Discussion

There is no issue regarding your observation in items 1, 2 and 3. The date as

explained is due to the fact the participation of our office was only manifested
on January 4, 2019. The authority of the apprehending officers (PNP) has
always been upheld and recognized by the DENR when the apprehended forest
prducts are naturally grown species which can now be adjudicated according
to the provision of DAO 97-32. In fact, after a prima facie evidence is
established the filing of a case against the perpetrator may be instituted as
provided for under Section 68 of PD 705.
However, in this case, the forest products in question are planted species
(exotic) this species that has already been deregulated and those rules and
regulations are no longer totally applicable if not wholly relaxed. Our office only
registers the farmer;s plantation and inventory so we can issue the transport
documents during the harvesting and marketing. Our office does even impose
any forest charges since private ownership is already granted, recognized,
acknowledged and protected by our laws.
In fct, the DENR will not file any case in court when the apprehended forest
products are of plantation species. The reason is that it has long been
deregulated. What is required is only the (1) the registration of the private
plantation , (2) inventoy , and (3) issuance of transport documents after
harvesting. The strict enforcement and implementation of forestry laws find
relaxed applicability when it comes to this kind of forest products.
The prosecution office and the court in our jurisdiction even shared our
position on this matter considering the administrative jurisdiction of the DENR
when it comes to the enforcement of our forestry laws pertaining of planted
species of forest products.
The reason why loaded forest products did not tally with the certificate of
verification is that MR. Lee Donato Sabit changed his mind and looked for
another vehicle to transport his forest products due to some unavoidable
circumstances. The owner of the said conveyance backed out of their transport
agreement as may be noted in certificate of transport agreement(CTA) whrein
there was no signature on the part of the conveyance owner or his duly
authorized representative. So as a result, Mr, Lee Donato Sabit looked for
another conveyance. He found the two (2) dump trucks and hired them but
only 2,162.67 bd.ft of mahogany lumber and flitches can be loaded. In other
words, the difference was due to partial delivery which is allowed. The DENR
personnel will just note in their logbook stating the partial delivery or stated in
the Certificate of Verification (COV) itself. After the balance stated in th COV is
delivered /loaded that is the time the concerned DENR personnel assigned at
the checkpoint will mark the COV as consumed. In short, partial delivery of
any certificate of origin (COO) form is allowed like Certificate of Timber (CTO).
Certificate of Lumber Origin (CLO) and certificate of Verification (COV). This
system is equally applied to naturally grwn species as in this case.
A simple illustration to determine the marked difference of the needed
requirements in the transport or shipment of forest products whenever the
enforcement of forestry laws in one of the regulation and when it is for
deregulation or one when it involves naturally grown species and planted
spoecies.
Regulation
1. Request /application to CENR
2. Complete all the guidelines of DAO 200-78
3. Approval/recommendation from the Regional Executive Director For the
DENR Secretary
4. Approval from the DENR Secretary thru Forest Management
Deregulation
1. Request/ Application address to the CENRO
2. Inventory
3. Issuance of Transport Documents
4. Bureau of (FMB)
5. Issuance of permit
6. Vice versa to the regional office
7. Order requirements as required by the DENR
When it comes to the regulation process, one needs to secure fom the DENR
Central office a permit of naturally grown species and it will take a year or
more to obtain while in deregulation of planted species it will only take three (3)
days or more. There is no need for approval from the the CENRO, PENRO, or
REGIONAL office. Whenever regulation is in placebut only and exclusively by
and from the Secretary of the DENR. There is a noted difference between the
two. Regulated species pertains to government owned forest products
(Naturally Grown species) but deregulated species to privately-owned by the
private individuals protected by our constitutions and not so with regards to
naturally-grown species.
As such being the case, our office would not file a case when it comes to
planted species. It is only when what was apprehended are naturally grown
species wherein our office will file a case applying the whole provision of DAO
97-32. But in the absence of a transport documents of planted forest products
due to non-registration of their backyard plantation and their inadequate
knowledge of how to secure valid transport documents, our office will just
require the forest products owner to secure a Barangay Certification stating
his proof of ownership of the said forest products and sketch of the location of
his backyard plantation. Or possibly a certification from our satellite
monitoring station confirming the Barangay Certification as may be required to
prove that farmer’s ownership of the subject forest products.
Notably, the jurisprudence mentioned and discussed such as villarin vs people,
Cresencio vs People, People vs revaldo, and people vs monge onvolved forest
products whch are all naturally grown species and not planted species. Even
before the advent of DAO 97-32 series of October 10, 1997 all cases filed in
violation of section 68 of presidentialndecree 705 and punishable by the
revised penal code under Article 309 and 310- theft to Qualified theft all
involves naturally grown species. These cases did not involved planted species.
As a last note, the reason the PNP apprehending personnel could not and
would not file a case in violation of Section 68, PD 705 against Mr. Lee Donato
Sabit was due to a standing RESOLUTION of CITY Prosecutor Aljay O. Go
which ordered the dismissal of previous complaint filed purportedly for
violation of Section 68 P.D. 705 when it comes to planted species. For ready
reference, the pertinent resolution is attached and marked as ANNEX “A”.
I hope that the foregoing explanation would now out to rest the united
misapprehension of the real facts and circumstances of the case. Further, the
forest products and conveyance of Mr. Lee Donato Sabit shall now be released
to him devoid of any furtherance delay to prevent manifest damages and
prejudice on this part.