CALUB V. CA, GR No.

115634, April 27, 2000

Replevin cannot be issued to recover a property lawfully taken by
virtue of legal process and considered in the custody of the law. A
replevin case against the State, without its consent, cannot prosper.
FACTS:
Petitioner from DENR apprehended two vehicles carrying illegally
sourced lumber and thereafter confiscated them. The owners of the
vehicles filed an action for replevin to recover the vehicles. They won in the
trial court on the ground that petitioner did not act in accordance with the
law. So petitioner appeals on the ground that the replevin in this case is a
suit against the State and is therefore valid.
ISSUE:
1) Whether or not a replevin may be instituted for recovery of
property under custodia legis.
2) Whether or not replevin in this case is a suit against the State.

RULING:
1) No, replevin cannot be issued to recover a property lawfully taken
by virtue of legal process and considered in the custody of the law.
2) Yes, this suit is not valid because the State may not be sued
without its consent or when the public official acted in bad faith in the
discharge of his duties. It has been established that the DENR acted within
its authority. Hence, its action is the action of the State.
G.R. NO. 108619 JULY 31, 1997
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.
Petioner 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.
G.R. NO. 131270 MARCH 17, 2000
PERFECTO PALLADA, PETITIONER, 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 companys 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.
G.R. NO. 136142 OCTOBER 24, 2000
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 RECLUSION
PERPETUA, 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.
G.R. NO. 161798 OCTOBER 20, 2004
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 comanage 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, petitioners 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 PICOPs 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. Petitioners 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, petitioners 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 petitioners 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.
G.R. No. 79538. October 18, 1990
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, petitioners 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 petitioners 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.
RULING:
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.
BON VS PEOPLE GR NO 152160 Jan 13, 2004
FACTS:
Petitioner Virgilio Bon and Alejandro Jeniebre, Jr. were
charged for violating Section 68 of PD 705, as amended[,]
together with Rosalio Bon under an Information, the accusatory
portion of which reads as follows:
That sometime in the month of January or February, 1990,
at Barangay Basud, Municipality of Sorsogon, Province of
Sorsogon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, conspiring, confederating and mutually
helping one another, cut, gather and manufacture into lumber
four (4) narra trees, one (1) cuyao-yao tree, and one (1) amugis
tree, with an approximate volume of 4,315 bd. ft. and valued at
approximately P25,000.00, without the knowledge and consent of
the owner Teresita Dangalan-Mendoza and without having first
obtained from proper authorities the necessary permit or license
and/or legal supporting documents, to the damage and prejudice
of the Government and the owner in the aforementioned amount
of P25,000.00.
Upon arraignment on May 16, 1991, petitioner Virgilio Bon,
Alejandro Jeniebre, Jr. and Rosalio Bon entered a plea of Not
Guilty to the crime charged. Thereafter, the trial of the case
proceeded. The prosecution presented Nestor Labayan[e],
[Private Complainant] Teresita Dangalan-Mendoza, Barangay
Tanod Julian Lascano, Alexander Mendones [and] Manuel

Dangalan as its witnesses. The defense, on the other hand,

presented accused Alejandro Jeniebre, Jr., Rosalio Bon and Virgilio
Bon.
The evidence for the prosecution was synthesized by the
trial court, as follows:
Prosecutions evidence was supplied by Julian Lascano, Oscar
Narvaez, Alexander Mendones, Manuel Dangalan, Nestor
Labayane and Teresita Dangalan-Mendoza which shows that
Teresita Dangalan-Mendoza owns a titled agricultural land under
Title No. 6666 located in Basud, Sorsogon, Sorsogon,
administered by Virgilio Bon. Receiving information that trees
inside the land were being stolen, cut [and] sawed into lumber by
her administrator and/or workers, she sent her brother Manuel
Dangalan to investigate the report. On February 7, 1990, Manuel
Dangalan sought the help of Barangay Captain Nestor Labayane,
who in turn wrote a letter to one of the barangay tanods, Julian
Lascano, to assist and investigate Teresita Dangalan-Mendozas
complaint of Illegal Cutting of Trees. On February 12, 1990,
together with Julian Lascano, Manuel Dangalan, Ricardo
Valladolid, Natividad Legaspi and Virgilio Bon repaired to the land
of Teresita Dangalan-Mendoza. During their investigation, the
group discovered six (6) stumps of trees:four (4) Narra trees, one
cuyao-yao tree and one am[u]gis tree. Pictures were taken of the
stumps. On the land, Virgilio Bon admitted ordering the cutting
and sawing of the trees into lumber. Oscar Narvaez testified that
sometime in January, 1990, he sawed the trees into six flitches
upon instruction of Alejandro Jeniebre, Jr.; Alexander Mendones,
CENRO Officer, upon complaint of Teresita Dangalan-Mendoza for
Illegal Cutting of Trees repaired to the land on July 17, 1990, and
found four stumps of trees. Scaling the four stumps, it was his
estimate that the lumber produced was 11.97 cubic meters o[r]
4,315 board feet, with a value of P25,376.00.
In their defense, all the three accused took the witness stand
and denied the accusation. Their testimonies were summarized by
the trial court, as follows:
All the accused testified in their defense. Rosalio Bon, the son of
Virgilio Bon denied the charge. He said that he was in Manila from
December 1989 and returned to Sorsogon on March 21, 1990. He
mentioned that the purpose of filing this case was to eject his
father as tenant of the land.
Virgilio Bon testified that he is the tenant of the land of
Teresita Dangalan-Mendoza and was instituted as such] by
Teresitas father. He developed the land, planting coconuts,
abaca and fruit trees. Teresita Dangalan-Mendoza wanted to eject
him as tenant. He and the private complainant [have] an agrarian
case. Since Teresita Dangalan-Mendoza refused to receive the

landowners share of produce, he deposited the money in the

Rural Bank of Sorsogon in the name of Teresita DangalanMendoza. He denied cutting and gathering the trees in the land
and pointed to Teresita Dangalan-Mendoza as the one who
ordered the trees [to be cut] and sawed by Oscar Narvaez.
Teresita Dangalan-Mendoza upon being confronted about the
cutting of trees, ignored his complaint.
Alejandro Jeniebre, Jr., son-in-law of Virgilio Bon, denied that
he hired Oscar Narvaez to saw the lumber. Oscar Narvaez indicted
him of the crime because the former had a grudge against him. In
a drinking spree, he happened to box Oscar Narvaez, after [which
he] heard [the latter threaten him with] revenge.
On August 23, 1993, the trial court rendered its decision
convicting [Petitioner] Virgilio Bon and Alejandro Jeniebre, Jr. for
the crime charged. Co-accused Rosalio Bon was acquitted.
Aggrieved by the said decision, petitioner,Virgilio Bon and
Alejandro Jeniebre, Jr. interposed an appeal to the CA.
In their appeal to the CA, petitioner and Jeniebre questioned
the prosecution witnesses credibility and the sufficiency of the
evidence proving their guilt.
ISSUE: Whether or not the testimony allegedly made to potential
prosecution witnesses who are not police operatives or media
representatives is admissible in evidence against the author.
RULING:
The time-tested rule is that the factual findings and
conclusions of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses
deserve to be respected because of its unique advantage of
having observed their demeanour as they testified. Equally
established is the rule that factual findings of the Court of Appeals
are conclusive on the parties and carry even more weight when
such findings affirm those of the trial court, as in this case. This
Court refrains from disturbing the CAs findings, if no glaring
errors bordering on a gross misapprehension of facts can be
gleaned from them. We have no reason to depart from this rule.
Hence, we affirm the lower courts assessment of the credibility of
the prosecution witnesses.
We now come to the sufficiency of the prosecutions
evidence.
Section 68 of the Forestry Code, as amended,[30] provides:
SEC. 68.
Cutting, Gathering and/or Collecting Timber, or
Other Forest Products Without License. Any person who shall
cut, gather, collect, remove timber or other forest products from
any forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public
land, or from private land, without any authority, or possess

timber or other forest products without the legal documents as

required under existing forest laws and regulations, shall be
punished with the penalties imposed under Articles 309 and 310
of the Revised Penal Code: Provided, That in the case of
partnerships, associations, or corporations, the officers who
ordered the cutting, gathering, collection or possession shall be
liable, and if such officers are aliens, they shall, in addition to the
penalty, be deported without further proceedings on the part of
the Commission on Immigration and Deportation.
The Court shall further order the confiscation in favor of the
government of the timber or any forest products cut, gathered,
collected, removed, or possessed, as well as the machinery,
equipment, implements and tools illegally used in the area where
the timber or forest products are found.
Punishable under the above provision are the following acts:
(1) cutting, gathering, collecting or removing timber or other
forest products from the places therein mentioned without any
authority; and (b) possessing timber or other forest products
without the legal documents. Petitioner was charged with the first
offense. It was thus necessary for the prosecution to prove the
alleged illegal cutting, gathering or manufacture of lumber from
the trees.
It is undisputed that no direct evidence was presented. This
kind of evidence, however, is not the only matrix from which the
trial court may draw its conclusions and findings of
guilt.Conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence, as long
as the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain that
leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused is
guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
To sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, it
is necessary that the following elements concur:
1. There is more than one circumstance.
2. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven.
3. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce
a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

CHU VS TAMIN,AM NO. RTJ-03-1786 AUGUST 28,2003

FACTS
Judge Tamin issued a search warrant ordering the seizure of several
pieces of mangrove lumber from Chus fishpond in Bulawan, Payao,
Zamboanga del Sur. CENRO Officer dela Cruz and the police, seized 576
pieces of pagatpat lumber (mangrove specie) with an estimated value of
P183,790. These certified copies did not contain any transcript of
respondent judges examination of CENRO dela Cruz or his witnesses as
required under Section 4, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal

Procedure. Chu claims that was the fifth time that Judge Tamin issued,
under questionable procedure, search warrants against him for violation of
PD 705. Complainant recalled that on 10 November 1998, respondent
judge issued four search warrants against him. Judge Tamin replied that
the failure to give the transcript was through pure inadvertence, by the
office legal researcher to recopy such transcript, and that he conducted
searching questions on Cuaresma, the witness of CENRO.

ISSUE:
Whether Judge Tamin acted in gross ignorance of the law.
RULING:
Yes, because omissions bolster complainants claim and weaken the
respondents defense. As respondent judge claims, he personally
examined a Cuaresma as the witness of CENRO dela Cruz, he should
have secured the affidavit of Cuaresma. Respondent should also have
secured the affidavit of the unnamed legal researcher who allegedly
prepared the copies of the records obtained by complainant.
Lastly, respondent judge should have shown Executive Judge Villegas,
during the latters investigation, the magnetic (hard disk) copy of the
transcript allegedly stored in his office computer. These omissions bolster
complainants claim and correspondingly weaken respondent judges
defense.
G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993
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 nonimpairment 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 succeeding
generations. 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.
G.R. No. L-46772 February 13, 1992
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

respondents grounds.

the

information

based

on

the

ISSUE: Whether or not the information correctly and properly

charged an offense and whether the trial court had jurisdiction
over the case.
RULING:
The elements of the crime 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.

G.R. No. 120365 December 17, 1996

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 about1:00 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 I(s)uzu 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 PLTPs of Cayosa and Sabal and that they were given to
him by Cayosa and Sabal as payment for his hauling services.
ISSUE:
Whether the appellants 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.
GR NO. 152989. SEPTEMBER 4, 2002
ROLDAN, JR. PETITIONER V. HON, MADRONA ET.AL. RESPONDENTS
FACTS:
Petitioner is the owner of a parcel of land consisting of about
60,000 square meters covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
TP-331 which he bought from a certain Ildefonso O. Maglasang.
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.
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 precede
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. The logs were not confiscated but were entrusted to a
barangay kagawad since there was allegedly no search warrant at
that time.
Several days thereafter, the CENRO group and ISAFP
returned, this time armed with a search warrant and proceeded to
confiscate 872 pieces of sawn lumber/flitches (8,506 board feet)
and three felled timber logs with a total market value of
P235,454.68 at P27.00 per board foot. Consequently, on
September 21, 2001, a complaint for violation of Section 68 of PD
705 as amended was filed against herein petitioner by CENRO
before the City Prosecutor of Ormoc City. A warrant for the arrest
of petitioner was then issued by the court a quo. In view thereof,
herein petitioner filed with the trial court a motion for judicial
determination of probable cause and the recall of his warrant of
arrest.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS: * Trial court: denied the
motion but reduced the recommended bail of petitioner.
ISSUE: 1. Whether or not the owner of a private land, the
petitioner in this case, is criminally liable under Section 68 of PD
705 for cutting trees within his own property.
2. Whether or not the owner of the private property is
administratively liable under Sec. 14 of DENR Administrative
Order No. 2000-21.
3. Whether or not the logs confiscated by the DENR should be
returned to the petitioner considering that the same were not
transported out and merely used for his own agricultural
purposes.
RULING:
1. YES, he is still liable. 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. Articles 309 and
310 of the Revised Penal Code were referred to only for the
purpose of determining the imposable penalties and not to define

acts which constitute qualified theft. Section 68 of PD 705, as

amended by E.O. 277, otherwise known as the Revised Forestry
Code of the Philippines provides:
SEC. 68. Cutting, Gathering and/or collecting Timber, or
Other Forest Products Without License.- Any person who shall cut,
gather, collect, remove timber or other forest products from any
forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or
from private land, without any authority, or possess timber or
other forest products without the legal documents as required
under existing forest laws and regulations, shall be punished with
the penalties imposed under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised
Penal Code:Provided, That in case of partnerships, associations, or
corporations, the officers who ordered the cutting, gathering,
collection or possession shall be liable, and if such officers are
aliens, they shall, in addition to the penalty, be deported without
further proceedings on the part of the Commission on Immigration
and Deportation.
The Court shall further order the confiscation in favor of the
government of the timber or any forest products cut, gathered,
collected, removed, or possessed, as well as the machinery,
equipment, implements and tools illegally used in the area where
the timber or forest products are found.
The said law does not even distinguish whether or not the
person who commits the punishable acts under the
aforementioned law is the owner of the property, for what is
material in determining the culpability of a person is whether or
not the person or entity involved or charged with its violation
POSSESSES THE REQUIRED PERMIT, LICENSE OR AUTHORIZATION
FROM DENR at the time he or it cuts, gathers or collects timber or
other forest products.
2. Despite the fact that he did not transport the logs out of his
property and just used them for his own agricultural purposes
therein and 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. As to the defense of petitioner that
he never transported the logs out of his property, suffice it to say
that such is a factual issue which this Court under Rule 45 cannot
determine. We are limited to resolving questions of law. 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.
DENR Officials found issuing defective certificate of origin
and other transport documents required in this Order shall be
subject to suspension without prejudice to the imposition of other
penalties as may be warranted by extant Civil Service Laws, rules
and regulations.
3. Any pronouncement thereon at this point would be
premature as the guilt of the petitioner has not been legally
established. The records of the case indicate that trial on the
merits is still in progress. Hence, this Court is not in a position to
speculate on or prescribe the courses of action or remedies the
petitioner may avail of under the aforementioned law. Wellentrenched is the rule that this Court is not duty bound to render
advisory opinions.