X #313

Criminal Law Review II (Crimes Agaist Property)

ILLEGAL LOGGING

Mustang Lumber Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. no. 106424 (June 18, 1996)
Davide, J.

Determination of products considered to be under illegal logging

FACTS: Petitioner was duly registered as a lumber dealer with the Bureau of Forest Development. The Special
Actions and Investigation Division (SAID) of the DENR were informed that a huge stockpile of narra flitches, shorts,
and slabs were seen inside the lumberyard of the petitioner. The SAID organized a team of foresters and policemen
and sent it to conduct surveillance. In the course thereof, the team members saw coming out from the lumberyard
the petitioner's truck loaded with lauan and almaciga lumber of assorted sizes and dimensions. Since the driver
could not produce the required invoices and transport documents, the team seized the truck together with its cargo
and impounded them at the DENR compound. The team was not able to gain entry into the premises because of the
refusal of the owner.

The team was then able to secure a search warrant. By virtue thereof, the team seized on that date from the
petitioner's lumberyard four truckloads of narra shorts, trimmings, and slabs; a negligible number of narra lumber;
and approximately 200,000 board feet of lumber and shorts of various species including almaciga and supa.

On April 4, 1990 the team returned to the premises of the petitioner's lumberyard and placed under administrative
seizure the remaining stockpile of almaciga, supa, and lauan lumber with a total volume of 311,000 board feet
because the petitioner failed to produce upon demand the corresponding certificate of lumber origin, auxiliary
invoices, tally sheets, and delivery receipts from the source of the invoices covering the lumber to prove the
legitimacy of their source and origin. Parenthetically, it may be stated that under an administrative seizure the
owner retains the physical possession of the seized articles. Only an inventory of the articles is taken and signed by
the owner or his representative. The owner is prohibited from disposing them until further orders.

On April 10, 1990, counsel for the petitioner sent a letter to the Chief of SAID Atty. Vincent Robles requesting an
extension of fifteen days to produce the required documents covering the seized articles because some of them,
particularly the certificate of lumber origin, were allegedly in the Province of Quirino. Robles denied the petition.
Subsequently, the DENR Sec. Fulgencio Factoran issued an order confiscating the woods seized in the truck of the
petitioner as well as those found in their lumberyard.

On September 17, 1990 in response to reports that violations of P.D. No. 705 (The Revised Forestry Code of the
Philippines), acting upon instruction of Robles and under Special Order No. 897, series of 1990, a team of DENR

Page 1 of 6
2017 BANGSAMORO DIGEST GUILD(AUF, JD est. 2013)
X #313
Criminal Law Review II (Crimes Agaist Property)
ILLEGAL LOGGING

agents went to the business premises of the petitioner located at No. 1352 Juan Luna Street, Tondo, Manila. Since
the gate of the petitioner's lumberyard was open, the team went inside and saw an owner-type jeep with a trailer
loaded with lumber. The team caught the petitioner operating as a lumber dealer although its lumber-dealer's permit
had already been suspended since April 23, 1990. Furthermore, the team was informed that the lumber loaded on
the trailer was to be delivered to the petitioner's customer. It also came upon the sales invoice covering the
transaction. The members of the team then introduced themselves to the caretaker, one Ms. Chua, who turned out
to be the wife of the petitioner's president and general manager, Mr. Ri Chuy Po, who was then out of town. The
team's photographer was able to take photographs of the stockpiles of lumber including newly cut ones, fresh dust
around sawing or cutting machineries and equipment, and the transport vehicles loaded with lumber. The team
thereupon effected a constructive seizure of approximately 20,000 board feet of lauan lumber in assorted sizes
stockpiled in the premises by issuing a receipt therefor.

As a consequence of this incident, the petitioner filed with the RTC of Manila a petition for certiorari and prohibition
with a prayer for restraining order or preliminary injunction.

In the meantime, Robles filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ) a complaint against the petitioner's president and
general manager, Ri Chuy Po, for violation of Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended by E.O. No. 277. After
appropriate preliminary investigation, the investigating prosecutor, Claro Arellano, handed down a resolution. This
resolution was approved by Undersecretary of Justice Silvestre H. Bello, III, who served as Chairman of the Task Force
on Illegal Logging. On the basis of that resolution, an information was filed on June 5, 1991 by the DOJ with Branch
172 of the RTC of Valenzuela, charging Ri Chuy Po with the violation of Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended,
which was docketed as Criminal Case No. 324-V-91 (hereinafter, the CRIMINAL CASE).

On July 7, 1991, accused Ri Chuy Po filed in the CRIMINAL CASE a Motion to Quash and/or to Suspend Proceedings
that the information does not charge an offense, for possession of lumber, as opposed to timber, is not penalized in
Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended, and even granting arguendo that lumber falls within the purview of the said
section, the same may not be used in evidence against him for they were taken by virtue of an illegal seizure.

In her order of 16 August 1991 in the CRIMINAL CASE,[21] respondent Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong granted the
motion to quash and dismissed the case on the ground that "possession of lumber without the legal documents
required by forest laws and regulations is not a crime.

ISSUE/s: WON THE ITEMS CONFISCATED CAN BE CONSIDERED AS FOREST PRODUCT UNDER OF P.D. 705 WHICH
CONSTITUTES ILLEGAL LOGGING?

Page 2 of 6
2017 BANGSAMORO DIGEST GUILD(AUF, JD est. 2013)
X #313
Criminal Law Review II (Crimes Agaist Property)
ILLEGAL LOGGING

HELD: YES. The petitioner had moved to quash the information in Criminal Case No. 324-V-91 on the ground that it
does not charge an offense. Respondent Judge Dizon-Capulong granted the motion reasoning that the subject matter
of the information in the CRIMINAL CASE is LUMBER, which is neither "timber" nor "other forest product" under
Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended, and hence, possession thereof without the required legal documents is not
prohibited and penalized under the said section.

Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended by E.O. No. 277, 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.

Punished then in this section are (1) the cutting, gathering, collection, or removal of timber or other forest products
from the places therein mentioned without any authority; and (b) possession of timber or other forest products
without the legal documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations.

Indeed, the word lumber does not appear in Section 68. But conceding ex gratia that this omission amounts to an
exclusion of lumber from the section's coverage, do the facts averred in the information in the CRIMINAL CASE
validly charge a violation of the said section?

A cursory reading of the information readily leads us to an infallible conclusion that lumber is not solely its subject
matter. It is evident therefrom that what are alleged to be in the possession of the private respondent, without the
required legal documents, are truckloads of

(1) almaciga and lauan; and

Page 3 of 6
2017 BANGSAMORO DIGEST GUILD(AUF, JD est. 2013)
X #313
Criminal Law Review II (Crimes Agaist Property)
ILLEGAL LOGGING

(2) approximately 200,000 bd. ft. of lumber and shorts of various species including almaciga and supa.

The almaciga and lauan specifically mentioned in no. (1) are not described as lumber. They cannot refer to the
lumber in no. (2) because they are separated by the words approximately 200,000 bd. ft. with the conjunction and,
and not with the preposition of. They must then be raw forest products or, more specifically, timbers under Section
3(q) of P.D. No. 705, as amended, which reads:

Under SEC. 3. Definitions.

(q) Forest product means timber, pulpwood, firewood, bark, tree top, resin, gum, wood, oil, honey, beeswax, nipa,
rattan, or other forest growth such as grass, shrub, and flowering plant, the associated water, fish, game, scenic,
historical, recreational and geological resources in forest lands.

It follows then that lumber is only one of the items covered by the information. The public and the private
respondents obviously miscomprehended the averments in the information. Accordingly, even if lumber is not
included in Section 68, the other items therein as noted above fall within the ambit of the said section, and as to
them, the information validly charges an offense.

Our respected brother, Mr. Justice Jose C. Vitug, suggests in his dissenting opinion that this Court go beyond the four
corners of the information for enlightenment as to whether the information exclusively refers to lumber. With the aid
of the pleadings and the annexes thereto, he arrives at the conclusion that only lumber has been envisioned in the
indictment.

The majority is unable to subscribe to his view. First, his proposition violates the rule that only the facts alleged in
the information vis-a-vis the law violated must be considered in determining whether an information charges an
offense. Second, the pleadings and annexes he resorted to are insufficient to justify his conclusion. On the contrary,
the Joint Affidavit of Melencio Jalova, Jr., and Araman Belleng, which is one of the annexes he referred to, cannot lead
one to infer that what the team seized was all lumber. Paragraph 8 thereof expressly states:

8. That when inside the compound, the team found approximately four (4) truckloads of narra shorts, trimmings and
slabs and a negligible amount of narra lumber, and approximately 200,000 bd. ft. of lumber and shorts of various species
including almaciga and supa which are classified as prohibited wood species.

In the same vein, the dispositive portion of the resolution of the investigating prosecutor, which served as the basis
for the filing of the information, does not limit itself to lumber; thus:

Page 4 of 6
2017 BANGSAMORO DIGEST GUILD(AUF, JD est. 2013)
X #313
Criminal Law Review II (Crimes Agaist Property)
ILLEGAL LOGGING

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is hereby recommended that an information be filed against respondent Ri Chuy Po
for illegal possession of 200,000 bd. ft. of lumber consisting of almaciga and supa and for illegal shipment of almaciga
and lauan in violation of Sec. 63 of PD 705 as amended by E.O. 277, series of 1987.

The foregoing disquisitions should not, in any manner, be construed as an affirmance of the respondent Judge's
conclusion that lumber is excluded from the coverage of Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended, and thus
possession thereof without the required legal documents is not a crime. On the contrary, this Court rules that such
possession is penalized in the said section because lumber is included in the term timber.

The Revised Forestry Code contains no definition of either timber or lumber. While the former is included in forest
products as defined in paragraph (q) of Section 3, the latter is found in paragraph (aa) of the same section in the
definition of Processing plant; which reads:

(aa) Processing plant is any mechanical set-up, machine or combination of machine used for the processing of logs and
other forest raw materials into lumber, veneer, plywood, wallboard, block-board, paper board, pulp, paper or other
finished wood products.

This simply means that lumber is a processed log or processed forest raw material. Clearly, the Code uses the term
lumber in its ordinary or common usage. In the 1993 copyright edition of Webster's Third New International
Dictionary, lumber is defined, inter alia, as timber or logs after being prepared for the market. Simply put, lumber is
a processed log or timber.

It is settled that in the absence of legislative intent to the contrary, words and phrases used in a statute should be
given their plain, ordinary, and common usage meaning. And insofar as possession of timber without the required
legal documents is concerned, Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended, makes no distinction between raw or
processed timber. Neither should we. Ubi lex non distanguit nec nos distinguere debemus.

Indisputably, respondent Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong of Branch 172 of the RTC of Valenzuela, Metro Manila,
committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion to quash the information in the CRIMINAL CASE and in
dismissing the said case.

Final Ruling: Judgement is hereby rendered (a) GRANTING the petition in G.R. No. 106424; (b) SETTING
ASIDE and ANNULLING, for having been rendered with grave abuse of discretion, the challenged orders
of 16 August 1991 and 18 October 1991 of respondent Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong, Branch 172,
Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, in Criminal Case No. 324-V-91, entitled People of the
Philippines vs. Ri Chuy Po; (c) REINSTATING the information in the said criminal case; and (d)

Page 5 of 6
2017 BANGSAMORO DIGEST GUILD(AUF, JD est. 2013)
X #313
Criminal Law Review II (Crimes Agaist Property)
ILLEGAL LOGGING

DIRECTING the respondent Judge on her successor to hear and decide the case with purposeful
dispatch.

- JpB

Page 6 of 6
2017 BANGSAMORO DIGEST GUILD(AUF, JD est. 2013)