Momongan v. JDG Omipon

You might also like

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

Momongan v.

Judge Omipon
A.M. No. MTJ-93-874, March 14, 1995, 242 SCRA 332
Syllabus:
The confiscation proceedings under AO No. 59 is different from the confiscation under the Revised Penal
Code, which is an additional penalty imposed in the event of conviction. Despite the order of release,
the truck can be seized again either by filing a motion for reinvestigation and motion to include the truck
owner/driver, as co-accused, which complainant has done as manifested before the lower court or by
enforcing AO No. 59. Section 12 thereof categorically states that “[t]he confiscation of the conveyance
under these regulations shall be without prejudice to any criminal action which shall be filed against the
owner thereof or any person who used the conveyance in the commission of the offense.”

FACTS:

Police authorities captured Dionisio Golpe when he was driving his vehicle laden with illegally
cut timber. The logs were later discovered to be held by a man named Basilio Cabig, and a complaint
was made against him. Judge Rafael Omipon established a prima facie case against Cabig but ordered
Golpe's freedom.

Judge Omipon has been sued by the Regional Director of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR). According to Augustus Momongan, the judge breached sections 68 and 68-A
of PD No. 705 and AO No. 59, Series of 1990.

ISSUE:
Whether Judge Omipon has the power to discharge the accused vehicle and therefore avoid any legal
measures.

RULING:
Whereas the DENR Secretary or his legally constituted representatives have had the authority to
seize any unlawfully procured or managed to gather forest resources as well as all forms of transport
used for the commission of an offence under Section 68-A of PD No. 705 and AO No. 59, this authority is
limited to the DENR's administrative jurisdiction. The action of Judge Omipon in unleashing the vehicle
did not breach PD No. 705 or AO No. 59 since it would not constitute the political control of the DENR
Secretary nugatory.
The judge had no duty to do so, and should not be visited with any disciplinary action, according
to Momongan's lawyer.

You might also like