FELIPE CALUB and RICARDO VALENCIA, DEPARTMENT of

ENVIRONMENT and NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR), CATBALOGAN,

SAMAR vs. COURT OF APPEALS, MANUELA T. BABALCON, and
CONSTANCIO ABUGANDA
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. One is loaded with 1,026 board feet of illegally sourced lumber valued at
P8,544.75, with Plate No. HAK-733, being driven by one Pio Gabon and owned by Jose
Vargas. The other is loaded with 1,224.97 board feet of illegally-sourced lumber valued
at P9,187.27, with plate number FCN 143, being driven by one Constancio Abuganda
and owned by [a certain] Manuela Babalcon. The drivers of the vehicles failed to present
proper documents and/or licenses. Thus, the apprehending team seized and impounded
the vehicles and its load of lumber at the DENR-PENR (Department of Environment
and Natural Resources-Provincial Environment and Natural Resources) Office in
Catbalogan. Seizure receipts were issued but the drivers refused to accept the receipts.
Felipe Calub, Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Officer, then filed before
the Provincial Prosecutors Office in Samar, a criminal complaint against Abuganda for
violation of Section 68 [78), Presidential Decree 705 as amended by Executive Order
277, otherwise known as the Revised Forestry Code. On January 31, 1992, the
impounded vehicles were forcibly taken by Gabon and Abuganda from the custody of
the DENR, prompting DENR Officer Calub this time to file a criminal complaint for
grave coercion against Gabon and Abuganda. The complaint was, however, dismissed by
the Public Prosecutor.
The vehicle driven by Constancio Abuganda was again apprehended by a
composite team of DENR-CENR in Catbalogan and Philippine Army elements of the
802nd Infantry Brigade at Barangay Buray, Paranas, Samar. It was again loaded with
forest products with an equivalent volume of 1,005.47 board feet, valued at P10,054.70.
Calub duly filed a criminal complaint against Constancio Abuganda, a certain Abegonia,
and several John for violation of Section 68 [78], Presidential Decree 705 as amended
by Executive Order 277, otherwise known as the Revised Forestry Code. Although
Abegonia and Abuganda were acquitted on the ground of reasonable, the trial court
ordered that a copy of the decision be furnished the Secretary of Justice, in order that
the necessary criminal action may be filed against Noe Pagarao and all other persons
responsible for violation of the Revised Forestry Code. It appeared that it was Pagarao
who chartered the subject vehicle and ordered that cut timber be loaded on it.
Issue:
(1) Whether or not the DENR-seized motor vehicle , with plate number FCN 143, is in
custodia legis.
(2) Whether or not the complaint for the recovery of possession of impounded vehicles,
with an application for replevin, is a suit against the State.
Held:
The Revised Forestry Code authorizes the DENR to seize all conveyances used in
the commission of an offense in violation of Section 78. In addition, Section 78 makes
mere possession of timber or other forest products without the accompanying legal
documents unlawful and punishable with the penalties imposed for the crime of theft, as
prescribed in Articles 309-310 of the Revised Penal Code. In the present case, the
subject vehicles were loaded with forest products at the time of the seizure. But
admittedly no permit evidencing authority to possess and transport said load of forest
products was duly presented. These products, in turn, were deemed illegally sourced.
Thus there was a prima facie violation of Section 68 [78] of the Revised Forestry Code,
although as found by the trial court, the persons responsible for said violation were not
the ones charged by the public prosecutor.
The corresponding authority of the DENR to seize all conveyances used in the
commission of an offense in violation of Section 78 of the Revised Forestry Code is
pursuant to Sections 78-A and 89 of the same Code. The DENR Administrative Order
No. 59, series of 1990, implements Sections 78-A and 89 of the Forestry Code.
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 the vehicle because on the 3rd 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 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.
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.
On the second issue, is the complaint for the recovery of possession of the two
impounded vehicles, with an application for replevin, a suit against the State?
Well established is the doctrine that the State may not be sued without its
consent. And a suit against a public officer for his official acts is, in effect, a suit against
the State if its purpose is to hold the State ultimately liable. However, the protection
afforded to public officers by this doctrine generally applies only to activities within the
scope of their authority in good faith and without wilfulness, malice or corruption. In
the present case, the acts for which the petitioners are being called to account were
performed by them in the discharge of their official duties. The acts in question are
clearly official in nature. In implementing and enforcing Sections 78-A and 89 of the
Forestry Code through the seizure carried out, petitioners were performing their duties
and functions as officers of the DENR, and did so within the limits of their authority.
There was no malice nor bad faith on their part. Hence, a suit against the petitioners
who represent the DENR is a suit against the State. It cannot prosper without the States
consent.























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.











PERFECTO PALLADA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 131270. March 17, 2000

Facts:
Sometime in the latter part of 1992, the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) office in Bukidnon received reports that illegally cut lumber was
being delivered to the warehouse of the Valencia Golden Harvest Corporation in
Valencia, Bukidnon. The company is engaged in rice milling and trading.
DENR officers, assisted by elements of the Philippine National Police, raided the
company's warehouse in Poblacion, Valencia on the strength of a warrant issued by the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) and found a large stockpile of lumber of varying sizes cut by
a chain saw. 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 receipts
considering that R. L. Rivero Lumberyard's permit to operate had long been suspended.
The pieces of lumber were also cut by chain saw and thus could not have come from a
licensed sawmill operator.
The following day, September 29, 1992, the first batch of lumber, consisting of
162 pieces measuring 1,954.66 board feet, was taken and impounded at the FORE
stockyard.
On October 1, 1992, the raiding team returned for the remaining lumber.
Company President Francisco Tankiko and a certain Isaias Valdehueza, who
represented himself to be a lawyer, asked for a suspension of the operations to enable
them to seek a lifting of the warrant. The motion was filed with the court which issued
the warrant but, on October 5, 1992, the motion was denied. Accordingly, the remaining
lumber was confiscated.
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.
Issue:
Was petitioner guilty of illegal possession of lumber in violation of Section 68 of
the Revised Forestry Code (P.D. No. 705, as amended)?
Held:
Yes. During the trial, the defense presented the following documents to establish that
Valencia Golden Harvest Corporation's possession of the seized lumber was legal:
1. Certificate of Timber Origin;
2. Auxiliary Invoice;
3. Certificate of Transport Agreement;
4. Tally Sheet;
5. Delivery Receipt;
6. Cash Voucher; and
7. Official Receipt for Environmental Fee.
The Certificates of Timber Origin presented by petitioner was not given credence
since the lumber held by the company should be covered by Certificates of Lumber
Origin.
Petitioner contends that the term "timber" includes lumber and, therefore, the
Certificates of Timber Origin and their attachments should have been considered in
establishing the legality of the company's possession of the lumber.
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.
Petitioner invokes the SC ruling in Mustang Lumber, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
which says that lumber is merely processed timber and, therefore, the word "timber"
embraces lumber. The question in this case is whether separate certificates of origin
should be issued for lumber and timber. Indeed, different certificates of origin are
required for timber, lumber and non-timber forest products.
The SC also considered numerous irregularities and defects found in the
documents presented by the petitioner (i.e. the original typewritten name of the
consignee was clearly erased and changed, all the Auxiliary Invoice were not properly
accomplished: the data required to be filled are left in blank).
The Certificate of Timber Origin in Exhibit 7 bears no date, the dorsal side bears
the certification that the logs were "scaled on August 7, 1991," while the receipt attached
to that Certificate is dated February 6, 1992. Moreover, the four delivery receipts list the
sizes and volume of the lumber sold, indicating that the company purchased cut lumber
from the dealers, thus belying the testimony of petitioner that when the company
bought the forest products, they were still in the form of flitches and logs, and they were
cut into lumber by the company.
The presence of such glaring irregularities negates the presumption that the
CTOs were regularly executed by the DENR officials concerned. The presumption
invoked by petitioner applies only when the public documents are, on their faces,
regular and properly accomplished.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed and the sentence is modified to
six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion
temporal, as maximum.

































G.R. No. 136142 October 24, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALFONSO
DATOR et.al , Accused- Appelant
Facts:
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 PD 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.
















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 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 wnership
(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.

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.







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:
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.

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.







































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 HYPERLINK
"http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?
title=Department_of_Environment_and_Natural_Resources" \t "_blank" , 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 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.





















GR 152160
Bon vs. People of the Philippines
Jan 13, 2014

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 petitioners
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.

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. Manuel Dangalan sought the help of Barangay Captain, who in
turn wrote a letter to one of the barangay tanod to assist and investigate Teresitas
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 amugis tree. Virgilio Bon admitted ordering the cutting and sawing of the trees into
lumber. Oscar Narvaez testified that he sawed the trees into six flitches upon instruction
of Alejandro Jeniebre, Jr.; Alexander Mendones, CENRO Officer, upon complaint of
Teresita for Illegal Cutting of Trees repaired to the land and found four stumps of trees.

Issues
Whether hearsay testimony allegedly made to potential prosecution witnesses who are
not police operatives or media representatives is admissible in evidence against the
author

Ruling
The Petition has no merit. 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 demeanor as they testified.
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.
34

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.
35

Did the circumstances in this case satisfy the above requirements? We rule in the
affirmative.



Chu vs. Judge Tamin
A.M. No. RTJ-03-1786. August 28, 2003

Facts:
Chu filed administrative complaint for gross ignorance of the law, serious misconduct,
and grave abuse of discretion against Judge Camilo E. Tamin of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 23, Molave, Zamboanga del Sur. Judge Tamin issued search warrant
against Chu for possession of forest products of dubious origin in violation of PD 705
as applied for by Communty Environment and Natural Resources Officer Michael dela
Cruz (CENRO dela Cruz). On the strength of the warrant, 576 pieces of pagtapat lumber
(mangrove specie) was seized from Chu. Chu assailed the validity of the warrant for
violating Sec. 5, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure because the
certified copies he obtained from the court did not contain any transcript of the judges
examination of CENRO dela Cruz or his witness Cuaresma. Judge Tamins contention:
the certified copies of the records obtained by complainant did not include the transcript
of his examination because the clerical staff in his office who prepared the certified
copies inadvertently failed to do so. Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)s findings:
Judge Tamin is liable for gross ignorance of the law. Respondent judge apparently
believes that searching questions need not be in writing.

Issue: Whether Judge Tamin properly issued the search warrant against Chu.

Held: SC held that Judge Tamin is grossly ignorant of the law and ordered to pay
P5,000.00 fine. Art. III, Sec. 2 of Constitution and Rule 126, Sec. 5 of the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure implements the proscription against unreasonable searches and
seizures. The Court, in Pendon v. Court of Appeals, reiterated the requirements of
Section 2 on the issuance of search warrants, which judges must strictly observe, as
follows: Under the above provision, the issuance of a search warrant is justified only
upon a finding of probable cause. x x x In determining
the existence of probable cause, it is required that: (1) the judge x x x must examine the x
x x witnesses personally; (2) the examination must be under oath; and (3) the
examination must be reduced to writing in the form of searching questions and answers


























PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF QUEZON (BRANCH VII)
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. On July 28, 29 and 30, 1976 at
Barangay Mahabang Lalim Municipality of General Nakar, Province of Quezon City,
Godofredo Arrozal and Luis Flores together with 20 other whose identities are still
unknown enter the privately-owned land of Felicitacion Pujalte. Inside the privately-
owned land they illegally cut, gather, take, steal and carry away without consent of the
owner and without any authority under a license agreement, lease license or permit, 60
logs of different species consisting of about 541.48 cubic.

On March 23, 1977, the named accused fil ed a motion to quash the
information on two (2)grounds, to wit: (1) that the facts charged do not ,
constitute an offense; and, (2) that the informationdoes not conform substantially
to the prescribed form. The Trial court dismissed the information on thegrounds
invoked and the reconsideration sought was denied.Hence this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the information charged an offense.

RULING:
The information substantially alleged all the elements of the crime of qualified
theft of logs as described in Section 68 of P.D. 705. While it was admitted that the
information did not precisely allege that the taking of the logs in question was "without
the consent of the state," nevertheless, said information expressly stated that the
accused "illegally cut, gather, take, steal and carry away therefrom, without the consent
of said owner and without any authority under a license agreement, lease, lease, license
or permit, sixty (60) logs of different species. . . ." Since only the state can grant the
lease, license, license agreement or permit for utilization of forest resources, including
timber, then the allegation in the information that the asportation of the logs was
"without any authority" under a license agreement, lease, license or permit, is
tantamount to alleging that the taking of the logs was without the consent of the state.

While it is only the state which can grant a license or authority to cut, gather,
collect or remove forest products it does not follow that all forest products belong to the
state. In the just cited case, private ownership of forest products grown in private lands
is retained under the principle in civil law that ownership of the land includes
everything found on its surface.

Ownership is not an essential element of the offense as defined in Section 60 of
P.D. No. 705. Thus, the failure of the information to allege the true owner of the forest
products is not material; it was sufficient that it alleged that the taking was without any
authority or license from the government.











People vs. Que
G.R. No. 120365, December 17, 1996

Facts:
A member of the Provincial Task Force on Illegal Logging received a reliable
information that a ten-wheeler truck bearing plate number PAD-548 loaded with illegal
lumber would pass through Ilocos Norte. Two weeks later, while members of the
Provincial Task Force were patrolling along General Segundo Avenue, they saw the ten-
wheeler truck described by the informant. When they apprehended it at the Marcos
Bridge, Que, the owner of the truck and the cargo, admitted that there were sawn
lumber in between the coconut slabs. When the police officers asked for the lumber's
supporting documents, accused-appellant could not present any. Que was charged of
and convicted for violation of Sec. 68 of PD 705 for possession of illegally cut lumbers.
Ques contention: He argues that he cannot be convicted for violation of Section 68 of
P.D. 705 because E.O. 277 which amended Section 68 to penalize 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. Neither did the other
forest laws and regulations existing at the time
of its enactment. He also contended that the lumbers were fruits of an illegal search and
seizure and of an uncounselled extrajudicial admission.

Issue:
Whether the search and seizure violated his constitutional rights;
Whether he violated Sec. 68 pf PD 705.

Held:
Que was held guilty and sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua.

SC reject appellant'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 (2)
distinct and separate offenses punished under Section 68 of P.D. 705, to wit:

(1) Cutting, gathering, collecting and removing timber or 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 removal 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. The constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and
seizures admits of certain exceptions. Aside from a search incident to a lawful arrest, a
warrantless search had been upheld in cases of moving vehicles,
and the seizure of evidence in plain view. With regard to the search of moving vehicles,
this had been justified on the ground that the mobility of motor vehicles makes it
possible for the vehicle to be searched to move out of the locality or jurisdiction in which
the warrant must be sought.





ROLDAN, JR. vs. HON. MADRONA
G.R. No. 152989
September 4, 2002

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 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. 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.

ISSUES & RULINGS:
(1) whether 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;
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. (Emphasis supplied) 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) whether the owner of the private property is dministratively
liable under Sec. 14 of DENR Administrative Order No. 2000-21 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) whether 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. any pronouncement
thereon at this point would be premature as the guilt of the petitioner has not been
legally established.