Case Digest (G.R. No. 181111)
Facts:
Jackson Padiernos y Quejada, Jackie Roxas y German and Rolando Mesina y Javate, G.R. No. 181111, August 17, 2015, Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court. The petitioners (Padiernos, Roxas, Mesina) sought review of the Court of Appeals' decision dated May 10, 2007 and resolution dated December 20, 2007 in CA-G.R. CR No. 28920 that affirmed with modification the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 66, Baler, Aurora, judgment in Criminal Case No. 3122.On November 15, 2002 a DENR officer, Felimon Balico, discovered a ten-wheeler truck bearing Plate No. TFZ-747 (name "JEROME") parked in Dingalan, Aurora loaded with undocumented lumber. The DENROs and police guarded the truck; the lumber was transferred to police custody and the truck remained under guard. The Information alleged that on November 16, 2002 petitioners — together with other accused including Santiago, Frederico, and Mostera — confederated to take and carry away the truck so it could not be used as evidence and to avoid confiscation and forfeiture, charging the petitioners as accessories to illegal possession of lumber in violation of P.D. No. 705.
During trial the prosecution presented testimony that petitioners boarded the truck on November 16, Mesina drove away at speed leaving police escorts behind despite warning shots, and the Philippine Army later intercepted the truck in Nueva Ecija; Padiernos reportedly berated the DENROs at the interception. The defense witnesses (petitioners) testified they went only at Santiago’s request to drive the truck to Cabanatuan, relied on Santiago’s assurances that any problem had been settled, and that they did not hear warnings because of noise and broken mirrors.
The RTC convicted Padiernos, Mesina, and Roxas as accessories to the violation of P.D. No. 705, finding common design, knowledge of the truck's status, and that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses were credible; the RTC rejected the petitioners' denial defenses after ocular inspection of the truck. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s factual findings but modified the penalties, treating the truck as an “instrument” within th...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Are the petitioners criminally liable as accessories under Article 19(2) of the Revised Penal Code for the offense of illegal possession of lumber in violation of P.D. No. 705?
- If not liable as accessories, do the factual allegations in the Information and the evidence proved constitute the offense of obstruction of justice under Section 1(b) of P.D. No. 1829, and w...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)