11) Monge v.

People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 170308, March 7, 2008, 548 SCRA 42

FACTS:

 Petitioner GALO MONGE and Edgar Potencio were found by barangay tanods
Serdan and Molina in possession of and transporting three (3) pieces of
mahogany lumber. The tanods then demanded that they be shown the
requisite permit and/or authority from the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) but neither Monge nor Potencio was able to
produce any.
 Consequently, they were charged with violation of Section 688 of P.D. No.
705.
 During the trial, Potencio was discharged as state witness and testified that it
was Monge who owned the lumber, and that the latter merely asked him to
help him transport it from the mountain. Hence, the trial court found Monge
guilty as charged.

ISSUE:

WON Monge is guilty of violating Section 68 of P.D. No. 705.

RATIO:

Yes. Monge is guilty of violating Section 68 of PD No. 705.

The mere possession of Monge and Potencio of the lumber without the required
permit had already consummated their criminal liability under Section 68 of the
Revised Forestry Code.

The Revised Forestry Code “is a special penal statute that punishes acts essentially
malum prohibitum.” Regardless of the good faith of Monge, the commission of the
prohibited act consummated his criminal liability. Good faith, which is the absence
of malice or criminal intent, is not a defense. It is also immaterial as to whether
Potencio or Monge owned the lumber as the mere possession thereof without the
proper documents is unlawful and punishable.