Paat vs.

Baculi

By: ABARCAR, KRISTAL JADE G.

Issue:
Whether or not the confiscation of the truck which was
used to convey or transport the illegal timber is valid.
Rules/Jurisprudence:
• Section 68A of PD 705 as amended by EO 277- law that penalizes the
possession of timber and other forest products without legal documentary
requirements.

• Doctrine of exhaustion administrative remedies – the availment of

administrative remedy entails lesser expenses and provides for a speedier
disposition of controversies.

• Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction – states that it does not warrant a court to

arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over
which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence.
Analysis of Facts:
Paat/ Layugan/DENR Baculi and Sps De Guzman
• Confiscated the truck which was seized during • Did not submit an explanation within
its route to Nueva Vizcaya. 15days from the issuance of the order to
confiscate.
• Concealed in the truck were illegal forest
products. • Filed a suit for replevin.

• The driver could not produce the legal

documents for the forest products.

• Community Environment and Natural Resources

Office ( CENRO ) issued an order for the
confiscation of the truck and gave respondents
15 days to explain why the truck should not be
forfeited in favor of the Government.
Analysis of Argument:
Paat/ Layugan/DENR Baculi and Sps De Guzman
• Dismissal of the Replevin suit filed by • The truck was not used directly in producing
respondents for lack of cause of action for failure the illegal timber.
to exhaust administrative remedies.
• Did not submit an explanation within 15days
from the issuance of the order to confiscate.
• The action to exhaust all possible remedies were
not exercised by the respondents. • Violation of due process when they have not
received the confiscation order.
• Due process does not always require a trial or
hearing as necessary, but simply an opportunity • Illegality of the seizure because the admin
or right to be heard. officers of DENR have no power to perform
such acts.
• Due process cannot be successfully invoked
when the other party were given the chance to • Sec 68 of PD 705 as amended by EO 277 only
punished qualified theft and penalized under
be heard on his motion for reconsideration.
Art 309 and 310 of the RPC.
Conclusion:
According to Section 68-A of PD 705 as amended by EO 277, the Secretary of DENR and
his duly authorized representatives are given the authority to confiscate not only
conveyances but also forest products in violation of the Forestry Code. Any person who
shall cut, gather, collect, or remove timber or other forest products from any forest land, or
timber from alienable and disposable public lands, or from private lands, without any
authority under a license agreement, lease, license or permit shall be liable under the
Forestry Code. In this present case, the truck was used to convey or transport illegal timber
and no explanation was made by the owners of the said truck when order was issued.
Therefore, the forfeiture made by the Government with regard to the truck is valid.
Illustrations:

Cagayan Valley
Illustrations: Process on how to secure
Timber Permit from DENR
 END.

Thank you.