Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
2-D
CASE DIGEST
CALUB v CA
GR 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 Office. 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 Exe
cutive Order277, 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 r
easonable, the trial courtordered that a copy of the decision be furnished
the Secretary of Justice, in order that the necessary criminal action may be filed
against 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.
LALICAN v VERGARA
GR No. 108619, July 31, 1997
Facts
Petitioner in this case was charge for violation of Sec. 68 of P.D. No.
705, as amended by E.O. No. 277. Accordingly, petitioners had in their
possession and custody of 1,800 board feet of assorted species and
dimensions of lumber on board two passenger jeeps with a value of
14,000.00 pesos.
Issue
Petitioner questioned the charge of illegal possession of lumber is
excluded from the crime of illegal possession of timber as defined in Sec. 68
of P.D. 705 (Forestry Reform Code of the Philippines), as amended, to
warrant the quashing of an information charging the former offense on a
nonexistence crime.
Held
The petitioner is devoid of merit. A law should not be so construed
as to allow the doing of an act which is prohibited by law, nor so
interpreted as afford as opportunity to defeat compliance with its terms,
create inconsistency, or contravene the plain words of the law; The phrase
forest products is broad enough to encompass lumber which is
manufactured timber.
Issue
Whether or not the legal documents or permit is still required for
cutting or transporting the soft lumber.
Held
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction. The fact of possession by
the appellant of the subject lumber, as well as his subsequent failure to
produce the legal documents as required under existing forest laws and
regulations constitute criminal liability for violation of Presidential Decree
No. 705, Section 68. The appellant stands charged with the crime
of violation of Section 68 of PD No. 705, a special statutory law, and which crime is
consideredmala prohibita. In the prosecution for crimes that are considered
mala prohibita, the only inquiry is whether or not the law has been
violated. The motive or intention underlying the act of the appellant is
immaterial for the reason that his mere possession of the confiscated
pieces of lumber without the legal documents as required under existing
forest laws and regulations gave rise to his criminal liability.
PICOP v CALO
GR No. 161798, October 20, 2004
Facts
PICOP, a pulp and manufacturing facility in Bislig City, Agusan del
Norte held a Pulpwood and Timber License Agreement (PTLA) No. 47 and
Integrated Forest Management (IFMA) No. 35 covering 130,000 hectares of
forest land within Agusan-Davao-Surigao Forest Reserve. Three DENR
Memoranda dated 1997, February 2001, and April 2001 designated the
petitioner as a DENR depository and custodian for apprehended forest
products and conveyances with its concession. Thereafter, private
respondents, Casia et al, were arrested by PICOP security officers
transporting falcata logs. PICOP refused to release the confiscated forest
products.
Issue
Whether or not a depository can retain possession of conveyances.
Held
No, the 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.
Also, the 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.
Issue
Whether public respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in refusing to overturn
administrative orders issued by their predecessors.
Held
The refusal of public respondents to reverse final and executory
administrative orders does not constitute grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It is an established doctrine in
this jurisdiction that the decisions and orders of administrative agencies
have, upon their finality, the force and binding effect of a final judgment
within the purview of the doctrine of res judicata. These decisions and
orders are as conclusive upon the rights of the affected parties as though
the same had been rendered by a court of general jurisdiction. The rule of
res judicata thus forbids the reopening of a matter once determined by
competent authority acting within their exclusive jurisdiction.
Issue
Whether or not the prosecution witnesses had credibility and
sufficiency of the evidence proving their guilt.
Held
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.1[33] 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.
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.
CHU v 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.
Held
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.
OPOSA v FACTORAN
GR No. 101083, July 30, 1993
Facts
A taxpayers class suit was filed by minors Juan Antonio Oposa, et al.,
representing their generation and generations yet unborn, and represented
by their parents against Fulgencio Factoran Jr., Secretary of DENR. They
prayed that judgment be rendered ordering the defendant, his agents,
representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to:
and granting the plaintiffs such other reliefs just and equitable under the
premises. They alleged that they have a clear and constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology and are entitled to protection by the State
in its capacity as parens patriae. Furthermore, they claim that the act of the
defendant in allowing TLA holders to cut and deforest the remaining forests
constitutes a misappropriation and/or impairment of the natural resources
property he holds in trust for the benefit of the plaintiff minors and
succeeding generations.
Yes, 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 a private
woodland registered in the name of complainants 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.
1. Whether there are no existing forest laws and regulations which required
certain legal documents for possession of timber and other forest products.
2. Whether 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.
Held
1. No, 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. However, the suggested interpretation
is strained and would render the law inutile. 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.
Section 3 of the Administrative Order provides that the movement of logs,
lumber, non-timber forest products and wood-based or wood based shall
be covered with the appropriate Certificates of Origin. The transport of
lumber shall be accompanied by CLO (Certificate of Lumber Origin).
2. No, because there are 2 distinct and separate offenses punished under
Section 68 of P.D. 705. 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, 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.
ROLDAN v MADRONA
GR No. 152989, September 4, 2002
Facts
Pending the application in the DENR for a Private Land Timber Permit
on his own land, Roldan was allegedly informed by some DENR employees
that he could proceed with the cutting of trees. Later, petitioner cut trees,
bulldozed the roadway and used cut logs as materials to build chicken
cages. The CENRO group confiscated 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
1. Whether the petitioners penalty for cutting trees in his own land should
not be equated with that for qualified theft.
2. Whether 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 them for his
own agricultural purposes.
Held
1. No, 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;
hence his ownership of the land is of no moment. 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. No, the 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.
FACTS
This petition is for a review on certiorari of the decision of the Court
of Appeals (CA) affirming that of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Kalibo
Aklan, which granted the petition for declaratory relief filed by
respondents-claimants Mayor Jose Yap et al, and ordered the survey of
Boracay for titling purposes.
On Nov. 10, 1978, President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1801
declaring Boracay Island as a tourist zone and marine reserve. Claiming that
Proc. No. 1801 precluded them from filing an application for a judicial
confirmation of imperfect title or survey of land for titling purposes,
respondents-claimants filed a petition for declaratory relief with the RTC in
Kalibo, Aklan.
ISSUE
Whether unclassified lands of the public domain are automatically deemed
agricultural land, therefore making these lands alienable.
HELD
No. To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is
alienable, the applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of the
government such as a presidential proclamation or an executive order, an
administrative action, investigative reports of the Bureau of Lands
investigators, and a legislative act or statute.
The Regalian Doctrine dictates that all lands of the public domain
belong to the State, that the State is the source of any asserted right to
ownership of land and charged with the conservation of such patrimony.
All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private
ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Thus, all lands that have
not been acquired from the government, either by purchase or by grant,
belong to the State as part of the inalienable public domain.