In offenses considered as mala prohibita or when the

  • No School
  • AA 1
  • BaronRam10626
  • 16

This preview shows page 9 - 11 out of 16 pages.

In offenses considered as mala prohibita or when the doing of an act is prohibited by a special law such as in the present case, the commission of the prohibited act is the crime itself. It is sufficient that the offender has the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law, and that it is done knowingly and consciously. Direct proof of previous agreement to commit an offense is not necessary to prove conspiracy. Conspiracy may be proven by circumstantial evidence. It may be deduced from the mode, method and manner by which the offense is perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused when such acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest. It is not even required that the participants have an agreement for an appreciable period to commence it.
Image of page 9
PALLADA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES FACTS Pallada, as general manager of Valencia Golden Harvest Corporation, a ricemilling company, was convicted of possessing 29,299.25 board feet of lumber, worth P488,334.45 in total, which were confiscated during a raid by police and DENR officers. On the scene, the company provided 2 receipts issued by R.L. Rivero Lumberyard, whose permit to operate had already been suspended. ISSUE whether the term “timber” includes lumber and, therefore, the Certificates of Timber Origin and their attachments should have been considered in establishing the legality of the company’s possession of the lumber. RULING No, the statement in the Mustang Lumber case that lumber is merely processed timber and, therefore, the word “timber” embraces lumber, was made in answer to the lower court’s ruling in that case that the phrase “posses timber or other forest products” in Section 68 of P.D. No. 705 means that only those who possess timber and forest products without the documents required by law are criminally liable, while those who possess lumber are not liable. On the other hand, the question in this case is whether separate certificates of origin should be issued for lumber and timber. Indeed, different certificates of origin are required for timber, lumber and non-timber forest products. PEOPLE VS QUE FACTS: Accused Que was discovered to be in possession of 258 pieces of various sizes of Forest Products -chainsawn Tanguile lumber - in his truck, without necessary permit, license or authority to do so from the proper authorities . Hence, accused was convicted by the trial court for violating Section 68 of Presidential Decree P.D.705. However, accused contended that he is not guilty since he acquired the tanguile lumber from a legal source as evidenced by private land timber permits (PLTP) issued by the (DENR) to Cayosa and Sabal which the latter gave to him by Cayosa and Sabal as payment for his hauling services. ISSUUE: Whether or not accused is guilty. HELD: YES. Accused is guilty. There are two (2) distinct and separate offenses punished under Section 68 of P.D. 705, to wit: (1) Cutting, gathering, collecting and removing timber or other forest products from any forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private land without any authority; and
Image of page 10
Image of page 11

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 16 pages?

  • Fall '19
  • Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court, Trial court

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture