Scribd
Upload
283 views3 pages

Dy Vs CA Digest

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Rodolfo Tigoy for possession of forest products without a permit. Tigoy, along with another driver, transported two trucks containing bags of cement that were covering piles of sawn lumber. When stopped at a checkpoint, the drivers could not produce the required permits. The Court found that Tigoy knew the trucks contained contraband lumber based on their refusal to stop and attempts to offer a bribe. For offenses prohibited by special law, the commission of the prohibited act is the crime, and intent can be proven by circumstantial evidence and concerted actions that show a joint purpose.

Uploaded by

Ryan Christian
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
283 views3 pages

Dy Vs CA Digest

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Rodolfo Tigoy for possession of forest products without a permit. Tigoy, along with another driver, transported two trucks containing bags of cement that were covering piles of sawn lumber. When stopped at a checkpoint, the drivers could not produce the required permits. The Court found that Tigoy knew the trucks contained contraband lumber based on their refusal to stop and attempts to offer a bribe. For offenses prohibited by special law, the commission of the prohibited act is the crime, and intent can be proven by circumstantial evidence and concerted actions that show a joint purpose.

Uploaded by

Ryan Christian
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

SOLEDAD DY v. CA, GR No.

121587, 1999-03-09

Facts:

On May 31, 1993, the Mayor of Butuan City issued Executive Order No. 93-01 creating Task Force
Kalikasan to combat "illegal logging, log smuggling or possession of and/or transport of illegally cut or
produced logs, lumber, flitches and other forest products" in that... city.

On July 1, 1993, the members of the task force received confidential information that two truckloads of
illegally cut lumber would be brought to Butuan City from the Ampayon-Taguibe-Tiniwisan area.

Forester Resurreccion Maxilom of the DENR issued a temporary seizure order and a seizure receipt for
the two vehicles and their cargo consisting of several pieces of lumber of different sizes and dimensions,
but Lucero, the caretaker of the compound where they were seized,... refused to accept them. The seized
lumber and vehicles were then taken to the City motorpool and placed in the custody of respondent Lausa.

For lack of claimants, DENR Regional Technical Director Raoul Geollegue recommended to the
Secretary on July 29, 1993 the forfeiture of the lumber and the two vehicles.

On October 20, 1993, more than two months after the lumber had been forfeited, petitioner, claiming to
be the owner of the lumber, filed a suit for replevin in the Regional Trial Court of Butuan City (Branch 5)
for its recovery.

Before the court could act on his motion, he moved to dismiss and/or quash the writ of replevin on the
ground that the lumber in question, having been seized and forfeited by the DENR... pursuant to P.D. No.
705, as amended (Revised Forestry Code), was under its custody and, therefore, resort should first be
made to the DENR.

Issues:

WITH DUE RESPECT RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE
VERIFICATION MADE BY LORENCIO DY AND NOT BY PETITIONER SOLEDAD Y. DY WAS
INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE ISSUANCE OF THE REPLEVIN WRIT.

THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT A COUNTERBOND IN


REPLEVIN WHICH IS EFFECTIVE FOR ONLY ONE YEAR IS VALID TO CAUSE THE RETURN
OF THE PROPERTY TO DEFENDANT.

THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN GIVING DUE COURSE TO PRIVATE


RESPONDENT'S PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.

The appeal is without merit. The threshold question is whether the Regional Trial Court could in fact take
cognizance of the replevin suit, considering that the object was the recovery of lumber seized and
forfeited by law enforcement agents of the DENR pursuant to P.D. No. 705

(Revised Forestry Code), as amended by Executive Order No. 277.

Ruling:
The rule is that a party must exhaust all administrative remedies before he can resort to the courts.

Hence, if a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be resorted to by giving the
administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his
jurisdiction then such... remedy should be exhausted first before a court's judicial power can be sought.

As petitioner clearly failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, the Court of Appeals correctly
set aside the assailed orders of the trial court granting petitioner's application for a replevin writ and
denying private respondent's motion to dismiss.

Having been... forfeited pursuant to P.D. No. 705, as amended, the lumber properly came under the
custody of the DENR and all actions seeking to recover possession thereof should be directed to that
agency.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals, dated January 19, 1995, and its Resolution, dated
July 26, 1995, in CA-G.R. SP 33099 are AFFIRMED with the modification that the complaint for
recovery of personal property is DISMISSED.

Principles:

Section 8 of P.D. No. 705, as amended, provides:

SEC. 8. Review. ¾ All actions and decisions of the Director are subject to review, motu propio or upon
appeal of any person aggrieved thereby, by the Department Head whose decision shall be final and
executory after the lapse of thirty (30) days from... receipt by the aggrieved party of said decision, unless
appealed to the President in accordance with Executive Order No. 19, series of 1966. The Decision of the
Department Head may not be reviewed by the courts except through a special civil action for certiorari
or... prohibition.

TIGOY vs. CA Case Digest


RODOLFO TIGOY vs. COURT OF APPEALSG.R. No. 144640. June 26, 2006FACTS:
Nestor Ong, who had been engaged in the trucking business in Iligan City since 1986, was
allegedlyintroduced by his friend Gamad Muntod to Lolong Bertodazo who signified his intent to rent the
trucks of Ong totransport construction materials from Larapan, Lanao del Norte to Dipolog City. A
Contract to Transport wassupposedly entered into between Ong and Bertodazo.In the evening of October
3, 1993, Ong allegedly ordered Nestor Sumagang and petitioner Rodolfo Tigoy tobring the two trucks to
Lolong Bertodazo in Larapan, Lanao del Norte. He instructed the two drivers to leave thetrucks in
Larapan for the loading of the construction materials by Lolong Bertodazo. Thus, after meeting
withBertodazo, Sumagang and petitioner Tigoy allegedly went home to return to Larapan at four o'clock
in themorning the next day. When they arrived, the trucks had been laden with bags of cement and were
half-covered with canvas.That same morning of October 4, 1993, the Ozamis City police received a report
that two trucks, a blue andgreen loaded with cement, did not stop at the checkpoint. Thus, some police
officers boarded their patrolvehicle to intercept the two trucks. Upon inspection, the police officers
discovered piles of sawn lumber beneaththe cement bags in both trucks. The police officers inquired if the
drivers had a permit for the lumber but thelatter could not produce any. After an investigation was held by
the police and the DENR office in the city, an Information was filed againstNestor Ong, Sumagang,
Lolong Bertodazo and petitioner Tigoy for possession of forest products without legalpermit in violation
of Section 68 of Presidential Decree 705, as amended by Executive Order No. 277, Series of 1987, in
relation to Article 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code.Ong and petitioner Tigoy entered pleas of not
guilty during the arraignment. After trial, the Regional Trial Courtfound both Ong and Tigo
y guilty. On appeal, Ong was acquitted while Tigoy’s conviction was upheld.

ISSUE:
Is Tigoy guilty of possession of forest products without permit?
HELD:
Yes. There are two ways of violating the said Section 68: 1) by cutting, gathering and/or collectingtimber
or other forest products without a license; and, 2) by possessing timber or other forest products withoutthe
required legal documents.Petitioner was charged with and convicted of transporting lumber without a
permit which is punishable under Section 68 of the Code. The appellant, Sumagang and the rest of their
companions were apprehended by thepolice officers in flagrante delicto as they were transporting the
subject lumber from Larapan to Dipolog City.Tigoy contends that he did not know that the truck was
loaded with timber without the necessary permit.However, the circumstances shows otherwise. Why
would the drivers refuse to stop when required? Did theyfear inspection of their cargo? Why would
"S.O.P." (which in street parlance is grease money) be offered tofacilitate the passage of the trucks? The
only logical answer to all these questions is that the drivers knew thatthey were carrying contraband
lumber.In offenses considered as mala prohibita or when the doing of an act is prohibited by a special law
such as inthe present case, the commission of the prohibited act is the crime itself. It is sufficient that the
offender has theintent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law, and that it is done knowingly and
consciously. Directproof of previous agreement to commit an offense is not necessary to prove
conspiracy. Conspiracy may beproven by circumstantial evidence. It may be deduced from the mode,
method and manner by which theoffense is perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused when
such acts point to a joint purpose anddesign, concerted action and community of interest. It is not even
required that the participants have anagreement for an appreciable period to commence it.

You might also like