People vs Abad Digest

G.R. No. L-55132 August 30, 1988 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, rerese!te" #$ t%e O&&'(e o& t%e Pro)'!('*+ F's(*+ L*g*e I&ug*o, petitioner, vs. HON. FRANISO EN A/A, u"ge o& t%e ourt o& F'rst I!st*!(e o& I&ug*o, L*g*e, I&ug*o, LIS RO/LES, EARO /ANAO, AROS OAGON, OAGON, AGO ANG, LON LATTO, /AHAN NIGING, NIOR NIGING, PI4IT TNAGI, TN AGI, GINOON HONGA-AP, FERNANO FERNANO TI-ONG, LIO /ALLOGAN, FERNAN GAGGO, AREN GAGGO AN /AL/INA POA POA, respondents. ELENIO-HERRERA,

J.:

Facts: Prior to 27 March 1978, the Director of Mines issued a commercial lease permit to one Felix de astro !rantin! him the exclusive ri!ht to "uarr#, extract and carr# a$a# sand and !ravel from the %umi!ar &uarr# located at 'ana$e, (fu!ao. )n complaint *# Felix de astro, an (nformation $as filed in the ourt of First (nstance of (fu!ao, presided over *# respondent +ud!e, char!in! private respondents $ith the crime of -heft of Minerals defined and penalied under %ection 78 of Presidential Decree /o. 08, as amended *# Presidential Decree /o. 18. 3espondents4accused filed a Motion to &uash on the !round that the facts char!ed do not constitute an offense inasmuch as the# had paid sand and !ravel tax, to the Municipal -reasurer of 'ana$e, (fu!ao, for the "uarr#in! of sand and !ravel. -he ta5in!, therefore, accordin! to private respondents, $as $ith the consent of the !overnment. -he# also invo5ed 6)( /o. 20, $hich allo$s persons to extract sand and !ravel even $ithin the leased area for use in !overnment infrastructures. Petitioner opposed the "uashal ar!uin! that it is error to impl# that consent $as !iven *# the overnment throu!h the Municipal -reasurer inasmuch as the taxes paid to the Municipal overnment are not the fees re"uired *# the 'ureau of Mines. )n 28 +anuar# 198, respondent +ud!e issued the assailed )rder "uashin! the (nformation on the !round that violation of P.D. /o. 0 is limited to an administrative violation and that the crime of -heft under the 3evised Penal ode ;rticle 8< has not *een committed since malice, $hich is an essential element in the commission of a crime, is lac5in!. -he reconsideration pra#ed for *# petitioner $as denied *# respondent on 18 +ul# 198. =ence, this certiorari Petition alle!in! !rave a*use of discretion on the part of respondent +ud!e.

(ssue: >hether or not the facts char!ed in the (nformation constitute an offense? 3ulin!: %ection 78. -heft of Minerals. ;n# person $ho, $ithout a minin! lease or a temporar# permit or, an# other permit !ranted *# the %ecretar# or the Director under existin! minin! decrees, la$s and re!ulations to mine, shall extract, remove and@or dispose of minerals *elon!in! to the overnment or from a minin! claim or claims leased, held or o$ned *# other persons, shall *e deemed to have stolen the ores or the products thereof from the mines or millsA. -he elements of the offense, therefore, are that : 1< the accused extracted, removed and@or disposed of mineralsB 2< these minerals *elon! to the overnment or have *een ta5en from a minin! claim or  claims leased, held or o$ned *# other personsB and < the accused did not possess a minin! lease or a temporar# permit or an# other permit to mine !ranted *# the %ecretar# or the Director under existin! minin! decrees, la$s and re!ulations. Cvidentl#, the (nformation filed in the ourt *elo$ includes all the fore!oin! elements. -hus, it alle!ed 1< that the accused, conspirin! and mutuall# helpin! one another, $ilfull# and feloniousl# extracted, removed and@or disposed of minerals or material a!!re!ates li5e sand and !ravelB 2< the minerals $ere ta5en from the %umi!ar &uarr#, 'ana$e, (fu!ao, $hich is covered *# a commercial permit issued *# the 'ureau of Mines, 'a!uio it#, in favor of complainin! $itness Felix de astroB and < the extractin! $as done $ithout an# minin! lease or permit of their o$n pursuant to la$. (t $ill have to *e held, therefore, that *ased upon the facts alle!ed in the (nformation, the essential re"uisites of the )ffense of -heft of Minerals, as specified *# su*stantive la$, are present. -hus, respondent +ud!e, in considerin! as evidence the three receipts of tax pa#ments issued *# the Municipal -reasurer of 'ana$e, (fu!ao, exceeded his  urisdiction amountin! to !rave a*use of discretion $hen he considered matters of defense extrinsic to the alle!ations in the (nformation and $hich should *e su*stantiated durin! the trial. Moreover, said receipts merel# sho$ pa#ment of taxes pursuant to Provincial )rdinance /o. 10 and not the authorit# to extract, remove, and@or dispose of minerals from the %umi!ar &uarr# as re"uired *# P.D. /o. 0. -hose receipts are insufficient evidence to

prove that the proper overnment office had, in effect, !ranted the re"uired permit to extract minerals from said "uarr#. -he rationaliation *# respondent +ud!e that the ta5in! a$a# of sand and !ravel $as $ithout malice *ecause it $as done $ith the 5no$led!e and participation of the overnment since private respondents had paid taxes on the sand and !ravel extracted is not $ell4ta5en. (n crimes punished *# special la$s, the act alone, irrespective of its motives, constitutes the offense. >=C3CF)3C, the Petition is !ranted.