Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Environment and Natural Resources


CORDILLERA ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
Office of the Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer
Lagawe, Ifugao

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
Plaintiff,

Administrative Adjudication
-versus- Proceedings for the Apprehended
Motor Vehicle Isuzu Forward
Van with Plate No. 01234

AL B. CAPON,
Respondent.
x-------------------------x

POSITION PAPER

RESPONDENT Al B. Capon, through the undersigned counsel,


respectfully submits the foregoing position paper and avers that:

PREFATORY STATEMENT
Nemopunitur pro alieno delicto.

THE PARTIES
The Plaintiff is the DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES. The apprehending Officers PEEJAY M. BALAO
and MARLON ARNEDO are personnel of the Office of the Community
Environment and Natural Resources Office, with office address at CENRO,
Lagawe, Ifugao.

The respondent, Al B. Capon, is the registered owner of an Isuzu


Forward Van with Plate No. 0234, Engine No. _______, Chassis No.
_______, with Certificate of Registration No. 4537 and Official Receipt No.
89101112, is of legal age, Filipino and with residential address at Sicily, Italy.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE


The instant case is for the Administrative Adjudication of the
apprehended Motor Vehicle Isuzu Forward Reefer with Plate No. 01234
allegedly used in transporting Narra Flitches without accompanying legal
transport documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations.

Page | 1
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE

On September 15, 2017, at around 8:00 am, the said vehicle driven by
one Val B. Capon, was apprehended by CENRO Staffs and members of PNP
Lagawe, Ifugao allegedly acting on a tip from an unknown caller regarding
the shipment of Isuzu Forward Truck with Plate No. 01234 bound to Isabela
and allegedly loaded with assorted sizes of narra flitches.

According to the apprehending personnel, along the road near the Igorot
Center of Ifugao State University, the team at around 7:30 am, incidentally
spotted a vehicle identical to the vehicle identified by the unknown informant.
The PNP Officers asked the driver if he could open its cargo which the driver
immediately complied. The team saw assorted flitches of Narra upon the
inspection of the freight. CENRO Staffs asked for the documents of said forest
products but the driver failed to present such. The PNP personnel immediately
arrested the driver and the conveyance loaded with illegal forest products was
brought to the DENR CENRO Lagawe, Ifugao for scaling, inventory and
documentations.

Hearing for the instant case was set on October 15, 2017, November
15, 2017 and December 15, 2017. Thereafter, the respondent was directed to
file his Position Paper. Hence, this Position Paper.

ISSUES
1. Whether or not the apprehension was legal;

2. Whether or not the procedure laid down in DENR Administrative Order


No. 97-32 for apprehension and seizure was followed;

3. Whether or not the respondent as the registered owner of the


conveyance had full knowledge and willingly participated therein by
providing the conveyance for the illegal purpose to which said
conveyance was applied; and

4. Whether or not the respondent’s conveyance should be confiscated.

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS

1. Whether or not the apprehension


was legal.

The apprehension report stated that the apprehending team, composed


of the personnel of Lagawe CENRO and PNP, were allegedly responding on
a tip from an unknown caller regarding a shipment of an Isuzu Forward Van
with Plate No. 01234 bound to Isabela and allegedly load with Narra flitches.

Page | 2
When clarificatory questions were asked to CENRO Staffs during the
administrative hearing on October 15, 2017, the following facts were elicited:

That on or about 7:30 am of September 15, 2017, Forest Ranger Max


Alvarado (Alvarado for brevity) received a tip an unknown caller. During the
clarificatory hearing, it was revealed that what he received was actually text
messages. He said he showed the same to Special Investigator Fernando J.
Poe (Poe for brevity). He received another at around 8:00 am which bear the
same information. When asked if he could show the text message he received,
he stated that already erased the text message. Asked if he logged it on the
CENRO Office, he said he did not. Further inquiry revealed that he has a smart
phone that is has a memory storage of at least eight (8) gigabytes that could
stores thousands of text messages and images at the same time. He relayed the
same to Special Investigator Alvarado and the two of them went to and
coordinated with PNP Lagawe. They stayed at the Police Station until 2:00 in
the morning then decided to conduct a checkpoint at CENRO Lagawe.
Travelling as a convoy in separate vehicles, in the road near the Igorot Center
of Ifugao State University, they incidentally spotted the Isuzu Van. They
flagged it down and asked the driver to open up the cargo since the van is a
closed one and they could not see what it is carrying. It was only then that
they discovered the narra flitches.

The responses to the clarificatory question during the hearing and


the apprehension report itself belie the existence of a probable cause to
apprehend the driver. The absence of probable cause makes it improper to
apprehend the vehicle and any object found in it is “fruit of the poisonous
tree that cannot be used against the accused.”

It seems incredible that a text message that would serve as important


evidence in a proceedings will be deleted and no printout would be made.
Human nature tells us that since the advent of smart phones, text messages
and pictures taken using the smart phone are stored considering that a smart
phone has a very storage capacity that could store thousands of messages and
pictures, like in the case of Alvarado. Alvarado could have easily stored the
message he received, or easily shared it to Poe, but he did not. This raises
doubt on the existence of the text message from an unknown “caller.” When
there is doubt, the scale of lady justice should tilt in favor of the accused.

In addition, Alvarado received the messages when is already off-duty.


It is incredible that he did not reported the same to officer in duty at CENRO
but instead worked overtime with Poe from 7:30 pm to 2:30 am, for almost
seven (7) hours to just to validate unverified text messages. While the work
commitment of Alvarado is laudable, however, we find it incredible to
believe.

Without the text message, there is no cogent reason for them to conduct
a checkpoint at almost the entire evening considering that CENRO has a
manned checkpoint at its office at Brgy. Hibok. Alvarado and Poe could
Page | 3
instead passed the information to the CENRO Officers on duty instead of
conducting the operation themselves, which could be construed as a witch-
hunt.

The flaws thus make the apprehension illegal as it runs contrary to


time honored doctrines of the supreme court about warrantless arrest and
seizure which reiterates that no person shall be subjected to a search of his
person, personal effects or belongings, or his residence except by virtue of
a search warrant or on the occasion of a lawful arrest (Sec. 2, Art. III, 1987
Philippine Constitution).

There was no lawful arrest on the first place to talk about. The driver is
driving a closed van. The vehicle has protective casing for the shield of
cargoes against the harmful elements of nature. Its cargoes are not apparent to
the naked eye. Warrantless search and seizure is only allowed following a
lawful arrest, which is absent in the case at bar. There is no lawful arrest that
took place involving the driver Val B. Capon, thus making the search of his
vehicle unlawful. Consequently, it is unconstitutional for the search and
seizure of the conveyance involved in the instant case and any evidenced
therefore found cannot be used for any crime or offense.

2. Whether or not the procedure


laid down in DENR
Administrative Order (DAO) No.
97-32 for apprehension and
seizure was followed.

It is very evident that the procedures laid down in DAO No. 97-32 was
ignored by the personnel of CENRO Alfonso Lista.

Firstly, the driver was not informed of the precise nature of the offense
he committed, which runs contrary to the provision of Section 5(1), DAO No.
97-32. While the apprehending officers issued an Apprehension Receipt
attached as EXHIBIT “1” and series, nowhere in the receipt states the
precise nature of the offense committed by the driver. Likewise lacking in
the records of the case is the On-site-Record of Violations which follows the
absence of the alleged offender’s signature in it.

Secondly, while the apprehending officers did issue an Apprehension


Receipt, said receipt does not contain precise nature of the offense cited and
the signature of the alleged offender nor the explanation of his refusal to sign
the same, likewise a contravention of Section 5(1), DAO No. 97-32.

Thirdly, respondent nor the driver was not furnished with copies of
apprehension receipts and seizure order immediately after the apprehension
and seizure. This fact is reflected in the relevant portion of the testimonies
during the initial hearing on August 24, 2018 of the instant case, which are as
follows:
Page | 4
The non-citation of the precise nature of the offense cited is so crucial
since it deprived the offender vital information to properly prepare for his
intelligent defense.

3. Whether or not the respondent as


the registered owner of the
conveyance had full knowledge
and willingly participated therein
by providing the conveyance for
the illegal purpose to which said
conveyance was applied.

The conveyance subject of the case is a common carrier owned and


operated by AlBCapon Trucking Service which business is the delivery of
products. The herein respondent-owner of conveyance Al B. Capon was not
among those apprehended and in fact unaware of the loading of the Narra
flitches. Capon was under the impression that the truck was on its way back
to Romania after the delivery of Olive Oil Products in Roxas, Isabela.

Attached as follows are the exhibit in support of the legality of the


trucking business of LRCapon:

a. EXHIBIT “2” is the Application for Public Convenience involving


the apprehended conveyance;
b. EXHIBIT “3” is the Order of LTFRB granting provisional
authority;
c. EXHIBIT “4” is the DTI Certificate of AlBCapon Trucking
Services;
d. EXHIBIT “5” is its BIR Certificate of Registration;
e. EXHIBIT“6” and SERIES is the Hauling Services
Agreement

AlBCapon has been in the trucking business since 1973 and had very
good reputation. This is because of the hands-on style of management of Al
B. Capon being the godfather of the family. He is very selective of their
employees and sees to it that the policies they laid are followed to the letter.
Every trip, Capon reminds his drivers of the policies of the family, the do’s
and don’t’s of their business. As a result, AlBCapon was able to secure
hauling contracts with big companies such as Renault, Ferrari and BMW. In
fact, it is the first time that Capon was involved in an incident like this one.

This incident involving AlBCapon Truck is where driver of the


conveyance subject of the case is acting beyond scope of his assigned tasks
at the time the said vehicle was apprehended. AlBCapon or Capon had no
knowledge whatsoever of any illegal activity of the driver during the
apprehension. It is undisputed that the driver of the conveyance subject of this
case at the time of the apprehension was one Val B. Capon since the regular
Page | 5
driver of the conveyance subject of this case took his unexpected leave on
August 4, 2017, jeopardizing the delivery of Olive Oil Products in Roxas,
Isabela. This fact is reflected in the relevant portion of the testimonies during
the hearing on October 15, 2017 of the instant case, which are as follows:

Val B. Capon is an employee of AlBCapon Trucking Services as a


Special Project Officer. On September 17, 2017, his services was terminated
due to the violation of the company policies, rules and regulations. Copy of
the Termination Notice is attached as EXHIBIT “7“.

4. Whether or not the respondent’s


conveyance should be
confiscated.

To sustain claims against employers for the acts of their employees, the
following requisites must be established: (1) That the employee was chosen
by the employer personally or through another; (2) That the service to be
rendered in accordance with orders which the employer has the authority to
give at all times; and (3) That the illicit act of the employee was on the
occasion or by reason of the functions entrusted to him. (Cammarota, 449,
cited in Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. V, p. 522.).

Clearly, Val B. Capon was not acting with the orders of AlBCapon and
Val B. Capon when he allegedly loaded illegal products. To reiterate and for
pain of being repetitive, the driver was acting beyond scope of his assigned
tasks at the time the said vehicle was apprehended and contrary to the orders
of his employer. Capon had no knowledge whatsoever of any illegal activity
of the driver, before and during the apprehension. Hence, Capon should not
bear the consequences of the illegal and unwarranted action of the driver.
Regular “toolbox” meetings, where Capon reminds his drivers of his
company’s policies, rules and regulations. Capon regularly monitors his
drivers through cellphone communications to see to it they are performing
their jobs as instructed. After provincial deliveries and on route to the area
when during daytime, Capon requires his drivers to report on his residence at
Sicily. For this reason, the conveyance subject of this case should not be
confiscated. No one is to be punished for the crime or wrong of another.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of
this Honorable Office that judgment be rendered DISMISSING the instant
case for lack of merit in fact and in law. That this Honorable Office renders a
decision releasing the conveyance subject of this instant case.
Other reliefs just and equitable in the premises are equally prayed for.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Sicily, Italy for Lagawe, Ifugao, February 14, 2018.

Page | 6
THE GODFATHER LAW FIRM
Counsel for the Respondent
Sicily, Italy
By:

ATTY. TOM HAGEN


Roll of Attorneys No. 13579

Page | 7