Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
29Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Cases Evn

Cases Evn

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,110|Likes:
Published by Joseph Rinoza Plazo

More info:

Published by: Joseph Rinoza Plazo on Feb 20, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/29/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 Joseph PlazoEnvironment DigestsMerida vs People june 12 2008 .............................................................................2Provident tree farms vs Batario mar 28 1994 .......................................................3People vs CFI feb 13 1992 .....................................................................................4Lagua vs Cusi april 15 1988 ..................................................................................5Mustang Lumber vs CA june 18, 1996 ...................................................................5 Tigoy vs CA june 26, 2006 .....................................................................................6People vs Que dec 17, 1996 ..................................................................................8calub vs CA april 27, 2000 .....................................................................................9factoran vs CA dec 13, 1999 .................................................................................9paat vs CA jan 10, 1997 ......................................................................................10Alvarez vs PICOP dec 3, 2009 ..............................................................................11ALvarez vs PICOP nov 29, 2006 ............................................................................................................................11DY vs CA March 9, 1999 (304 SCRA 331) ............................................................12PICOP vs Base metals dec 6, 2006 ......................................................................12asaphil vs tuason april 25, 2006 ..........................................................................13didapho earth savers vs gozun mar 30, 2006 .....................................................14republic vs rosemoor mar 30, 2004 .....................................................................15labugal vs ramos jan 27, 2004 ............................................................................16labugal vs ramos dec 1, 2004 .............................................................................17Metro Iloilo Water vs CA mar 31, 2005 ................................................................18BF Northwest vs IAC may 29, 1987 .....................................................................19Amistoso vs Ong june 29, 2004 ...........................................................................20Loney vs people feb 10, 2006 .............................................................................21Alexandria Condo vs LLDA sept 11, 2009 ............................................................221
 
Merida vs People june 12 2008
DOCTRINE
 In People v. Merida (G.R. No. 158182, June 12, 2008), the Supreme Court ruled that cutting a tree in private land for timber without a
 
 permit from the DENR was punishable under this provision.
FACTSThe government hailed Petitioner before the Regional Trial Court of Romblon, Romblon, Branch 81 (trial court) with violation of Section68 of PD 705, as amended, for "cut[ting], gather[ing], collect[ing] and remov[ing]" a lone narra tree inside a private land in Mayod, Ipil,Magdiwang, Romblon (Mayod Property) over which private complainant Oscar M. Tansiongco (Tansiongco) claims ownershipThe RTC handed judgment rapidly. In its Decision dated 24 November 2000, the trial court found petitioner guilty as charged, sentenced
 
him to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of 
reclusion temporal 
and
 
ordered the
 
seized
 
lumber forfeited in Tansiongco's favor.
[12]
The trial court dismissed petitioner's defense of denial in view of his repeated extrajudicial admissionsthat he cut the narra tree in the Mayod Property with Calix's permission. With this finding and petitioner's lack of DENR permit to cut thetree, the trial court held petitioner liable for violation of Section 68 of PD 705, as amended.ISSUEw/n sec 28 of PD 705 prohibiting the cutting gathering and collecting of timber and other forest products apply to Petitioner .HELD
 Petitioner is Liable for Cutting Timber in Private Property Without Permit 
Section 68, as amended, one of the 12 acts
[25]
penalized under PD 705, provides:SECTION 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 
fromprivate land
, without any authority, or possess timber or other forest products without the legal documents as required under existingforest 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 theCommission 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)
2
 
 Joseph PlazoEnvironment Digests
Section 68 penalizes three categories of acts: (1) the cutting, gathering, collecting, or removing of timber or other forest products from anyforest land without any authority; (2) the
cutting
, gathering, collecting, or removing
of timber
from alienable or disposable public land, or from
private land without any authority
;
[26]
and (3) the possession of timber or other forest products without the legal documents
Provident tree farms vs Batario mar 28 1994
DOCTRINE:
Cases before the BOC must be fully fleshed out before it prior to elevating the issues to a regular court in keeping with theexhaustion of administrative remedies.
FACTSIn the extrant case, PTFI seeks to set aside the 8 February 1990 order of respondent court and prays for the continuation of the hearing inCivil Case No. 89-48836. PTFI claims that what was brought before the trial court was a civil case for injunction, i.e., "restraining theentry of safety matches into the country . . . for the purpose of securing compliance with Sec. 36 (l) of the Forestry Code and for damages,"to seek redress of its right which has been clearly violated by the importation of safety matches . . . . (which) is a denial to the petitioner of the protection and incentive granted it by Section 36 (l) of the Forestry Code . . . ."
 
 Naturally, PTFI asserts the inapplicability of the procedures outlined in R.A. No. 1125 relative to incidents before the Court of TaxAppeals because the instant action is not a protest case where the aggrieved party is not an importer. It then argues that since it could not
 
avail of the remedies afforded by the Tariff and Customs Code, resort to the courts is warranted, citing
Commissioner of Customs v. Alikpala
.Petitioner asserts his complaint on a statutory privilege or incentive granted under Sec. 36, par. (l), of the Revised Forestry Code. The onlysubject of this incentive is a ban against importation of wood, wood products or wood-derivated products which is to be enforced by theBureau of Customs since it has, under the Tariff and Customs Code, the exclusive original jurisdiction over seizure and forfeiturecases
 
and, in fact, it is the duty of the Collector of Customs to exercise jurisdiction over prohibited importations.The enforcement of the importation ban under Sec. 36, par. (l), of the Revised Forestry Code is within the exclusive realm of the Bureau of Customs, and direct recourse of petitioner to the Regional Trial Court to compel the Commissioner of Customs to enforce the ban isdevoid of any legal basis. Now it follows that to allow the regular court to direct the Commissioner to impound the imported matches, as petitioner insisted, isclearly an interference with the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of Customs over seizure and forfeiture cases. An order of a judge toimpound, seize or forfeit must inevitably be based on his determination and declaration of the invalidity of the importation, hence, anusurpation of the prerogative and an encroachment on the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Customs. In other words, the reliefs directedagainst the Bureau of Customs as well as the prayer for injunction against importation of matches by private respondent AJIC may not begranted without the court arrogating upon itself the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of Customs.ISSUEw/n the BOC holds jurisdiction in the matter of wood product importationHELDPetitioner’s position is inconceivable! The claim of petitioner that no procedure is outlined for the enforcement of the import ban under theTariff and Customs Code, if true, does not at all diminish the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Customs over the subject matter. Theenforcement of statutory rights is not foreclosed by the absence of a statutory procedure. The Commissioner of Customs has the power to"promulgate all rules and regulations necessary to enforce the provisions of this (Tariff and Customs) Code . . . subject to the approval of the Secretary of Finance."
 
Moreover, it has been held that ". . . . (w)here the statute does not require any particular method of procedure to be followed by anadministrative agency, the agency may adopt any reasonable method to carry out its functions."But over and above the foregoing, PTFI's correspondence with the Bureau of Customs
 
contesting the legality of match importations mayalready take the nature of an administrative proceeding the pendency of which would preclude the court from interfering with it under thedoctrine of primary jurisdiction
3

Activity (29)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
julesyves liked this
Black Phoenix liked this
chal222720 liked this
Gerry Doro liked this
Lorenie Bucayong liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->