Republic of the Philippines

Department of Environment and Natural Resources

PROVINCIAL ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE
Office of the PENR Officer

MEMORANDUM

FOR : THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

DENR Caraga Region
Ambago, Butuan City

FROM : THE PENR OFFICER

PENRO Agusan del Norte
Tiniwisan, Butuan City

SUBJECT : REPORT ON THE SUMMARY ADMINISTRATIVE

ADJUDICATION PROCEEDINGS ON THE APPREHENDED 66
PCS. (2,426.47BD.FT.) OF LAUAN LUMBER AND FLITHCHES
AND (1) UNIT FUSO DUMPTRUCK BEARING PLATE NO. CCO
8294 COLOR MAROON AT P-7, BRGY. TAGABACA, BUTUAN
CITY, AGUSAN DEL NORTE.
DATE : JANUARY 12, 2023

Respectfully forwarded is the Memorandum of CENRO Nasipit dated December 23,

2022 submitting the CSW report relative to the above-mentioned subject with pertinent
enclosures duly received by this office on January 10, 2023.

Based on the report, the jo int effort of PNP Station-4 of Butuan City and Butuan City
East DENR MIAC on August 31, 2022 resulting to the apprehension of 66pcs. (2,426.47bd.ft.)
of Lauan lumber and flitches loaded in one (1) unit Fuso Dump truck bearing Plate No. CCO-
8294 at P7A, Brgy. Tagabaca, Butuan City. Upon determination by the team in accordance with
the procedure provided under DAO-97-32, the forest products were transported without pertinent
documents issued by DENR. A criminal complaint was then filed on December 19, 2022 against
Bonifacio Tapia, Ramonito Francisco Tapia, Karyl Bea Satinitigan, Remar Batan Bandi at
Butuan City Prosecutor’s office under NPS Docket No. XIII-01-INQ-2211-00224 the determined
perpetrators.

The apprehended forest products and the conveyance were deposited at PNP station 4 of
Butuan City at Brgy. Ampayon, Butuan City under the protective custody of PLT. Namra P.
Arimao Jr. for safekeeping.

On November 11, 2022, a seizure proceeding was conducted by the seizure officer
CENRO Joseph Leo E. Oconer and determined that the offense was committed and the offender
was probably guilty thereof, thus a seizure order was issued with seizure order no. E-FMS No.
2022-160209-F326.

On November 18, 2022, a summary administrative adjudication proceeding was

conducted. During the proceedings, the following circumstances were noted as follows:

1. Driver and the helper admitted that they were transporting the forest products, but not
expecting that the same were not covered with document because the owner told them
that it is covered with documents. The driver further narrated the circumstances that
supposedly, the forest products would be transported using a Wing Van but due to
mechanical problems the same were transported by Fuso Dump Truck. The helper
 Remar B. Bandi stated that the forest products would be delivered to a certain Ricky
Mondejar who is from Agusan del Sur.
2. Danilo L. Arado (Owner of Conveyance) interposed the defense by saying he had no
knowledge of the transport of the illegal forest products and in fact he filed a criminal
case for other deceits under article 318 of the revised penal code against his driver.
But during the hearing, he (owner) disclosed that the driver rented his dump truck and
agreed for a consideration.
3. The seized forest products were transported and possessed without the requisite
permit /authority issued by DENR in violations of section 77 of Presidential Decree
705, hence, the TWG recommended that same be confiscated in favor of the
government; and
4. Meanwhile, the conveyance was recommended for release to its rightful owner after
the testimonies of the owner that the transport of the illegal forest products was
without his knowledge.

It must be noted that the confiscation of the seized forest products and
conveyance is anchored on the presumption of facts and/or law unless specifically
controverted and successfully overcome by a preponderance of evidence pursuant
to Section 7 item no. 3 of DAO 97-32, as hereto to quote for reference:

“3. DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTION- In administrative proceedings conducted

pursuant hereto, the following shall be considered presumption of fact and/ or
law taken as part of the evidence unless specifically controverted and successfully
overcome by preponderance of evidence.

a. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

b. The registered owner and/or operator / driver of a conveyance used

in the commission of the offense had full knowledge and willingly
participated therein by providing the conveyance for the illegal
purpose to which said conveyance was applied. In case the registered
owner of the conveyance is a partnership or corporation, the partners
and/ or officers thereof had full knowledge of and granted
authorization or issued instructions for the use or application of the
conveyance in the commission of the offense.

c. Any forest products included within Section 2(a) hereof were obtained
from an illegal source.”

In the case of the forest products, this office harmonizes with the recommendation
of the hearing officer to confiscate same in favor of the government. Since it was
established that the transported forest products were transported without the requisite
permit/authority from DENR.

However, in the case of the conveyance, this office is convinced not to agree with
the recommendation of the hearing officer that is to release the same.

The following are the convincing reasons not to concur with the release of the
conveyance:
 a. All the defenses lodged by the owner of the conveyance during the hearing
were not affirmed by the perpetrators (driver and helper) all of the
defenses were solely came from the testimony of the owner of the
conveyance. Section 7, item no. 3 of DAO 97-32, obligatorily imposed on
the registered owner and/or operator/driver of the conveyance to overcome
the presumption by providing preponderance of evidence. The testimony
of the driver and helper should be presented by the owner during the
hearing and also the certificate of transport duly signed by him and driver
to show that he was entering into a contract of rent for a specific purpose
and to exposed his good faith in the said contract, to satisfy the
requirement of evidence requires by the above cited provision of DAO 97-
32. Hence, the testimony of the driver barely saying without other
supporting testimonies/evidences are disqualified to constitute
preponderance of evidence. As recorded in the minutes of the case, the
driver and helper flawlessly said that they transported the illegal forest
products because of a wrong belief that it was covered with documents
and they were paid for its transport but they did not bother themselves to
testify in behalf of the owner of the conveyance by alleging that it was
their personal intention to transport illegal forest products for their
personal gain. Ergo, the defenses made by Mr. Danilo L. Arado was not
backed with corroborating facts and evidences as required from him by
existing policy of DENR and applicable laws.

b. The filing of a criminal case against the driver by the owner is not and
should not be considered as evidence in favor of the owner that indeed he
was not aware and did not willingly participate in the commission of the
offense by providing his conveyance to transport the illegal forest
products. The testimonies of the driver and helper are substantial to not
implicate him in the commission of the offense and since the testimonies
of same are wanting the presumption under DAO -97-32 should prevail
and would constitute the confiscation of the conveyance.

Under Section 1, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court provides the guidelines
in determining preponderance of evidence.

Section 1. Preponderance of evidence, how determined. — In civil cases, the

party having burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In
determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues
involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the
witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of
knowing the facts to which there are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they
testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of
interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear
upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the
preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number.

Clarifying on the concept of preponderance of evidence, this Court in Encinas vs.

National bookstore, Inc., held:

“Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate

evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term greater
weight of the evidence or greater weight of the credible evidence. Preponderance of
evidence is a phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth. It is
evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is
offered in opposition thereto.”

Considering the afore-noted circumstances, this office is forced to disturb the

recommendation of the hearing officer and therefore recommends to confiscate the said
vehicle together with the forest products in violation of section 77 of PD 705.

For information, record and issuance of confiscation order.

ACHILLES ANTHONY C. EBRON

Caraga, Philippines, 8600

E-mail: penro_agnor@yahoo.com | Telephone No. 817-9639