PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, rerese!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/A0, 1u"ge o& t%e -ourt o& F'rst I!st*!(e o& I&ug*o, L*g*,e, I&ug*o, 12LI2S RO/LES, E02AR0O /AN0AO, .AR-OS O3AGON, 0AG3O 23ANG, 202LON LATTO0, /2--AHAN .2N0IG2ING, 12NIOR .2N0IG2ING, PI4IT T2N0AG2I, G2INO.ON -HONGA-AP, FERNAN0O TI0-ONG, 12LIO /ALLOGAN, FERNAN GAGGO, -AR.EN GAGGO AN0 /AL/INA PO-3A, 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 $ith the crime of ,-heft of Minerals, defined and penali.ed under %ection 78 of Presidential Decree /o. 081, as amended *# Presidential Decree /o. 1182. 3espondents4accused filed a Motion to &uash on the !round that the facts char!ed do not constitute an offense inasmuch as the# had paid ,sand and !ravel tax,, to the Municipal -reasurer of 'ana$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. 201, $hich allo$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 7overnment throu!h the Municipal -reasurer inasmuch as the taxes paid to the Municipal 7overnment are not the fees re"uired *# the 'ureau of Mines. )n 28 +anuar# 1988, respondent +ud!e issued the assailed )rder "uashin! the (nformation on the !round that violation of P.D. /o. 091 is limited to an administrative violation and that the crime of -heft under the 3evised Penal ode :;rticle 188< 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# 1988. =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 7overnment or from a minin! claim or claims leased, held or o$ned *# other persons, shall *e deemed to have stolen the ores or the products thereof from the mines or millsA. -he elements of the offense, therefore, are that : :1< the accused extracted, removed and@or disposed of mineralsB :2< these minerals *elon! to the 7overnment or have *een ta5en from a minin! claim or claims leased, held or o$ned *# other personsB and :1< 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 :1< 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 Durisdiction 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. 091. -hose receipts are insufficient evidence to prove that the proper 7overnment 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 7overnment 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.
John A. Pavlovscak v. John L. Lewis, Henry G. Schmidt and Josephine Roche, As Trustees of The United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund, 274 F.2d 523, 3rd Cir. (1960)