Momongan vs. Omipon

Factual Background

Petitioner alleged that on November 14, 1992 police officers apprehended Dionisio Golpe driving a truck loaded with allegedly illegally cut lumber and impounded the truck and logs. Petitioner filed a complaint against Basilio Cabig, the alleged owner of the logs, and not against Mr. Golpe.

Preliminary Investigation and Trial Court Order

Respondent conducted a preliminary investigation and found a prima facie case against Cabig but ordered the release of the truck because the owner and driver, Golpe, was not charged in the complaint. Respondent justified the release on the ground that Golpe was principally engaged in lawful hauling and appeared to be a lesser participant and potential witness.

Administrative Complaint to the Supreme Court

Petitioner filed an administrative complaint against Respondent contending that the order releasing the truck violated Presidential Decree No. 705, as amended by Executive Order No. 277, Secs. 68 and 68-A, and Administrative Order No. 59, series of 1990, and that the truck should have been turned over to the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office for disposition.

Office of the Court Administrator Recommendation

The Office of the Court Administrator recommended a formal investigation. Its memorandum reasoned that while respondent was authorized to conduct preliminary investigation, Sec. 68-A vests in the DENR Secretary or his authorized representative the power to order confiscation and disposition of forest products and conveyances, and that additional facts might emerge only through formal inquiry.

Referral and Investigating Judge Proceedings

The Court referred the matter to an Acting Executive Judge for investigation, report and recommendation. During investigatory hearings, Petitioner sent representatives, while Respondent appeared initially but later missed a hearing due to a stroke. Petitioner then filed a motion for reinvestigation seeking inclusion of Golpe as co-accused and sought turnover of the jeep to the PNP and thereafter to DENR, but thereafter both parties agreed to submit the case for action without further evidence.

Investigating Judge’s Report and Health Considerations

The Investigating Judge reported that no additional facts could be elicited beyond the record because Respondent became ill and Petitioner did not pursue evidence. The report recommended disposition of the administrative case on the basis of the extant record and noted Respondent’s deteriorating health and pending disability retirement.

Legal Issue Presented

The central legal question was whether Respondent’s order releasing the truck, after finding a prima facie case against Cabig but without charging Golpe, constituted a disciplinary offense for violating P.D. No. 705, Sec. 68-A, and Adm. Order No. 59 by failing to turn the conveyance over to DENR for confiscation and disposition.

Court’s Analysis on Confiscation under Penal and Administrative Regimes

The Court examined Revised Penal Code, Art. 45, which subjects proceeds and instruments of a felony to forfeiture but exempts property of a third person not liable for the offense. The Court held that because Golpe was not indicted, the truck could not be forfeited under the Revised Penal Code upon conviction of Cabig. The Court further distinguished penal confiscation from administrative confiscation under P.D. No. 705, Sec. 68-A, and Adm. Order No. 59, observing that administrative authority to confiscate and dispose resides with the DENR and its representatives but that such administrative confiscation is separate from criminal forfeiture.

Court’s Conclusion on Respondent’s Conduct

The Court concluded that Respondent did not commit a disciplinary offense in ordering the release of the truck after conducting the preliminary investigation and finding no reason to continue impoundment. The Court emphasized that there was no mandatory duty on the trial judge to turn over the truck to DENR when the apprehending authorities failed to do so, and that Petitioner retained administrative and criminal remedies thereafter, including reinvestigation, adding Golpe as co-accused, or invoking the confiscation procedures under Adm. Order No. 59.

Availability of Subsequent Administrative or Criminal Action

The Court noted that the release did not preclude later seizure or forfeiture: Adm. Order No. 59, including its provision that confiscation of a conveyance is without prejudice to criminal action, permits subseque