EPIFANIO LALICAN, petitioner, vs. HON. FILOMENO A. VERGARA,Presiding Judge, RTC Branch 52, Puerto Princesa City and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Facts:

The petitioners were apprehended on the Sitio Cadiz, Barangay Bacungan Puerto Princesa for violating Section 68 of PD No. 705 or known as The Forestry Reform Code of the Philippines. There were 1, 800 board feet of lumber loaded in two (2) passenger jeeps in different sizes and dimension that were confiscated. On August 9, 1991, all the accused were pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.

Petitioner Lalican filed a motion to quash the information filed against them contenting that, Section 68 of PD 705 does not include lumber because the wording of the law categorically specify timber to be collected as to constitute the violation on the said law. He further contends that, the law is vague because it does specify the authority or legal documents required by existing forest law and regulation.

The prosecution opposed the motion to quash on the ground that it is not the courts to determine the wisdom of the law or to set the policy as rest by the legislature. He further asserts that the word timber should include lumber which is a product or derivative of a timber. The position of the prosecution could result to the circumvention of the law, for one could stealthily cut a timber and process it to become a lumber. On September 24, 1991, the lower court construed the interpretation of the law against the State thus the motion was granted.

The prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration on the order underscoring the fact that the accused presented Private Land Timber Permit No. 030140 dated February 10, 1991 which had expired; that while the certificate of origin indicated Brgy. Sta. Cruz, the product actually came from Sitio Cadiz, and that the two jeeps bearing the product were not equipped with certificates of transport agreement. Added to this was the fact that, if the product were indeed lumber, then the accused could have presented a certificate of lumber origin, lumber sale invoices in case of sale, tally sheets and delivery receipts for transportation from one point to another. The motion was approved thus this case.

Issue:Whether the term lumber is included in the concept of timber in order to constitute

an offense as stated in Sec. 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705 (The Forestry Reform Code of the Philippines).

Ruling:

NO, The Court ruled that, the word lumber includes timber. The primary reason why the law was enacted is to secure and maximize the use of the natural resources; the non inclusion of lumber on the law may give rise for the circumvention of law. Section 68 of the said law punishes these acts namely

(a) the cutting, gathering, collection, or removal of timber or other forest products from the places therein mentioned without any authority; or

(b) possession of timber or other forest products without the legal documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations. Be that as it may, the legislative intent to include possession of lumber in Sec. 68 is clearly gleaned from the expressed reasons for enacting the law which, under Executive Order No. 277. To exclude possession of "lumber" from the acts penalized in Sec. 68 would certainly emasculate the law itself. A law should not be so construed as to allow the doing of an act which is prohibited by law, nor so interpreted as to afford an opportunity to defeat compliance with its terms, create an inconsistency, or contravene the plain words of the law. After all, the phrase "forest products" is broad enough to encompass lumbers which, to reiterate, is manufactured timber. Hence, to mention lumber in Sec. 68 would merely result in tautology.

PERFECTO PALLADA, plaintiff vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Facts:

Sometime in the latter part of 1992, DENR received a reports that illegally cut lumber were delivered in the warehouse of Valencia Golden Harvest Corporation in Valencia Bukidnon. DENR officers in collaboration of PNP raided the company’s warehouse and found a large stockpile of lumber in varying sizes cut by a chainsaw. As proof that the company had acquired the lumber by purchase, petitioner produced two receipts issued by R.L. Rivero Lumberyard of Maramag, Bukidnon, dated March 6 and 17, 1992. The DENR officers did not, however, give credit to the receipt considering that R. L.

Rivero Lumberyard's permit to operate had long been suspended. What is more, the pieces of lumber were cut by chain saw and thus could not have come from a licensed sawmill operator.

On February 23, 1993, petitioner, as general manager, together with Noel Sy, as assistant operations manager, and Francisco Tankiko, as president of the Valencia Golden Harvest Corporation, and Isaias Valdehueza, were charged with violation of section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended. During the trial, the accused presented documents that the lumber are legally obtained. This may include the certificate of origin. However, the court found out that Pallada was guilty of the violation of PD 705 and the rest of the accused were acquitted due to insufficiency of

evidence. The case was appealed to the CA and rendered a decision affirming the decision of the lower court, thus this case was elevated.

Issue:

Whether a separate certificates of origin is used for lumber and timber.

Ruling:

Yes, there should be a separate Certificate of origin. The trial court acted correctly in not giving credence to the Certificates of Timber Origin presented by petitioner since the lumber held by the company should be covered by Certificates of Lumber Origin. For indeed, as BFD Circular No. 10-83 states in pertinent parts:

In order to provide an effective mechanism to pinpoint accountability and responsibility for shipment of lumber . . . and to have uniformity in documenting the origin thereof, the attached Certificate of Lumber

Origin (CLO) . . . which form[s] part of this circular [is] hereby adopted as accountable forms for official use by authorized BFD officers . . . .

5. Lumber . . . transported/shipped without the necessary Certificate of Lumber Origin (CLO) . . . as herein required shall be considered as proceeding from illegal sources and as such, shall be subject to confiscation and disposition in accordance with LOI 1020 and BFD implementing guidelines.

The irregularities and discrepancies make the documents in which they are found not only questionable but invalid and, thus, justified the trial court in giving no credence to the same. The presence of such glaring irregularities negates the presumption that the CTOs were regularly executed by the DENR officials concerned.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALFONSO DATOR et.al , Accused- Appelant

Facts:

Pator Teala and his co accused Alfonso Dator and Benito Genol were charged with the crime of violation of Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705, otherwise known as the Revised Forestry Code. The accused while transporting pieces of lumber bound to Maasin Souther Leyte, they were apprehended by the police officer and seized pieces of lumber. As a result SPO1 Bacala issued a seizure receipt covering the fifty-one (51) pieces of confiscated Dita and Antipolo lumber and one (1) unit of Isuzu cargo truck with Plate No. HAF 628. The confiscated pieces of lumber and the cargo truck were turned over to SPO3 Daniel Lasala, PNP Property Custodian of Maasin, Southern Leyte who, in turn, officially transferred custody of the same to the CENRO, Maasin, Southern Leyte. The accused Telan alleged that the pieces of lumber were cut from the track of land belonging to his mother in San Jose, Maasin, Southern Leyte which he intended to use in the renovation of his house in Barangay Abgao of the same municipality. He further contends that he secured verbal permission to Boy Leonor an officer-in -charge of the DENR.

The lower courts found out that the accused is guilty in violation of PD 705 sentencing the accused to suffer the indivisible penalty of RECLUSIONPERPETUA, with the accessory penalties provided by law, which is two (2) degrees higher than PRISION MAYOR maximum, the authorized penalty similar to Qualified Theft, and to pay the costs. Thus, this case was elevated to the court.

Issue:Whether the penalty imposed to Telan the accused is correct in violation

of PD 705.

Ruling:

No, In the case at bench, the confiscated fifty-one (51) pieces of assorted Dita and Antipolo lumber were classified by the CENRO officials as soft, and therefore not premium quality lumber. It may be noted that the said pieces of lumber were cut by the appellant, a mere janitor in a public hospital, from the land owned by his mother, not for commercial purposes but to be utilized in the renovation of his house. It does not appear that appellant Telen had been convicted nor was he an accused in any other pending criminal case involving violation of any of the provisions of the Revised Forestry Code (P.D. No. 705, as amended) . In view of the attendant circumstances of this case, and in the interest of justice, the basis for the penalty to be imposed on the appellant

should be the minimum amount under Article 309 paragraph (6) of the Revised Penal Code which carries the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods for simple theft.

Considering that the crime of violation of Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705, as amended, is punished as qualified theft under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, pursuant to the said decree, the imposable penalty on the appellant shall be increased by two degrees, that is, from arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods to prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty to be imposed on the appellant should be six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor.

PICOP RESOURCES, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. AUGUSTUS L. CALO, Presiding Judge, respondent

Facts: Petitioner PICOP Resources, Inc. (PICOP) owns and operates a multi-

billion peso pulp and paper manufacturing facility in Bislig City, Agusan del Norte. It holds government-issued Pulpwood and Timber License Agreement (PTLA) No. 47 and Integrated Forest Management Agreement (IFMA) No. 35 which gave petitioner the exclusive right to co-manage and develop with the State almost 130,000 hectares of forest land within the Agusan-Davao-Surigao Forest Reserve.

The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), through its officers, rendered three Memoranda, dated August 22, 1997, February 16, 2001 and April 6, 2001 designating the petitioner as DENR depository and custodian for apprehended forest products and conveyances within its concession. On May 25, 2001, the Office of the CENRO-Bislig and petitioner entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) containing "Procedural Guidelines in the Conduct of Verification of Private Tree Plantation." The MOA provided, among others, that field validation/verification of applications for Certificates of Private Tree Ownership (CTPOs) shall be conducted jointly by the DENR, the local government unit concerned, and petitioner. Pursuant to these Memoranda, petitioner’s security personnel were deputized as DENR officers to apprehend and seize the tools, equipment and conveyance used in the commission of illegal logging and the forest products removed and possessed by the

offenders.

In the course of the enforcement of the aforesaid Memoranda, petitioner PICOP, through its security personnel, had on numerous occasions apprehended within its concession and tree plantation area. These illegally cut forest products and conveyances were kept in PICOP’s impounding area.

A class suit was initiated among the members of UFAB asking for preliminary mandatory Injunction. They further asked for the declaration of the memoranda null and void and sought to restrain the DENR and those who are participants from enforcing the said memoranda. The RTC ordered Elias R. Seraspio, Jr. to recall, withdraw and abrogate the enforcement of the assailed Memorandum dated February 16, 2001 and to refrain and desist from implementation. Petitioner was also ordered to release the confiscated falcata logs and vehicles to the owners thereof, or to the CENRO-Bislig or the Office of the Government Prosecution-Surigao del Sur, where the administrative and criminal proceedings were ongoing.

Issue;

Whether petitioner has the right to retain the seized confiscated products by the virtue of MOA regarding the Procedural Guidelines in the Conduct of Verification of Private Tree Plantation.

Ruling:

Petitioner had no right or interest to protect in the confiscated forest products and conveyances. Petitioner’s compound was used only as a depository for the confiscated logs and conveyances by virtue of the Memorandum. While it claimed that some of the confiscated forest products may have come from its concession area, petitioner admitted that the ownership of the confiscated products was still to be determined in the cases pending either at the CENRO-Bislig or at the Office of the Government Prosecution-Surigao del Sur. Hence, petitioner’s interest in the confiscated forest products was merely contingent and cannot be material as contemplated under Section 2, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner contends that private respondents’ intrusion was in violation of petitioner’s PTLA No. 47 and IFMA No. 35. These license agreements gave petitioner the exclusive right to co- manage and develop forest lands, and recognized petitioner as owner of the trees and other products in the

concession area. In filing this petition, petitioner is merely defending its subsisting proprietary interest pursuant to these license agreements.

It is clear that petitioner has no material interest to protect in the confiscated forest products and conveyances. It has no subsisting proprietary interest, as borne out by its licensing agreements, which need to be protected by annulling the writ of injunction issued by the trial court. Petitioner also cannot claim the right to retain custody of the apprehended logs and conveyances by virtue of its being designated a depository of the DENR pursuant to the assailed Memoranda. As such depository, petitioner merely holds the confiscated products and conveyances in custody for the DENR while the administrative or criminal proceedings regarding said products are pending.

FELIPE YSMAEL, JR. & CO., INC., petitioner, vs. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF FOREST DEVELOPMENT and TWIN PEAKS DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS:

On October 12, 1965, petitioner entered into a timber license agreement with the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, represented by then Secretary Jose Feliciano, wherein it was issued an exclusive license to cut, collect and remove timber except prohibited species within a specified portion of public forest land with an area of 54,920 hectares located in the municipality of Maddela, province of Nueva Vizcaya from October 12, 1965 until June 30, 1990.

However, on August 18, 1983, the Director of the Bureau of Forest Development (Bureau), Director Edmundo Cortes, issued a memorandum order stopping all logging operations in Nueva Vizcaya and Quirino provinces, and cancelling the logging concession of petitioner and nine other forest concessionaires, pursuant to presidential instructions and a memorandum order of the Minister of Natural Resources Teodoro Pena.

Subsequently, petitioner’s timber license agreement was cancelled. He sent a letter addressed to then President Ferdinand Marcos which sought

reconsideration of the Bureau's directive, citing in support thereof its contributions to forest conservation and alleging that it was not given the opportunity to be heard prior to the cancellation of its logging operations, but no favorable action was taken on his letter; Barely one year thereafter, approximately one-half of the area formerly covered by petitioner’s TLA was re-awarded to Twin Peaks Development and Realty Corporation under a new TLA which was set to expire on July 31, 2009, while the other half was allowed to be logged by Filipinas Loggers, Inc. without the benefit of a formal award or license. The latter entities were controlled or owned by relatives or cronies of deposed President Ferdinand Marcos. Soon after the change of government in February 1986, petitioner sent a letter dated March 17, 1986 to the Office of the President, and another letter dated April 2, 1986 to Minister Ernesto Maceda of the Ministry of Natural Resources [MNR], seeking: (1) the reinstatement of its timber license agreement which was cancelled in August 1983 during the Marcos administration; (2) the revocation of TLA No. 356 which was issued to Twin Peaks Development and Realty Corporation without public bidding and in violation of forestry laws, rules and regulations; and, (3) the issuance of an order allowing petitioner to take possession of all logs found in the concession area. However, petitioner's request was denied. Petitioner moved for reconsideration reiterating, among others, its request that the timber license agreement issued to private respondent be declared null and void. The MNR however denied this motion. Petitioner subsequently appealed from the orders of the MNR to the Office of the President. The Office of the President, acting through then Deputy Executive Secretary Catalino Macaraig, denied petitioner's appeal for lack of merit. Petitioner filed with the Court a petition for certiorari, with prayer for the issuance of a restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction,

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner has the right to seek the nullification of the Bureau orders cancelling his timber license agreement and the granting of TLA to private respondent, which were issued way back in 1983 and 1984, respectively.

HELD:

NO. The failure of petitioner to file the petition for certiorari within a reasonable period of time renders the petitioner susceptible to the adverse legal consequences of laches. Laches is defined as the failure or neglect for an

unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier, or to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled thereto has either abandoned it of declined to assert it. The rule is that unreasonable delay on the part of a plaintiff in seeking to enforce an alleged right may, depending upon the circumstances, be destructive of the right itself. Verily, the laws did these who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. In the case at bar, petitioner waited for at least three years before it finally filed a petition for certiorari with the Court attacking the validity of the assailed Bureau actions in 1983 and 1984. Considering that petitioner, throughout the period of its inaction, was not deprived of the opportunity to seek relief from the courts which were normally operating at the time, its delay constitutes unreasonable and inexcusable neglect, tantamount to laches. Accordingly, the writ of certiorari requiring the reversal of these orders will not lie. There is a more significant factor which bars the issuance of a writ of certiorari in favor of petitioner and against public respondents herein. A long line of cases establish the basic rule that the courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of government agencies entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under the special technical knowledge and training of such agencies. More so where, as in the present case, the interests of a private logging company are pitted against that of the public at large on the pressing public policy issue of forest conservation. For this Court recognizes the wide latitude of discretion possessed by the government in determining the appropriate actions to be taken to preserve and manage natural resources, and the proper parties who should enjoy the privilege of utilizing these resources. Timber licenses, permits and license agreements are the principal instruments by which the State regulates the utilization and disposition of forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. And it can hardly be gainsaid that they merely evidence a privilege granted by the State to qualified entities, and do not vest in the latter a permanent or irrevocable right to the particular concession area and the forest products therein. They may be validly amended, modified, replaced or rescinded by the Chief Executive when national interests so require. Thus, they are not deemed contracts within the purview of the due process of law clause.

JUAN ANTONIO, ANNA ROSARIO and JOSE ALFONSO, all surnamed OPOSA, minors, and represented by their parents petitioners, vs. THE

HONORABLE FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., in his capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and THE HONORABLE ERIBERTO U. ROSARIO, Presiding Judge of the RTC, Makati, Branch 66, respondents.

Facts

This case is unique in that it is a class suit brought by 44 children, through their parents, claiming that they bring the case in the name of “their generation as well as those generations yet unborn.” Aiming to stop deforestation, it was filed against the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources , seeking to have him cancel all the timber license agreements (TLAs) in the country and to cease and desist from accepting and approving more timber license agreements. The children invoked their right to a balanced and healthful ecology and to protection by the State in its capacity as parens patriae.

The petitioners claimed that the DENR Secretary's refusal to cancel the TLAs and to stop issuing them was "contrary to the highest law of humankind-- the natural law—and violative of plaintiffs' right to self-preservation and perpetuation." The case was dismissed in the lower court, invoking the law on non-impairment of contracts, so it was brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari.

Issue:Whether children have the legal standing to file the case?

Ruling:

Yes. The Supreme Court in granting the petition ruled that the children had the legal standing to file the case based on the concept of “intergenerational responsibility”. Their right to a healthy environment carried with it an obligation to preserve that environment for the succeedinggenerations. In this, the Court recognized legal standing to sue on behalf of future generations. Also, the Court said, the law on non-impairment of contracts must give way to the exercise of the police power of the state in the interest of public welfare.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF QUEZON , respondent.

Facts:

The private respondents were charged with the crime of qualified theft of logs, defined and punished under Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705,otherwise known as the Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines. The information provided that Godofredo Arrozal and Luis Flores, together with 20 other John Does whose identities are still unknown, the first-named accused being the administrator of the Infanta Logging Corporation, conspired and entered the privately-owned land of one Felicitacion Pujalte, titled in the name of her deceased father, Macario Prudente, and proceeded to illegally cut, gather, and take, there from, without the consent of the said owner and without any authority under a license agreement, 60 logs of different species.

On March 23, 1977, the named accused filed a motion to quash the information on 2grounds, to wit: (1) that the facts charged do not constitute an offense; and, (2) that the information does not conform substantially to the prescribed form. Trial court thus dismissed the information based on the respondent’s grounds.

Issue:

Whether the information correctly and properly charged an offense and whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the case.

Ruling:

The elements of thecrime of qualified theft of logs are: 1) That the accused cut, gathered, collected or removed timber or other forest products; 2) that the timber or other forest products cut ,gathered, collected or removed belongs to the government or to any private individual; and 3) that the cutting, gathering, collecting or removing was without authority under a license agreement, leas, license, or permit granted by the state. The failure of the information to allege that the logs taken were owned by the state is not fatal. It should be noted that the logs subject of the complaint were taken not from a public forest but from private woodland registered in the name of complainant's deceased father, Macario Prudente. The fact that only the state can grant a license agreement,

license or lease does not make the state the owner of all the logs and timber products produced in the Philippines including those produced in private woodlands. Thus,ownership is not an essential element of the offense as defined in Section 60 of P.D. No. 705. As to the second issue raised, the regular courts still has jurisdiction. Sec. 80 of PD 705covers 2 specific instances when a forest officer may commence a prosecution for the violation of the Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines.

The first authorizes a forest officer or employee of the Bureau of Forestry to arrest without a warrant, any person who has committed or is committing, in his presence, any of the offenses described in the decree. The second covers a situation when an offense described in the decree is not committed in the presence of the forest officer or employee and the commission is brought to his attention by a report or a complaint. In both cases, however, the forest officer or employee shall investigate the offender and file a complaint with the appropriate official authorized by law to conduct a preliminary investigation and file the necessary informations in court.Unfortunately, the instant case does not fall under any of the situations covered by Section 80 of P.D. 705. The alleged offense was committed not in the presence of a forest officer and neither was the alleged commission reported to any forest officer. The offense was committed in a private land and the complaint was brought by a private offended party to the fiscal. As such, the OSG was correct in insisting that P.D. 705 did not repeal Section 1687 of the Administrative Code giving authority to the fiscal to conduct investigation into the crime of demeanour and have the necessary information or complaint prepared or made against person charged with the commission of the crime. In short, Section 80 does not grant exclusive authority to the forest officers, but only special authority to reinforce the exercise of such by those upon whom vested by the general law.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. WILSON B. QUE, accused-appellant

Facts:Provincial Task Force got wind that a that a ten-wheeler truck bearing

plate number PAD-548 loaded with illegally cut lumber will pass through Ilocos Norte. Acting on said information, members of the PTF went on patrol several times within the vicinity of General Segundo Avenue in Laoag City. On March 8, 1994, SPO1 Corpuz, together with SPO1 Zaldy Asuncion and SPO1 Elmer Patoc went on patrol around the area. At about 1:00 in the morning,

they posted themselves at the corner of General Segundo Avenue and Rizal Street. Thirty minutes later, they saw a ten-wheeler truck with plate number PAD-548 pass by. They followed the truck and apprehended it at the Marcos Bridge. On June 23, 1994, accused-appellant was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Laoag with violation of Section 68 of P.D. 705as amended by E.O. 277. The Information alleged that, on or about the 8th day of March, 1994, in the City of Laoag, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then the owner of an Isuzu Ten Wheeler Truck bearing Plate No. PAD-548, with intent of gain, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in possession, control and custody 258 pieces of various sizes of Forest Products Chain saw lumber (Species of Tanguile) with a total volume of 3,729.3 bd. ft. or equivalent to 8.79 cubic meters valued in the total amount of P93,232.50 atP25.00/bd. ft., necessary permit, license or authority to do so from the proper authorities Accused-appellant denied the charge against him. He claimed that he acquired the 258 pieces of tanguile lumber from a legal source. During the trial, he presented the private land timber permits (PLTP) issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to Enrica Cayosa and Elpidio Sabal The PLTP authorizes its holder to cut, gather and dispose timber from the forest area covered by the permit. He alleged that the tanguile lumber came from the forest area covered by the PLTP’s of Cayosa and Sabal and that they were given to him by Cayosa and Sabal as payment for his hauling services

Issue:

Whether the appellant’s activities consist an offense

Ruling:Yes, Possession of the lumber without the necessary permit is a

violation of the RFC. When the police apprehended Que, he failed to present documentary evidence to prove that he has the permit to possess and transport the lumber. All he had was the permit for the coconut slabs. He even concealed the lumber so as to avoid it from being seen upon first inspection of the load. Under the circumstances, there is no doubt that the accused was aware that he needed documents to possess and transport the lumber, but could not secure one and therefore, concealed such by placing it in such a manner that it could not be seen by merely looking at the cargo. There are 2

ways of violating Sec. 68 of the Revised Forestry Code:

a. by cutting, gathering and/or collecting timber or other forest products without licence and

b. by possessing timber or other forest products without required legal documents.

In the first offense, one can raise as a defense the legality of said acts. However, in the second offense, mere possession without proper documentation consummates the crime.

Roldan, Jr. petitioner v. Hon, Madrona et.al. respondents

Facts: On August 9, 2001, petitioner applied for a Private Land Timber Permit

(PLTP) from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources for him to cut some trees for a proposed road and poultry farm in his property. He also paid all the fees required by the various government agencies. While waiting for the permit to be issued, petitioner was allegedly informed by some employees from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) that he could proceed with the cutting of trees even though his application was still awaiting approval. Consequently, petitioner proceeded with the cutting of trees and bulldozing of the roadway. He used the cut logs as materials to build his chicken cages. About three weeks later, representatives of the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and personnel from the Intelligence Service, Armed Forces of the Philippines (ISAFP) of Tacloban City raided petitioner’s place, allegedly without a search warrant. An inventory of the cut trees was conducted there were 872 pieces of sawn lumber/filches (8,506 board feet) and three felled timber logs with a total market value of P235,454.68 at P27.00 per board foot.

Issue:

a. Whether a person who cuts trees for his own use within his property without the necessary permit from the DENR and without transporting the same outside said property, be criminally charged for violating PD 705?

b. Whether the owner of a private property is administratively liable under Section 14 of DENR Administrative Order No. 2000-21 despite the fact that he did not transport the logs out of his property and used them for his own agricultural purposes.

Ruling:a. Yes, Under Section 68, PD 705 as amended by E.O. 277, it is clear that

the violators of the said law are not declared as being guilty of qualified theft. As to the assertion that his penalty for cutting trees in his own land should not

be equated with that for qualified theft, suffice it to say that the judiciary is never concerned with the wisdom of the law. Whether or not the legislature was correct in imposing on violators of PD 705 a penalty equal to that imposable on those guilty of qualified theft is a question beyond the power of the Court to resolve. It is a settled rule that the fundamental duty of the Court is to apply the law regardless of who may be affected, even if the law is harsh - dura lex sed lex

Section 14 of Administrative Order No. 2000-21, the “Revised Guidelines in the Issuance of Private Land Timber Permit/Special Private Land Timber Permit,” provides:

SEC. 14. Penal Provisions. - Any log/timber or finished-wood products covered by these regulations which are transported without the prescribed documents shall be considered illegal and, therefore, subject to confiscation in favor of the government and shall be disposed in accordance with laws, rules and regulations governing the matter.

b. No, The rule is clear. The aforementioned administrative order considers the mere act of transporting any wood product or timber without the prescribed documents as an offense which is subject to the penalties provided for by law.