PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. WILSON B. QUE, accusedappellant. G.R. No. 120365 December December 17, 1996 FACTS: Accused-appellant Wilson Que appeals from his conviction for violation of Section 68 of P.D. 705. The facts show that two weeks before March 8, 1994, a member of the Provincial Task Force on Illegal Logging, received an information that a tenwheeler truck 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 in Laoag City and eventually saw the truck. There were three persons on board the truck: driver Cacao, Wilson Que, who was the owner of said truck, and an unnamed person. The police then checked the cargo and found that it contained coconut slabs, but inserted therein were sewn lumber, as admitted by Que himself. When required to show a permit, Que failed to do so and thus was charged for violation of Section 68 of P.D. 705. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner violated Section 68 OF P.D. 705 because E.O. 277 that amended Section 68, which penalizes the possession of timber or other forest products without the proper legal documents, did not indicate the particular documents necessary to make the possession legal, and considering that other laws and regulations did not exist at the time of the enactment of said E.O. – E.O. – YES. YES. HELD: Appellant interprets the phrase “existing forest laws and regulations” to refer to those laws and regulations which were already in effect at the time of the enactment of E.O. 277. The suggested interpretation is strained and would render the law inutile. Statutory construction should not kill but give life to the law. The phrase should be construed to refer to laws and regulations existing at the time of possession of timber or other forest products. DENR Administrative Order No. 59 series of 1993 specifies the documents required for the transport of timber and other forest products. Thus Que’s possession posses sion of the subject lumber without any documentation clearly constitutes an offense under Section 68 of P.D. 705. Also, the court rejected Que’s argument that the law only penalizes possession of illegal forest products and that the possessor cannot be held liable if he proves that the cutting, gathering, collecting or removal of such forest products is legal. There are two distinct and separate offenses punished under Section 68 of P.D. 705, to wit: (1) Cutting, gathering, collecting, and removing timber and other forest products from any forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private land without any authority; and
(2) Possession of timber or other forest products without the legal documents required under existing forest laws and regulations. In the first offense, one can raise as a defense the legality of the acts of cutting, gathering, collecting or removing timber or other forest products by presenting the authorization issued by the DENR. In the second offense, however, it is immaterial whether the cutting, gathering, collecting and removing of the forest products is legal or not. Mere possession of forest products without the proper documents consummates the crime. Whether or not the lumber comes from a legal source is immaterial because E.O. 277 considers the mere possession of timber or other forest products without the proper legal documents as malum prohibitum.
FELIPE CALUB and RICARDO VALENCIA, DEPARTMENT of ENVIRONMENT and NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR), CATBALOGAN, SAMAR, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, MANUELA T. BABALCON, and CONSTANCIO ABUGANDA, respondents. G.R. No. 115634 April 27, 2000 FACTS: The Forest Protection and Law Enforcement Team of the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of the DENR apprehended two motor vehicles wherein Constancio Abuganda and Pio Gabon, the drivers of the vehicles, failed to present proper documents and/or licenses. Thus, the apprehending team seized and impounded vehicles and its load of lumber. Petitioner, Felipe Calub, Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Officer, then filed a criminal complaint against Abuganda, for violation of Section 68 of P.D. 705 as amended by E.O. 277. Lower court ruled in favor of accused, and even granted recovery of possession to them via replevin. Upon petitioner’s appeal, the Court of Appeals denied said petition stating that the mere seizure of a motor vehicle pursuant to the authority granted by Section 68 of P.D. 705 as amended by E.O. 277 does not automatically place said conveyance in custodia legis. According to the appellate court, such authority of the Department Head of the DENR or his duly authorized representative to order the confiscation and disposition of illegally obtained forest products and the conveyance used for that purpose is not absolute and unqualified. It is subject to pertinent laws, regulations, or policies on that matter, added the appellate court. The DENR Administrative Order No. 59, series of 1990, is one such regulation, the appellate court said. Additionally, respondent CA noted that the petitioners failed to observe the procedure outlined in DENR Administrative Order No. 59, series of 1990. They were unable to submit a report of the seizure to the DENR Secretary, to give a written notice to the owner of the vehicle, and to render a report of their findings and recommendations to the Secretary. Moreover, the petitioners’ failure to comply with the procedure laid down by DENR Administrative Order No. 59, series of 1990, was confirmed by the admission of the petitioners’ counsel that no confiscation order has been issued prior to the seizure of the vehicle and the filing of the replevin suit. Therefore, in failing to follow such procedure, according to the appellate court, the subject vehicles could not be considered in custodia legis. ISSUE: Whether or not said motor vehicles are in custodia legis pursuant to Section 68 of P.D. 705. – YES. HELD: Upon apprehension of the illegally-cut timber while being transported without pertinent documents that could evidence title to or right to possession of said timber, a warrantless seizure of the involved vehicles and their load was allowed under Section 78 and 89 of the Revised Forestry Code. Note further that petitioners’ failure to observe the procedure outlined in DENR Administrative Order No. 59, series of 1990, was justifiably explained. Petitioners did not submit a report of the seizure to the Secretary nor give a written notice to the owner of
rd
the vehicle because on the 3 day following the seizure, Gabon and Abuganda, drivers of the seized vehicles, forcibly took the impounded vehicles from the custody of the DENR. Then again, when one of the motor vehicles was apprehended and impounded for the second time, the petitioners again were not able to neither report the seizure to the DENR Secretary nor give a written notice to the owner of the vehicle because private respondents immediately went to court and applied for a writ of replevin. The seizure of the vehicles and their load was done upon their apprehension for a violation of the Revised Forestry Code. It would be absurd to require a confiscation order or notice and hearing before said seizure could be effected under the circumstances. Hence, since there was a violation of the Revised Forestry Code and the seizure was in accordance with law, in our view, the subject vehicles were validly deemed in custodia legis. It could not be subject to an action for replevin, for it is property lawfully taken by virtue of legal process and considered in the custody of the law, and not otherwise.
ROLDAN, JR., petitioner, vs. MADRONA ET.AL., respondents. G.R. No. 152989 September 4, 2002 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 fess required by the various government agencies. While waiting for the permit to be issued, petitioner was allegedly informed by some employees from the 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 Officer (CENRO) of the DENR and personnel from the Intelligence Service, Armed Forced 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/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. ISSUES: (a) Whether or not 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 P.D. 705? (b) Whether or not 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 the for his own agricultural purposes. HELD: (a) Yes, under Section 68 of P.D. 705 as amended by E.O. 277, it is clear that the violators of the dais 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 P.D. 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 finishedwood 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.
