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.
illegal cutting
gathering of trees
admissible evidence
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 152160)

Procedural Posture

The case reached the Supreme Court on a Petition for Review under Rule 45 seeking to annul the Court of Appeals (CA) decision and resolution. The CA had affirmed the trial court’s conviction of Virgilio Bon (with modification of penalty) but acquitted co‑accused Alejandro Jeniebre, Jr.; the CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. The Supreme Court exercised discretion to resolve both legal and factual issues raised in the petition.

Facts as Found by the Courts

The prosecution established that six trees (four narra, one cuyao‑yao, and one amugis) on private titled agricultural land owned by Teresita Dangalan‑Mendoza were cut, producing approximately 4,315 board feet of lumber valued at about P25,000 (the courts later found the value to be P12,000 for purposes of penalty). On February 12, 1990, Manuel Dangalan, barangay tanod Julian Lascano, Natividad Legaspi and others inspected the land and found stumps and took photographs. Witnesses testified that Virgilio Bon admitted, in the presence of those persons, that he took the liberty of cutting the trees and that sawying had been done (Oscar Narvaez testified he sawed the lumber on instruction of Alejandro Jeniebre, Jr.). Documentary evidence included photographs of stumps and a CENRO investigation report and valuation showing no permit and the computed value of the timber.

Criminal Charge and Information

Petitioner and co‑accused were charged under Section 68 of PD 705, as amended, with cutting, gathering and manufacturing into lumber four narra, one cuyao‑yao and one amugis tree from the private land of Teresita Dangalan‑Mendoza without the owner’s knowledge and consent and without permits or legal supporting documents, contrary to law. The Information alleged willful, unlawful and felonious cutting, gathering and manufacture of the timber.

Trial Evidence and Defenses

Prosecution witnesses included Julian Lascano, Oscar Narvaez, Alexander Mendones (CENRO officer), Manuel Dangalan, Nestor Labayane and private complainant Teresita Dangalan‑Mendoza. Key testimonial facts were the discovery of stumps, photographs, the CENRO findings, Oscar Narvaez’s testimony about being hired to saw lumber, and testimonies that Virgilio Bon admitted ordering the cutting. Defense witnesses included the three accused, each denying responsibility: Rosalio Bon claimed absence from the province; Virgilio Bon claimed tenancy and denied cutting, alleging the owner ordered the cutting and raised an agrarian dispute; Alejandro Jeniebre, Jr. denied hiring Narvaez and claimed animus and threats by Narvaez.

Trial Court Decision

The regional trial court convicted Virgilio Bon and Alejandro Jeniebre, Jr., and acquitted Rosalio Bon. The RTC found petitioner was tenant and in actual control of the land, had opportunity and admission to the barangay tanod and others, and that Narvaez corroborated the admission. The RTC imposed an indeterminate sentence (specified as seven years, four months and one day of prision mayor minimum to eleven years, six months and twenty‑one days of prision mayor maximum).

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s credibility assessment of witnesses who testified to petitioner’s extrajudicial admission and held that circumstantial evidence satisfied Rule 133 Section 4 elements to support conviction of Virgilio Bon. The CA, however, acquitted Alejandro Jeniebre, Jr., finding insufficient evidence tying him to the offense beyond Narvaez’s testimony and holding that binding Jeniebre to petitioner’s admission would violate the res inter alios acta principle of Rule 130 Section 28 (no prejudicial effect of third‑party declarations), as no applicable exceptions were shown. The CA modified the penalty range upward but left room for further review.

Issues Raised to the Supreme Court

Petitioner principally challenged: (I) admissibility of hearsay testimony when the declarant denies the statement under oath; (II) admissibility of hearsay made to non‑police, non‑media witnesses and reliability of such admissions; (III) the probity/credibility to be accorded to prosecution witnesses; and (IV) constitutional admissibility of the alleged extrajudicial admission, arguing it was made without counsel while he was already a suspect (invoking Miranda protections).

Supreme Court Ruling — Admissibility of the Extrajudicial Admission

The Court held that the testimonies of Lascano and Dangalan that they heard petitioner admit cutting the trees were not hearsay. The Court applied Rule 130 Section 36’s personal‑knowledge rule and explained three independent bases for admissibility: (1) the witnesses were present and within hearing distance and thus testified to a matter of personal perception (primary evidence of the making of the utterance); (2) the evidence was offered to prove the fact that the utterance was actually made (respective act/declaration of a party) and not to prove the truth of the matters asserted within the utterance, which falls outside the hearsay prohibition; and (3) petitioner failed to object at trial to the proffered testimony, waiving any hearsay objection. The Court also invoked Rule 130 Section 26 treating a party’s act or declaration as admissible against him.

Supreme Court Ruling — Custodial Investigation and Miranda Rights

The Court rejected petitioner’s contention that his admission was inadmissible for lack of counsel under Section 12(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution (Miranda), finding the statement was not made during a custodial interrogation by law enforcement. The inspection/inquiry was conducted informally with barangay tanods and the owner’s brother; it was not a custodial investigation by police and therefore Miranda protections were inapplicable. The Court reiterated that spontaneous statements not elicited by authorities in custodial settings are outside the constitutional safeguard invoked.

Supreme Court Ruling — Credibility and Sufficiency of Evidence

The Supreme Court deferred to the trial court’s and CA’s credibility findings, emphasizing the trial court’s advantage in observing witness demeanor and the CA’s corroboration. The Court affirmed that conviction may rest on circumstantial evidence if (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which inferences are drawn are proven; and (c) the combination of circumstances produces conviction beyond reasonable doubt (Rule 133 Section 4). The Court identified the proven circumstances relied upon: petitioner’s admission in the presence of multiple witnesses; the petitioner and his son’s demand that the owner pay for the cut trees; petitioner’s subsequent request for forgiveness; corroborating testimony of the sawyer; and documentary evidence (photographs of stumps, CENRO investigation report showing no permit, and CENRO valuation). The Court concluded these facts

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms