Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 965 views

    Monge Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Cecille Garces-Songcuan
    Monge was found transporting 3 pieces of mahogany lumber without proper documents and was charged with violating Section 68 of PD No. 705. Monge claimed he was hired by Potencio to transport the lumber and that Potencio owned the lumber. The court upheld Monge's conviction, finding that PD No. 705 criminalizes the possession of forest products without legal documents, regardless of intent or ownership. The court stated that mere possession without documents is illegal under this law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Monge Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Cecille Garces-Songcuan
    965 views1 page
    Monge was found transporting 3 pieces of mahogany lumber without proper documents and was charged with violating Section 68 of PD No. 705. Monge claimed he was hired by Potencio to transport the lumber and that Potencio owned the lumber. The court upheld Monge's conviction, finding that PD No. 705 criminalizes the possession of forest products without legal documents, regardless of intent or ownership. The court stated that mere possession without documents is illegal under this law.

    Original Description:

    natres

    Original Title

    monge vs People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Monge was found transporting 3 pieces of mahogany lumber without proper documents and was charged with violating Section 68 of PD No. 705. Monge claimed he was hired by Potencio to transport the lumber and that Potencio owned the lumber. The court upheld Monge's conviction, finding that PD No. 705 criminalizes the possession of forest products without legal documents, regardless of intent or ownership. The court stated that mere possession without documents is illegal under this law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    965 views1 page

    Monge Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Cecille Garces-Songcuan
    Monge was found transporting 3 pieces of mahogany lumber without proper documents and was charged with violating Section 68 of PD No. 705. Monge claimed he was hired by Potencio to transport the lumber and that Potencio owned the lumber. The court upheld Monge's conviction, finding that PD No. 705 criminalizes the possession of forest products without legal documents, regardless of intent or ownership. The court stated that mere possession without documents is illegal under this law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    TOPIC: POSSESSION OF LUMBER WITHOUT THE NECESSARY

    DOCUMENTS

    Galo Monge vs People of the Philippines


    GR no. 170308, March 7, 2008

    Facts:
    On 20 July 1994, Monge(petitioner) and Potencio were found by the barangay
    tanods in possession of and transporting 3 pieces of mahogany lumber in Iriga City.
    Monge and Potencio were not able to show any documents or the requisite permit from
    DENR. The trial court found Monge guilty of violation of Section 68 of PD No 705, as
    amended by E.O. no. 277 while Potencio was discharged because he was used as a state
    witness.
    Agrrieved, petitioner elevated the case to CA where he challenged the discharge
    of Potencio as a state witness on the ground that there is no absolute necessity for his
    testimony. Monge contested that it was Potencio who owned the lumbers and not him,
    that he was only hired by Potencio to transport the lumbers to a sawmill. The appellate
    court dismissed his petition, hence, he filed a review on certiorari.

    Issue:
    Whether or not Monge was guilty of the offense charged?

    Held:
    Yes.
    The contention of Monge is unavailing.
    Under Section 68 of PD No. 705, as amended by E.O No. 277, criminalizes two
    distinct and separate offenses namely;
    a. Cutting, gathering, collecting and removing of timber from alienable or
    disposable public land, or timber from alienable or disposable public land,
    or from private land without any authority; and
    b. The possession of timber or other forest products without the legal
    documents required under the existing laws and regulations.
    In the first offense, the legality of the acts of cutting, gathering, collecting or
    removing timber or other forest products may be proven by the authorization duly
    issued by the DENR. The second offense, however, it is immaterial whether or not the
    cutting, gathering, collecting and removal of forest products are legal precisely because
    mere possession of forest products without the requisite documents consummates the
    crime.
    Petitioner cannot take refuge in his denial of ownership over the pieces of lumber
    fund in his possession nor his claim that he was merely hired by Potencio to provide the
    latter with assistance in transporting the said lumber. PD No. 705 is a penal statute that
    punishes acts essentially malum prohibitum. In other words, mere possession of timber
    or other forest products without the proper legal documents, even absent malice or
    criminal intent is illegal.

    You might also like