent to commit the act prohibited by the special law, and that it is done knowingly and consciously.

  • Conspiracy may be proven by circumstantial evidence and may be inferred from the mode, method, and manner in which the offense is perpetrated or from the acts of the accused pointing to a joint purpose and design. It is not required for the participants to have an agreement for an appreciable period to commence it.

  • Factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally final and conclusive.