Title
Supreme Court
PadierNo.y Quejada vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 181111
Decision Date
Aug 17, 2015
Petitioners took a truck loaded with illegal lumber to suppress evidence, acquitted as accessories but convicted for obstruction of justice under P.D. 1829.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 181111)

Petitioners and Respondent

Petitioners: Jackson Padiernos, Jackie Roxas, Rolando Mesina
Respondent: People of the Philippines

Key Dates

– November 15, 2002: Seizure and custody of undocumented lumber on truck TFZ-747 in Dingalan, Aurora
– November 16, 2002: Petitioners allegedly took and drove the truck to Nueva Ecija
– May 10, 2007: CA decision affirming RTC conviction with modified penalties
– August 17, 2015: Supreme Court decision

Applicable Law

– Presidential Decree No. 705 (Forestry Reform Code)
– Article 19, paragraphs 1 and 2, Revised Penal Code (RP C) on principals, accomplices, and accessories
– Presidential Decree No. 1829, Section 1(b) on obstruction of justice

Prosecution’s Factual Findings

On November 15, 2002, DENR and police officers discovered 818 pieces of unpermitted lumber on a Denver‐guarded ten-wheeler truck (Plate No. TFZ-747). The lumber was unloaded and placed in custody, while the truck remained guarded overnight. On the afternoon of November 16, various accused, including petitioners, arrived. Santiago Castillo (owner) handed keys to Mesina, who drove off toward Nueva Ecija despite DENR and police escorts’ warnings and warning shots. The truck was eventually intercepted by the Philippine Army and returned to police custody. Witnesses testified that petitioners knew the truck was evidence of illegal forestry activity.

Defense’s Version of Events

Mesina and Roxas testified that Santiago specifically requested transport of the truck to Cabanatuan City and assured them he had settled any legal issues. Roxas initially refused but agreed after assurances. Padiernos testified he merely sought a ride and only learned of the truck’s status on arrival. All three denied hearing any warnings or realizing the truck was under official custody until stopped by the Army. They argued lack of intent to impair its evidentiary value.

RTC Findings and Ruling

The RTC found the prosecution witnesses credible, noting consistency and lack of improper motive. It concluded petitioners shared a common design with Santiago to remove the truck, demonstrated by their admissions of knowing the truck’s prior confiscation and by Padiernos’s derogatory remarks toward DENR officers. The RTC convicted them as accessories under PD 705 and imposed penalties corresponding to accessory liability.

CA Findings and Modification

The CA adopted the RTC’s factual findings but viewed the truck as an “instrument” of crime under Article 19(2) of the RPC. It held that petitioners’ knowledge of the truck’s involvement sufficed for accessory liability even though PD 705 is a mala prohibita offense. The CA modified the penalties but affirmed guilt as accessories to violation of PD 705.

Parties’ Contentions on Appeal

Petitioners argued they could not be accessories because the offense had already been discovered and the truck was in official custody when they drove it away. They maintained Article 19(2) only punishes acts preventing discovery. The People contended that petitioners acted to frustrate evidence presentation and thereby obstruct investigation.

Supreme Court Analysis on Accessory Liability

The Court reiterated that the Information’s factual allegations—not the prosecutor’s label—define the offense. Article 19(2) punishes post-crime concealment to prevent discovery of an undiscovered crime; here, the illegal possession was already discovered, and the lumber and truck were already under custod

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.