G.R. No. 241872 - Mark Anthony Nieto and Filemon Vicente vs. People

This case involves petitioners Mark Anthony Nieto and Filemon Vicente against the People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 241872, October 13, 2021).
The petitioners were charged with illegal possession of timber or other forest products without the proper legal documents under Section 68 (now Section 77) of Presidential Decree No. 705, as amended (Revised Forestry Code).
The offense is categorized as malum prohibitum, meaning that criminal intent is not an essential element, although the prosecution must prove the intent to possess (animus possidendi).

On or about July 15, 2012, in Laoag City, the accused, along with unidentified John Does and Jane Does, allegedly conspired to unlawfully possess and transport forest products.
The charge specifically arose from the transport of 409 pieces of Tanguile and White Lauan lumber (totaling 8,425.96 board feet and valued at P416,298.00) and 154 pieces of coco lumber (amounting to 2,181.32 board feet and valued at P26,104.00).
The timber was loaded in a FUSO ten-wheeler truck (plate no. BVJ 433) registered under Sps. Graciano and Ma. Corazon Valera, destined for Pangasinan, thereby causing damage and prejudice to the government.

According to the prosecution, around 1:40 p.m. on July 15, 2012, at a checkpoint in Brgy. 13, Barit, Laoag City, a text message informed officers of a green Isuzu cargo truck allegedly carrying illegally cut logs.
The truck was stopped and documents were requested; however, the documentation (including a Transport/Transhipment Clearance in the name of Alfonso Bagasin) was found insufficient.
The accused, specifically Vicente (driver) and Nieto (helper), were taken to the police station, and officers from the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) conducted an inventory, confirming the number of pieces and assessing the timber’s value.
A subsequent re-inventory reported by Court Sheriff Nicomedes C. Cantorna noted that some pieces had deteriorated due to environmental exposure (sunlight and heavy rains) from the time of apprehension to trial.

Vicente testified that on July 14, 2012, he was approached by a neighbor, Norma Diza, to drive a ten-wheeler truck from Cagayan to San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, without any disclosure that the cargo was composed of illegally cut timber.
He stated that Diza accompanied them during the initial part of the trip and provided documents at various checkpoints; however, she alighted just before the checkpoint where they were apprehended.
Nieto opted not to testify, indicating that his testimony would merely corroborate that of Vicente.
The defense argued that the petitioners had no criminal intent as they were simply hired as driver and helper, and any documentation discrepancies were beyond their control.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Laoag City, Branch 12, found the petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced them to an indeterminate penalty ranging from prision correccional to prision mayor.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision, holding that mere possession of forest products without the required legal documents is sufficient to consummate the crime, regardless of the absence of malice.
The CA also recommended that the petitioners be granted executive clemency given the nature of their participation in the offense.
The petitioners subsequently filed under Rule 45, seeking to reverse the CA’s decision; however, their motions were denied.

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the conviction of petitioners for violation of Section 68 (now Section 77) of the Revised Forestry Code.

They argued that the CA erred by presuming that Vicente, as the truck driver, had full control (and thus possession) over the forest products.
They contended that the equipoise principle should apply due to alleged discrepancies between the lumber counts noted during the initial scaling/inventory and the counts during trial proceedings.

The state maintained that possession (both actual and constructive) was clearly established by the fact that both petitioners were present on and in control of the truck during the apprehension.
It was argued that any discrepancies in the inventory were adequately explained by environmental deterioration, and that the offense does not hinge on criminal intent.