Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
WHAT IS A COMPLAINT?
A complaint is a sworn written statement, in question and answer form, charging a
person with an offense, subscribed by the offended party, any person peace officer
or other public officer charged with the enforcement of environmental law violated
1st ELEMENT THAT SETS THE RULE IN MOTION: ACT OR OMISSION PUNISHABLE
BY LAW
NULLUM CRIMEN, NULLA POENA SINE LEGE
There is no crime when there is no law punishing it.
INTENT - NECESSARY / NOT NECESSARY (MALA IN SE; MALA PROHIBITA)
ACT OR OMISSION: Possession of timber or other forest products without the legal
documents required under existing forest laws and regulations. (People v Que)
REVISED FORESTRY CODE: MALA PROHIBITA
General Rule: Intent is not necessary in cases which are Mala Prohibita
Exception: Section 64 (2) - There must be intent to possess.
PEOPLE V QUE
The facts show that two weeks before March 8, 1994, SPO1 Dexter Corpuz, a
member of the Provincial Task Force on Illegal Logging, received an information 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 Provincial
Task Force went on patrol several times within the vicinity of General Segundo
Avenue of 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.
There were three persons on board the truck: driver Wilfredo Cacao, accused-
appellant Wilson Que and an unnamed person. The driver identified accused-
appellant as the owner of the truck and the cargo.
SPO1 Corpuz checked the cargo and found that it contained coconut slabs. When
interviewed, accused-appellant told SPO1 Corpuz that there were sawn lumber
inserted in between the coconut slabs.
SPO1 Corpuz asked accused-appellant for the Cargos supporting documents,
specifically (1) certificate of lumber origin, (2) certificate of transport agreement, (3)
auxiliary invoice, (4) receipt from the DENR, and (5) present any of these documents.
All he could show was a certification from the Community Environment and Natural
Resources Office (CENRO), Sanchez Mira, Cagayan that he legally acquired the
coconut slabs. The certification was issued to facilitate transport of the slabs from
Sanchez Mira, Cagayan to San Vicente, Urdaneta, Pangasinan.
SPO1 Corpuz brought accused-appellant to the office of the Provincial Task Force at
the provincial capitol. Again, accused-appellant admitted to the members of the
Provincial Task Force that there were lumber under the coconut slabs.
HIGHLIGHTS OF RPEC
WRIT OF KALIKASAN
Extra-ordinary remedy available to persons (NGO, public interest group)
In behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology is violated or threatened by a violation by an unlawful act or omission
of a public official or employee or private entity
ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE of such magnitude as to prejudice the life,
health or property of Two or more cities/provinces
Basis: Thermal Pollution, Air Pollution
HIGHLIGHTS OF RPEC
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ORDER
Order issued by the court
To direct/enjoin a person or a government agency to perform or desist from
doing an act, to protect and conserve the environment
Akin to a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order)
TEPO (Temporary Protection Order) - 72 Hours
HIGHLIGHTS OF RPEC
1. CITIZENS SUIT
Liberalizes Locus Standi (RIght to file in court)
i. Real Party in interest
ii. Citizens Suit (Filipino people in representation of others, including
minors or generations yet unborn, Oposa v Factoran)
2. CONSENT DECREE
Judicially approved compromise agreement
INTRODUCTION
Right to a Balanced and Healthful Ecology
Constitutional human right
Oposa v Factoran (1993 Supreme Court Case)
Supreme Court promulgated the Rules of Procedure for Environmental cases on
April 29, 2010
JUDGEMENT MUST BE IN WRITING (Abay Sr. v Garcia 162 SCRA 665; Marcelino
Rivera Jr. v Pp. August 30, 1990)
Where there is a valid information and the accused has been arraigned, an order of
dismissal issued by the court, motu proprio, in the course of a trial of a criminal case,
whether based on the merits or for failure of prosecution witnesses to appear, has
the effect of a judgement of acquittal and double jeopardy attaches. The order is also
immediately executory. HOWEVER, THIS ORDER OF DISMISSAL MUST BE
WRITTEN IN THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE, PERSONALLY AND DIRECTLY
PREPARED BY THE JUDGE AND SIGNED BY HIM CONFORMABLY WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF RULE 120, SECTION 2 OF THE RULES OF COURT.
In the instant case, it is very clear that the order was merely dictated in open court by
the trial judge. There is no showing that this verbal order of dismissal was ever
reduced to writing and duly signed by him. Thus, it did not yet attain the effect of a
judgement of acquittal, so that it was still within the powers of the judge to set it aside
and enter another order, now in writing and duly signed by him, reinstating the case.