G.R. No. 140001 - People vs. Buenaflor

On November 14, 1992, at around 10:00 AM, police officers in Hinunangan, Southern Leyte apprehended Dionisio Golpe while he was driving his truck loaded with illegally cut lumber.
The truck, along with the illegally cut logs, was immediately impounded.
A criminal complaint was subsequently filed against Basilio Cabig, who was identified as the alleged owner of the logs.

Respondent Judge Rafael B. Omipon of the 6th Municipal Circuit Trial Court conducted a preliminary investigation into the incident.
The investigation revealed a prima facie case against Cabig; however, Dionisio Golpe, the truck owner/driver, was not charged.
Exercising his discretion, the judge ordered the release of the truck since Golpe was not included in the complaint and appeared to have a minor role in the offense.

Petitioner: Regional Director Augustus L. Momongan of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Region VIII.
Respondent: Judge Rafael B. Omipon, the trial court judge who ordered the release of the truck.
The petitioner contended that the judge’s order violated Presidential Decree No. 705 (as amended by Executive Order No. 277, Sections 68 and 68-A) and Administrative Order No. 59, arguing that the truck should have been turned over to the local Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) for proper disposition.

In his explanation, Judge Omipon detailed that Golpe, primarily engaged in hauling sand, gravel, and delivering hollow blocks, became involved when his friend, Cabig, requested assistance in transporting sliced lumber for a barangay high school construction project.
The apprehension occurred after Golpe had changed a flat tire, prompting both him and Cabig to be taken to the Hinunangan police station.
The Court Administrator’s Memorandum expressed dissatisfaction with the judge’s explanation, recommending a formal investigation to clarify any unrecorded facts and delineate clear culpability or exoneration regarding the matter.

The case was referred to Acting Executive Judge Leandro T. Loyao, Jr., RTC, Branch 26 in San Juan, Southern Leyte for a further investigation, report, and recommendation, to be submitted within sixty days.
During the hearings, the DENR was represented by its lawyer, Constantino Esber, and legal assistant, Romeo Gulong, while the respondent appeared with his counsel.
On a subsequent hearing, Judge Omipon failed to appear due to a stroke and hospitalization, leading to further procedural motions including a motion for reinvestigation by the DENR counsel.
Both parties eventually agreed to submit the case for appropriate action, despite the limited additional evidence uncovered during the investigation.

The Investigating Judge’s report noted the absence of additional facts and emphasized the compromised health of Judge Omipon.
Although Judge Omipon had filed for disability retirement (which was later approved, albeit with a pending release of his pension), the Supreme Court found that his order to release the truck was legally justifiable.
The Court emphasized that the truck, as property of Dionisio Golpe (who was not charged), could not be forfeited under the Revised Penal Code provisions regarding instruments used in committing a felony.
Consequently, the complaint against Judge Omipon was dismissed.

Whether Judge Omipon had the judicial authority to order the release of the truck despite the non-inclusion of its owner/driver, Dionisio Golpe, in the criminal complaint against Basilio Cabig.

Whether the order to release the truck violated Presidential Decree No. 705 (as amended by Executive Order No. 277) and Administrative Order No. 59 regarding the confiscation and disposition of illegally obtained forest products and related conveyances.

The issue of whether the judge’s decision interfered with the administrative jurisdiction of the DENR, which holds the power to order the confiscation and disposition of forest products and conveyances.

Whether the release of the truck affected potential forfeiture proceedings under the Revised Penal Code, particularly considering the principle that tools and instruments of a crime cannot be confiscated if they belong to a third party not charged with the offense.