Bon v People of the Philippines

GR No. 152160, January 31, 2004

FACTS:

Vigilio Bon together with one Alejandro Jeniebre, Jr., and Rosalio Bon were
convicted by the trial court for violating Section 68 of PD 705. Allegedly, they
conspired with each other in the cutting, gathering and manufacturing of narra,
cuyao-yao and amugis trees without the knowledge and the consent of the owner
and without obtaining first from the proper authorities the necessary permit or
license and/or legal supporting documents. They pleaded not guilty to the
allegations. The prosecution supplied their evidence with the testimonies of
witnesses saying that the investigation they conducted together with the Barangay
Tanods in response to the complaint from the owner of the property revealed that
indeed stealing of trees happened. They also took photographs of the stump of
sawed trees. Moreover, Virgilio Bon admitted the ordering of cutting and sawing of
the trees into lumber. They petitioned before the Court of Appeals which affirmed
the ruling of the trial court with a modification acquitting Jeniebre for lack of
evidence to prove his participation to the crime.
The petitioner now questions the credibility and the sufficiency of the
testimonies of the witnesses and the admissibility of his purported extrajudicial
admission of the allegation.

ISSUE:
Whether the prosecution has the credibility and sufficiency of the evidence
proving their guilt

HELD:

Yes. Section 68 of the Forestry Code, enumerated the following punishable

acts (1) cutting, gathering, collecting or removing timber or other forest products
from any forest land, alienable or disposable public land or from private land
without authority; and (2) possessing timber or other forest products without legal
documents.
The petitioners were charged with the first offense. Although there were no
direct evidence presented by the prosecution, the Supreme Court explained that
conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence, as long as the circumstances
proven constitute an unbroken chain that leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion
that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt and provided that the following
elements are present: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from
which the inferences are derived are proven; (c) the combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
In the present case, records show that the circumstances satisfy the above-
mentioned requirements. First, the petitioner being the tenant and who is in actual
possession and control over the land and trees has admitted before the Barangay
Tanod and other witnesses that he had ordered the cutting of the trees. Such
confession is admissible as it was delivered voluntarily and not under custodial
investigation; Second, the petitioner went to the private complainant demanding
the latter to pay the value of the questioned trees which they cut and that the
petitioner asked for forgiveness for cutting the trees; lastly, the alleged cutting,
gathering and manufacture of lumber from the trees was proven by the
prosecution through the photographs of tree stumps, the investigation report of
an officer from the Community Environment and Natural Resources indicating that
no permit was secured for the cutting of the trees with the records on the
computation of the CENRO of the value of the timber generated from the felled
trees.