Title
Bon vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 152160
Decision Date
Jan 13, 2004
Virgilio Bon illegally cut trees on Teresita Dangalan-Mendoza’s property, denied consent. Convicted via witness testimonies, circumstantial evidence; penalty modified by Supreme Court.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 152160)

Facts:

Background of the Case

The case involves Virgilio Bon, who was charged with violating Section 68 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 705, as amended, for illegally cutting, gathering, and manufacturing lumber from trees on a property owned by Teresita Dangalan-Mendoza. The property, located in Barangay Basud, Sorsogon, was under Bon's administration. The trees cut included four narra trees, one cuyao-yao tree, and one amugis tree, with an estimated value of P25,000.

Prosecution's Evidence

The prosecution presented several witnesses, including:

  1. Julian Lascano (Barangay Tanod) and Manuel Dangalan (brother of the complainant), who testified that Bon admitted to ordering the cutting of the trees during an investigation on February 12, 1990.
  2. Oscar Narvaez, who claimed he was hired by Alejandro Jeniebre, Jr. (Bon's son-in-law) to saw the trees into lumber.
  3. Alexander Mendones (CENRO Officer), who confirmed that no permit was issued for the cutting of the trees and estimated the value of the lumber at P25,376.
  4. Teresita Dangalan-Mendoza, the landowner, who testified that the trees were cut without her consent.

Defense's Evidence

The defense, consisting of Virgilio Bon, Alejandro Jeniebre, Jr., and Rosalio Bon (Bon's son), denied the charges. Bon claimed that the case was filed to eject him as a tenant, while Jeniebre denied hiring Narvaez, alleging that Narvaez had a grudge against him.

Trial Court's Decision

The trial court convicted Virgilio Bon and Alejandro Jeniebre, Jr., but acquitted Rosalio Bon. Bon was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 7 years, 4 months, and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum, to 11 years, 6 months, and 21 days of prision mayor as maximum.

Court of Appeals' Decision

The CA affirmed Bon's conviction but modified the penalty to 10 years of prision mayor as minimum, to 14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal as maximum. Jeniebre was acquitted due to insufficient evidence linking him to the crime.

Issue:

  1. Admissibility of Extrajudicial Admission: Whether the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding Bon's admission to cutting the trees constitute hearsay and are admissible in evidence.
  2. Credibility of Witnesses: Whether the prosecution witnesses' testimonies should be given credence despite allegations of lying.
  3. Constitutional Admissibility: Whether Bon's extrajudicial admission, made without the assistance of counsel, is constitutionally admissible.
  4. Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to convict Bon beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision with a modification to the penalty. The Court held that:

  1. The testimonies of Lascano and Dangalan regarding Bon's admission were not hearsay because they were based on their personal knowledge and were offered to prove that the statement was made, not its truth.
  2. Bon's admission was admissible under Section 26 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, as it was a voluntary statement made outside custodial investigation.
  3. The prosecution's circumstantial evidence, including Bon's admission, the presence of tree stumps, and the lack of permits, sufficiently proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
  4. The penalty was modified to the trial court's original sentence of 7 years, 4 months, and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum, to 11 years, 6 months, and 21 days of prision mayor as maximum.

Ratio:

  1. Hearsay Rule: Testimony about a party's statement is not hearsay if it is offered to prove that the statement was made, not its truth. Such testimony is admissible as circumstantial evidence.
  2. Admissibility of Extrajudicial Admissions: A party's admission, even if uncounselled, is admissible if it was made voluntarily and not during custodial investigation.
  3. Circumstantial Evidence: Conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence if the circumstances form an unbroken chain leading to a conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
  4. Penalty: The penalty for violating Section 68 of PD 705, as amended, is based on Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code. The Indeterminate Sentence Law applies to reduce the penalty to a range within the statutory limits.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.