G.R. No. 175220 - Dagan vs. Philippine Racing Commission

Case Summary (G.R. No. 175220)

Relevant Factual Background and Apprehension

On November 14, 1992, police officers of Hinunangan apprehended Dionisio Golpe while he was driving a truck loaded with illegally cut lumber; the truck and logs were impounded. A criminal complaint was filed against Basilio Cabig as the alleged owner of the logs; Golpe was not included as an accused in that complaint. Approximately two weeks elapsed between seizure and the filing of the complaint.

Respondent Judge’s Preliminary Investigation and Release Order

After conducting the preliminary investigation, Judge Omipon found a prima facie case against Cabig but, exercising his discretion, ordered the release of the truck to Golpe. The judge’s decision to release the truck was premised on his findings that Golpe was principally a hauler of sand, gravel and hollow blocks, had a lesser or accessory role in the illegal logging incident, and could serve as a prosecution witness. The judge reasoned that because Golpe was not charged, there was no basis to continue the judicial retention of the truck.

DENR’s Administrative Complaint and Allegation

Regional Director Momongan (DENR) filed an administrative complaint against Judge Omipon, alleging that the judge’s order violated P.D. No. 705 (Sec. 68 and 68‑A, as amended) and Administrative Order No. 59. The DENR contended that the judge lacked authority to release the conveyance because Sec. 68‑A vests the Department Head or his duly authorized representative with administrative power to order confiscation and disposition of forest products and conveyances used in the commission of forestry offenses; the truck should have been turned over to the DENR field office (CENRO San Juan) for proper disposition.

Respondent’s Explanation to the Complaint

Respondent explained the factual circumstances surrounding the transportation of the lumber (Golpe was allegedly requested by Cabig to transport sliced lumber to a barangay), the circumstances of apprehension (flat tire and police deposit at station), and his view of Golpe’s minor role. Respondent maintained that because Golpe was not charged, and based on his discretionary assessment at the preliminary investigation stage, he properly ordered the release.

Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Recommendation and Referral

The OCA memorandum found respondent’s explanation unsatisfactory and cited Sec. 68‑A’s administrative confiscation power vested in the DENR. The OCA recommended a formal investigation and suggested referral to an Acting Executive Judge for investigation, report, and recommendation within 60 days. The Supreme Court adopted the OCA recommendation and referred the matter for investigation.

Investigating Judge Proceedings and Outcome of the Inquiry

During the investigatory proceedings, DENR representatives and respondent’s counsel participated; respondent later suffered a stroke and was hospitalized and unable to continue participation. DENR’s counsel filed a motion for reinvestigation and for inclusion of Golpe in the criminal information but otherwise did not adduce further evidence; ultimately the parties agreed to submit the administrative case for action. The investigating judge reported that no additional facts beyond the original record could be elicited, noted DENR’s diminished interest in pursuing further factual development, and observed that respondent’s health had deteriorated. The investigator recommended that the Court act on the basis of the existing record and consider respondent’s plight.

Legal Analysis Regarding Confiscation Under the Revised Penal Code

The Court observed that under Article 45 (first paragraph) of the Revised Penal Code, confiscation of instruments or proceeds of a felony occurs as an accessory penalty but is excluded where the instrument or proceeds are the property of a third person not liable for the offense. Because Golpe (the truck owner/driver) was not indicted in the criminal complaint against Cabig, the truck could not properly be forfeited as an accessory penalty in the event of Cabig’s conviction. On that basis, the Court found legal justification for the respondent judge’s release order.

Administrative Confiscation Authority Under P.D. No. 705 and Administrative Order No. 59

The Court acknowledged DENR’s administrative power under P.D. No. 705, Sec. 68‑A, and Administrative Order No. 59 to confiscate and dispose of forest products and conveyances. It emphasized, however, that this administrative power is distinct from criminal confiscation under the Revised Penal Code. The Court also noted that Administrative Order No. 59 contemplates confiscation by the DENR field offices and provides procedures (notice to owner, opportunity to be heard, report and recommendation by PENRO/CENRO, and disposition), and that confiscation under those regulations does not prejudice subsequent criminal action against the owner or user.

Assessment of Duty to Turn Over Conveyance and Division of Responsibilities

The Court recognized that Section 4 of Administrative Order No. 59 requires apprehending officials (if not DENR field offices) to notify and turn over seized forest products and conveyances to the nearest DENR field office for proper disposition. The Court observed that the apprehending police had an op

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 175220)

Procedural and Citation Data

Reported at 312 Phil. 395, Third Division; Administrative Matter No. MTJ-93-874; decided March 14, 1995.
Petition/complaint filed by Augustus L. Momongan, Regional Director, DENR Region VIII, against Judge Rafael B. Omipon of the 6th Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Hinunangan–Silago, Southern Leyte.
Case referred for investigation by the Supreme Court to Acting Executive Judge Leandro T. Loyao, Jr., RTC Branch 26, San Juan, Southern Leyte, pursuant to the Memorandum of the Office of the Court Administrator and the Court’s Resolution of November 8, 1993, for report and recommendation within sixty days from receipt of records.
Final disposition: Complaint dismissed by the Supreme Court on March 14, 1995; Justices Feliciano (Chairman), Melo, Vitug, and Francisco concurred.

Factual Background

On or about 10:00 a.m., November 14, 1992, police officers of Hinunangan, Southern Leyte apprehended Dionisio Golpe while he was driving a truck loaded with illegally cut lumber; the truck and logs were impounded and deposited at the Hinunangan police station.
A criminal complaint was filed charging Basilio Cabig as the alleged owner of the illegally cut logs; Mr. Dionisio Golpe (truck owner/driver) was not included as an accused in the complaint.
After conducting a preliminary investigation, Judge Rafael B. Omipon found that a prima facie case existed against Cabig but ordered the release of Golpe’s truck because Golpe was not charged.
Complainant (DENR Regional Director Momongan) contended that the judge had no authority to release the conveyance and that the truck should have been turned over to the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of San Juan, Southern Leyte, since DENR has administrative jurisdiction over confiscation and disposition of illegally obtained forest products and conveyances.

Respondent Judge’s Explanation and Version of Events

Respondent Judge Omipon explained that:
- Dionisio Golpe is principally engaged in hauling sand and gravel and delivering hollow blocks.
- Golpe had delivered hollow blocks in Barangay Sto. Niño II and, on his way home, was requested by his friend Basilio Cabig to load sliced lumber and deliver it to Barangay Lungsod-daan, Hinundayan, for use in constructing a barangay high school building.
- They were apprehended when the truck had a flat tire; after changing the tire, both the lumber and the truck were ordered deposited at the Hinunangan police station.
- Golpe had a lesser participation in the offense and was a mere accessory; he could be utilized by the Acting Chief of Police as a prosecution witness against Cabig.
- Given that the complaint charged only Cabig, respondent Judge, exercising his discretion after preliminary investigation, ordered the release of Golpe’s truck.

DENR’s Allegations and Legal Bases for Complaint

Complainant alleged respondent violated Presidential Decree No. 705, as amended by Executive Order No. 277 (specifically Sections 68 and 68-A), and Administrative Order No. 59, series of 1990, by ordering the release of the truck used in transporting illegally cut forest products.
DENR’s position: the DENR Secretary or his duly authorized representative may order confiscation and disposition of illegally obtained forest products and all conveyances used in the commission of the offense; the truck should therefore have been turned over to the CENRO for appropriate disposition.
DENR counsel later filed a motion for reinvestigation and for the turnover of the jeep to the PNP and subsequently to the DENR, and sought inclusion of Dionisio Golpe as a co-accused in the criminal information (motion dated January 21, 1994).

Memorandum of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)

OCA found respondent’s explanation unsatisfactory and recommended formal investigation.
OCA cited Sec. 68-A of P.D. 705 which vests the Department Head or his duly authorized representative the power to order confiscation of forest products and conveyances used in commission of offenses and to dispose of same per laws, regulations, or policies.
OCA observed there may be facts not extant in the records that could emerge during a formal investigation that might establish clear culpability or exoneration; recommended referral for investigation, report and recommendation within sixty days.

Proceedings Before the Investigating Judge and Hearing History

The Court’s referral resulted in hearings before Acting Executive Judge Leandro T. Loyao, Jr.
Attendance and participation:
- First two hearing dates: complainant absent but represented by DENR lawyer Constantino Esber and legal assistant Romeo Gulong; respondent Judge appeared with counsel.
- Third hearing: respondent Judge did not appear due to suffering a stroke and being hospitalized.
DENR counsel Esber later manifested filing of motion for reinvestigation and turnover of the jeep and stated that DENR was submitting the administrative matter for resolution without adducing evidence against respondent; respondent’s counsel did not object; both sides agreed to submit the case for appropriate action.

Investigating Judge’s Confidential Report

Investigator reported inability to elicit additional facts beyond those in the records due to respondent’s illness and complainant’s lack of pursuit.
Noted complainant failed to substantiate his April 1993 report to the Supreme Court and largely lost interest, except for the January 1994 motion for reinvestigation seeking inclusion of Golpe as co-accused.
Investigator recommended the Supreme Court take appropriate action based on existing records, with a prayer for consideration of respondent’s deteriorated health and its possible effect on his efficiency; even suggested permitting respondent to retire honorably given his plight.

Respondent’s Disability Retirement Application

During pendency of t