Rodolfo Tigoy vs CA and People of the Philippines

GR. No. 144640, June 26, 2006

Facts:
Rodolfo Tigoy was hired as a truck driver of Nestor Ong who had been engaged in
the trucking business in Illigan City. On October 4, 1993, Tigoy and another driver was
instructed to transport two trucks which were half-loaded with bags of cement at Lanao
del Norte. The two trucks were apprehended by the PNP officers when they failed to
stop and speed away during check point operation. The drivers offeredgrease money
to police officer when they were asked what was inside the truck. Upon inspection the
police officers discovered file of sawn lumber beneath the cement bags in both trucks.
The trial court found Tigoy and the truck owner Nestor Ong guilty of violation of
Section 68 of PD 705 as amended by EO 277. The lumbers was forfeited in favor of the
government.
In CA, Nestor Ong was acquitted due to insufficiency of evidence and the
conviction of Tigoy was upheld.
Tigoy contended that he is unaware of the unlicensed lumber in the truck. He
believed that what he was transporting were bags of cement.

Issue:
Whether or not Roberto Tigoy was guilty of the crime charged?

Held:
Yes.
There are two ways of violating Section 68 of Revised Forestry Code: 1) by
cutting, gathering and/or collecting timber or other forest products without a license;
and, 2) by possessing timber or other forest products without the legal required legal
documents.
Petitioner was charged with and convicted of transporting lumber without a
permit which is punishable under Section 68 of the Code. Their act of refusing and
speeding away when they were required by PNP then offered grease money, by logic, is
that the drivers knew that they were carrying contraband lumber. The SC believes tht
the drivers had knowledge of the fact they were transporting and were in possession of
undocumented lumber in violation of law.
In offenses considered as mala prohibita or when the doing of act is prohibited by
special law such as in the present case, the commission of the prohibited act is the crime
itself. It is sufficient that the offended has the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by
the special law, and that it is done knowingly and consciously.