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.

Petitioner 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. A law should
not be so construed as to allow the doing of an act which is prohibited by law,
nor so interpreted as to afford an opportunity to defeat compliance with its
terms, create an inconsistency, or contravene the plain words of the law. After
all, the phrase "forest products" is broad enough to encompass lumbers
which, to reiterate, is manufactured timber. Hence, to mention lumber in Sec.
68 would merely result in tautology.

PERFECTO PALLADA, plaintiff vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Facts:

Sometime in the latter part of 1992, DENR received a reports that
illegally cut lumber were delivered in the warehouse of Valencia Golden
Harvest Corporation in Valencia Bukidnon. DENR officers in collaboration of
PNP raided the companys warehouse and found a large stockpile of lumber in
varying sizes cut by a chainsaw. 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 receipt considering that R. L.
Rivero Lumberyard's permit to operate had long been suspended. What is
more, the pieces of lumber were cut by chain saw and thus could not have
come from a licensed sawmill operator.

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. During the
trial, the accused presented documents that the lumber are legally obtained.
This may include the certificate of origin. However, the court found out that
Pallada was guilty of the violation of PD 705 and the rest of the accused were
acquitted due to insufficiency of
evidence. The case was appealed to the CA and rendered a decision affirming
the decision of the lower court, thus this case was elevated.

Issue:

Whether a separate certificates of origin is used for lumber and timber.

Ruling:

Yes, there should be a separate Certificate of origin. The trial court acted
correctly in not giving credence to the Certificates of Timber Origin presented
by petitioner since the lumber held by the company should be covered by
Certificates of Lumber Origin. For indeed, 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.

The irregularities and discrepancies make the documents in which they
are found not only questionable but invalid and, thus, justified the trial court
in giving no credence to the same. The presence of such glaring irregularities
negates the presumption that the CTOs were regularly executed by the DENR
officials concerned.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALFONSO DATOR
et.al , Accused- Appelant

Facts:
Pator Teala and his co accused Alfonso Dator and Benito Genol were
charged 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 Presidential
Decree 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. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty to be
imposed on the appellant should be six (6) months and one (1) day of prision
correccional to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor.

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
Ownership (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. The RTC ordered Elias R.
Seraspio, Jr. to recall, withdraw and abrogate the enforcement of the assailed
Memorandum dated February 16, 2001 and to refrain and desist from
implementation. Petitioner was also ordered to release the confiscated falcata
logs and vehicles to the owners thereof, or to the CENRO-Bislig or the Office of
the Government Prosecution-Surigao del Sur, where the administrative and
criminal proceedings were ongoing.

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.

It is clear that 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. 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.

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:

On October 12, 1965, 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. Petitioner subsequently
appealed from the orders of the MNR to the Office of the President. The Office
of the President, acting through then Deputy Executive Secretary Catalino
Macaraig, denied petitioner's appeal for lack of merit. Petitioner filed with the
Court a petition for certiorari, with prayer for the issuance of a restraining
order or writ of preliminary injunction,

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner has the right to seek the nullification of the
Bureau orders cancelling his timber license agreement and the granting of
TLA to private respondent, which were issued way back in 1983 and 1984,
respectively.


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.


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 , 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 lawand 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.


PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE OF QUEZON , respondent.

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. The
information provided that Godofredo Arrozal and Luis Flores, together with
20 other John Does whose identities are still unknown, the first-named
accused being the administrator of the Infanta Logging Corporation, conspired
and entered the privately-owned land of one Felicitacion Pujalte, titled in the
name of her deceased father, Macario Prudente, and proceeded to illegally cut,
gather, and take, there from, without the consent of the said owner and
without any authority under a license agreement, 60 logs of different species.

On March 23, 1977, the named accused filed a motion to quash the
information on 2grounds, to wit: (1) that the facts charged do not constitute
an offense; and, (2) that the information does not conform substantially to the
prescribed form. Trial court thus dismissed the information based on the
respondents grounds.

Issue:

Whether the information correctly and properly charged an offense
and whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the case.

Ruling:

The elements of thecrime of qualified theft of logs are: 1) That the accused cut,
gathered, collected or removed timber or other forest products; 2) that the
timber or other forest products cut ,gathered, collected or removed belongs to
the government or to any private individual; and 3) that the cutting, gathering,
collecting or removing was without authority under a license agreement, leas,
license, or permit granted by the state. 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
private woodland registered in the name of complainant's 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. Thus,ownership is not an essential element of the
offense as defined in Section 60 of P.D. No. 705. As to the second issue raised,
the regular courts still has jurisdiction. Sec. 80 of PD 705covers 2 specific
instances when a forest officer may commence a prosecution for the violation
of the Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines.
The first authorizes a forest officer or employee of the Bureau of
Forestry to arrest without a warrant, any person who has committed or is
committing, in his presence, any of the offenses described in the decree. The
second covers a situation when an offense described in the decree is not
committed in the presence of the forest officer or employee and the
commission is brought to his attention by a report or a complaint. In both
cases, however, the forest officer or employee shall investigate the offender
and file a complaint with the appropriate official authorized by law to conduct
a preliminary investigation and file the necessary informations in
court.Unfortunately, the instant case does not fall under any of the situations
covered by Section 80 of P.D. 705. The alleged offense was committed not in
the presence of a forest officer and neither was the alleged commission
reported to any forest officer. The offense was committed in a private land
and the complaint was brought by a private offended party to the fiscal. As
such, the OSG was correct in insisting that P.D. 705 did not repeal Section
1687 of the Administrative Code giving authority to the fiscal to conduct
investigation into the crime of demeanour and have the necessary information
or complaint prepared or made against person charged with the commission
of the crime. In short, Section 80 does not grant exclusive authority to the
forest officers, but only special authority to reinforce the exercise of such by
those upon whom vested by the general law.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. WILSON B.
QUE, accused-appellant

Facts:
Provincial Task Force got wind that a 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 PTF went on patrol
several times within the vicinity of General Segundo Avenue in 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. On June 23, 1994, accused-appellant was charged before the Regional
Trial Court of Laoag with violation of Section 68 of P.D. 705as amended by E.O.
277. The Information alleged that, on or about the 8
th
day of March, 1994, in
the City of Laoag, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, being then the owner of an Isuzu Ten
Wheeler Truck bearing Plate No. PAD-548, with intent of gain, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in possession, control and
custody 258 pieces of various sizes of Forest Products Chain saw lumber
(Species of Tanguile) with a total volume of 3,729.3 bd. ft. or equivalent to
8.79 cubic meters valued in the total amount of P93,232.50 atP25.00/bd. ft.,
necessary permit, license or authority to do so from the proper authorities
Accused-appellant denied the charge against him. He claimed that he acquired
the 258 pieces of tanguile lumber from a legal source. During the trial, he
presented the private land timber permits (PLTP) issued by the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to Enrica Cayosa and Elpidio
Sabal The PLTP authorizes its holder to cut, gather and dispose timber from
the forest area covered by the permit. He alleged that the tanguile lumber
came from the forest area covered by the PLTPs of Cayosa and Sabal and that
they were given to him by Cayosa and Sabal as payment for his hauling
services


Issue:

Whether the appellants activities consist an offense

Ruling:
Yes, Possession of the lumber without the necessary permit is a
violation of the RFC. When the police apprehended Que, he failed to present
documentary evidence to prove that he has the permit to possess and
transport the lumber. All he had was the permit for the coconut slabs. He even
concealed the lumber so as to avoid it from being seen upon first inspection of
the load. Under the circumstances, there is no doubt that the accused was
aware that he needed documents to possess and transport the lumber, but
could not secure one and therefore, concealed such by placing it in such a
manner that it could not be seen by merely looking at the cargo. There are 2
ways of violating Sec. 68 of the Revised Forestry Code:

a. by cutting, gathering and/or collecting timber or other forest
products without licence and
b. by possessing timber or other forest products without required legal
documents.
In the first offense, one can raise as a defense the legality of said acts.
However, in the second offense, mere possession without proper
documentation consummates the crime.

Roldan, Jr. petitioner v. Hon, Madrona et.al. respondents

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 fees required by the various government agencies. 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 petitioners place, allegedly without a search
warrant. An inventory of the cut trees was conducted there were 872 pieces of
sawn lumber/filches (8,506 board feet) and three felled timber logs with a
total market value of P235,454.68 at P27.00 per board foot.

Issue:

a. Whether 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 PD 705?
b. 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.

Ruling:
a. Yes, 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.
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 PD 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 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.


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.