Cresencio vs. People

MA. MIMIE CRESCENCIO Vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 
G.R. No. 205015, November 19, 2014

Facts:
1. Eufemio Abaniel, the Chief of the Forest Protection unit of DENR together with other Forest Rangers, went to the petitioner's house.
2. Upon arriving thereat, they saw forest products lying under the house of petitioner and at the shoreline about two meters away from the house petitioner's house.
3. As the DENR personnel tried to investigate from the neighborhood as to who was the owner of the lumber, the petitioner admitted its ownership.
4. Thereafter, DENR personnel entered the premises of the petitioner's house without a search warrant.
5. When the DENR personnel asked for documents to support the petitioner's claim of ownership, the latter showed to them an official receipt issued by Pengavitor Enterprises where she allegedly bought the said lumber.
6. However, when the DENR scaled the lumber, they found out that the dimensions and species of the lumber did not tally with the items mentioned in the receipt.
7. Since petitioner could not present any other receipt, Abaniel ordered the confiscation of the lumber and told petitioner that they were going to transport the same to the DENR office for safekeeping.
8. Petitioner was charged with violation of section 68 of P.D. 705.
9. RTC rendered judgment convicting petitioner.
10. Petitioner appealed the decision to the CA.
11. However, the CA dismissed the appeal outright because the petitioner failed to furnish the OSG a copy of the appellants brief in violation of the rules of court.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the outright dismissal is justified.
2. Whether or not the seizure of the lumber is valid

Ruling:
1. (The petitioner submits that the outright denial of her appeal is due to to the incompetence and ignorance of her former counsel who even lied about the fact that he has indeed filed an Appellant's Brief)

As a general rule, the inadvertence of counsel cannot be considered as an adequate excuse as to call for the appellate court's indulgence except:
(1) where the reckless or gross negligence of the counsel deprives the client of due process of law
(2) when the application of the rule will result in outright deprivation of the clients's Liberty or property
(3) when the interest of justice so requires

The Supreme Court agrees that the CA should have taken a liberal view of the rules and ruled on the merits of the appeal, especially when what is involved is no less than petitioner's Liberty.

2. The constitution recognizes the right of the people to be secured in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Nonetheless, the constitutional prohibition against warrant less search and seizures admits of certain exceptions, one of which is seizure of evidence in the "plain view". Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the plain view of an officer, who has the right to be in the position to have that view, are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence.

There is no question that the DENR personnel were not armed with a search warrant. When they arrived at the petitioner's house, the lumbers were lying under the latter's house and at the shoreline about two meters away from the house of the petitioner. It is clear, therefore, that the said lumber is plainly exposed to sight. Hence, the seizure falls within the purview of the plain view doctrine.

Besides, the DENR personnel had the authority to arrest the petitioner, even without a warrant. Section 80 of the Forestry Code authorizes the forestry officer of employee of the DENR to arrest, even without a warrant, any person who has committed or is committing in his presence any of the offenses defined in the Forestry Code.


The decision of the RTC is affirmed. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. HON. HENEDINO P. EDUARTE, in his capacity as Acting Presiding Judge of the RTC, Br. 22, Cabagan, Isabela; ELVINO AGGABAO and VILLA SURATOS G.R. No. 88232 February 26, 1990

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. HON. HENEDINO P. EDUARTE, in his capacity as Acting Presiding Judge of the RTC, Br. 22, Cabagan, Isabela; ELVINO AGGABAO and VILLA SURATOS G.R. No. 88232 February 26, 1990 Facts: Alma T. Aggabao filed  with the RTC, an information against private respondents Elvino Aggabao and Villa Suratos for the crime of concubinage. Upon being arraigned, private respondents entered a plea of not guilty. During the trial, private respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.  They argued that concubinage, under Art. 334 of the RPC is punishable with prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, which is equivalent to imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months, well within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court, and not of the RTC The prosecution filed an opposition to the motion contending that the RTC has jurisdiction over the crime of concubinage...
Read more

DE PEREZ vs. GARCHITORENA

CARMEN G. DE PEREZ vs. MARIANO GARCHITORENA, and JOSE CASIMIRO G.R. No. L-31703 February 13, 1930 ROMUALDEZ, J.: Facts: The question here raised is confined to the scope and meaning of the institution of heirs made in the will of the late Ana Maria Alcantara already admitted to probate, and whose legal force and effect is not in dispute. The clauses of said will relevant to the points in dispute, between the parties are the ninth, tenth, and eleventh, quoted below: Ninth. Being single and without any forced heir, to show my gratitude to my niece-in-law, Carmen Garchitorena, of age, married to my nephew, Joaquin Perez Alcantara, and living in this same house with me, I institute her as my sole and universal heiress to the remainder of my estate after the payment of my debts and legacies, so that upon my death and after probate of this will, and after the report of the committee on claims and appraisal has been rendered and approved, she will receive from my executrix and...
Read more

J.L.T. AGRO, INC., VS. ANTONIO BALANSAG

J.L.T. AGRO, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, JULIAN L. TEVES VS. ANTONIO BALANSAG AND HILARIA CADAYDAY G.R. No. 141882, March 11, 2005 TINGA, J.: Facts: Don Julian L. Teves contracted two marriages, first with Antonia Baena, and after her death, with Milagros Donio Teves. Don Julian had two children with Antonia, namely: Josefa Teves Escaño and Emilio Teves. He had also four (4) children with Milagros Donio, namely: Maria Evelyn Donio Teves, Jose Catalino Donio Teves, Milagros Reyes Teves and Pedro Reyes Teves. The present controversy involves a parcel of land. When Antonia died, the land was among the properties involved in an action for partition and damages, the second wife of Don Julian, participated as an intervenor. Thereafter, the parties to the case entered into a Compromise Agreement which embodied the partition of all the properties of Don Julian. Paragraph 13 of the Compromise Agreement, at the heart of the present dispute, lays down the effect of the eventual ...
Read more