(1) FELIPE CALUB and RICARDO VALENCIA, DEPARTMENT

of ENVIRONMENT and NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR),

CATBALOGAN, SAMAR vs. COURT OF APPEALS, MANUELA
T. BABALCON, and CONSTANCIO ABUGANDA
G.R. No. 115634. April 27, 2000
Facts:
The Forest Protection and Law Enforcement Team of the Community
Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of the DENR
apprehended two motor vehicles. One is loaded with 1,026 board feet of
illegally sourced lumber valued at P8,544.75, with Plate No. HAK-733,
being driven by one Pio Gabon and owned by Jose Vargas. The other is
loaded with 1,224.97 board feet of illegally-sourced lumber valued at
P9,187.27, with plate number FCN 143, being driven by one Constancio
Abuganda and owned by [a certain] Manuela Babalcon. The drivers of the
vehicles failed to present proper documents and/or licenses. Thus, the
apprehending team seized and impounded the vehicles and its load of
lumber at the DENR-PENR (Department of Environment and Natural
Resources-Provincial Environment and Natural Resources) Office in
Catbalogan. Seizure receipts were issued but the drivers refused to accept
the receipts. Felipe Calub, Provincial Environment and Natural Resources
Officer, then filed before the Provincial Prosecutors Office in Samar, a
criminal complaint against Abuganda for violation of Section 68 [78),
Presidential Decree 705 as amended by Executive Order 277, otherwise
known as the Revised Forestry Code. On January 31, 1992, the impounded
vehicles were forcibly taken by Gabon and Abuganda from the custody of
the DENR, prompting DENR Officer Calub this time to file a criminal
complaint for grave coercion against Gabon and Abuganda. The complaint
was, however, dismissed by the Public Prosecutor.
The vehicle driven by Constancio Abuganda was again apprehended
by a composite team of DENR-CENR in Catbalogan and Philippine Army
elements of the 802nd Infantry Brigade at Barangay Buray, Paranas,
Samar. It was again loaded with forest products with an equivalent volume
of 1,005.47 board feet, valued at P10,054.70. Calub duly filed a criminal
complaint against Constancio Abuganda, a certain Abegonia, and several
John for violation of Section 68 [78], Presidential Decree 705 as amended
by Executive Order 277, otherwise known as the Revised Forestry Code.
Although Abegonia and Abuganda were acquitted on the ground of
reasonable, the trial court ordered that a copy of the decision be furnished
the Secretary of Justice, in order that the necessary criminal action may be
filed against Noe Pagarao and all other persons responsible for violation of
the Revised Forestry Code. It appeared that it was Pagarao who chartered
the subject vehicle and ordered that cut timber be loaded on it.
Issue:

(1) Whether or not the DENR-seized motor vehicle , with plate number
FCN 143, is in custodia legis.
(2) Whether or not the complaint for the recovery of possession of
impounded vehicles, with an application for replevin, is a suit against the
State.
Held:
(1) The DENR-seized motor vehicle , with plate number FCN 143, is in
custodia legis.
(2)
the complaint for the recovery of possession of impounded
vehicles, with an application for replevin, is a suit against the State
Ratio:
(1)The Revised Forestry Code authorizes the DENR to seize all
conveyances used in the commission of an offense in violation of Section
78. In addition, Section 78 makes mere possession of timber or other
forest products without the accompanying legal documents unlawful and
punishable with the penalties imposed for the crime of theft, as
prescribed in Articles 309-310 of the Revised Penal Code. In the present
case, the subject vehicles were loaded with forest products at the time of
the seizure. But admittedly no permit evidencing authority to possess
and transport said load of forest products was duly presented. These
products, in turn, were deemed illegally sourced. Thus there was a prima
facie violation of Section 68 [78] of the Revised Forestry Code, although
as found by the trial court, the persons responsible for said violation
were not the ones charged by the public prosecutor.
The corresponding authority of the DENR to seize all conveyances
used in the commission of an offense in violation of Section 78 of the
Revised Forestry Code is pursuant to Sections 78-A and 89 of the same
Code. The DENR Administrative Order No. 59, series of 1990, implements
Sections 78-A and 89 of the Forestry Code.
Upon apprehension of the illegally-cut timber while being
transported without pertinent documents that could evidence title to or
right to possession of said timber, a warrantless seizure of the involved
vehicles and their load was allowed under Section 78 and 89 of the Revised
Forestry Code.
Note further that petitioners failure to observe the procedure
outlined in DENR Administrative Order No. 59, series of 1990 was
justifiably explained. Petitioners did not submit a report of the seizure to
the Secretary nor give a written notice to the owner of the vehicle because
on the 3rd day following the seizure, Gabon and Abuganda, drivers of the
seized vehicles, forcibly took the impounded vehicles from the custody of
the DENR. Then again, when one of the motor vehicles was apprehended
and impounded for the second time, the petitioners, again were not able to
report the seizure to the DENR Secretary nor give a written notice to the
owner of the vehicle because private respondents immediately went to

court and applied for a writ of replevin. The seizure of the vehicles and their
load was done upon their apprehension for a violation of the Revised
Forestry Code. It would be absurd to require a confiscation order or notice
and hearing before said seizure could be effected under the circumstances.
Since there was a violation of the Revised Forestry Code and the
seizure was in accordance with law, in our view the subject vehicles were
validly deemed in custodia legis. It could not be subject to an action for
replevin. For it is property lawfully taken by virtue of legal process and
considered in the custody of the law.
On the second issue, is the complaint for the recovery of possession of
the two impounded vehicles, with an application for replevin, a suit against
the State?
Well established is the doctrine that the State may not be sued
without its consent. And a suit against a public officer for his official acts is,
in effect, a suit against the State if its purpose is to hold the State ultimately
liable. However, the protection afforded to public officers by this doctrine
generally applies only to activities within the scope of their authority in
good faith and without wilfulness, malice or corruption. In the present case,
the acts for which the petitioners are being called to account were
performed by them in the discharge of their official duties. The acts in
question are clearly official in nature. In implementing and enforcing
Sections 78-A and 89 of the Forestry Code through the seizure carried out,
petitioners were performing their duties and functions as officers of the
DENR, and did so within the limits of their authority. There was no malice
nor bad faith on their part. Hence, a suit against the petitioners who
represent the DENR is a suit against the State. It cannot prosper without
the States consent.

G.R. No. 108619 July 31, 1997

(2) EPIFANIO LALICAN, vs. HON. FILOMENO A.
VERGARA, Presiding Judge, RTC Branch 52, Puerto Princesa
City
and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
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. Petioner 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).
Held:
NO, The Court ruled that, the word lumber includes timber.
Ratio:
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.
(3) PERFECTO PALLADA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 131270. March 17, 2000
Facts:

Sometime in the latter part of 1992, the Department of Environment

and Natural Resources (DENR) office in Bukidnon received reports that
illegally cut lumber was being delivered to the warehouse of the Valencia
Golden Harvest Corporation in Valencia, Bukidnon. The company is
engaged in rice milling and trading.
DENR officers, assisted by elements of the Philippine National Police,
raided the company's warehouse in Poblacion, Valencia on the strength of a
warrant issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and found a large
stockpile of lumber of varying sizes cut by a chain saw. 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 receipts considering that R. L. Rivero Lumberyard's permit to operate
had long been suspended. The pieces of lumber were also cut by chain saw
and thus could not have come from a licensed sawmill operator.
The following day, September 29, 1992, the first batch of lumber,
consisting of 162 pieces measuring 1,954.66 board feet, was taken and
impounded at the FORE stockyard.
On October 1, 1992, the raiding team returned for the remaining
lumber. Company President Francisco Tankiko and a certain Isaias
Valdehueza, who represented himself to be a lawyer, asked for a suspension
of the operations to enable them to seek a lifting of the warrant. The motion
was filed with the court which issued the warrant but, on October 5, 1992,
the motion was denied. Accordingly, the remaining lumber was confiscated.
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.
Issue:
Was petitioner guilty of illegal possession of lumber in violation of
Section 68 of the Revised Forestry Code (P.D. No. 705, as amended)?
Held:
Yes. During the trial, the defense presented the following documents to
establish that Valencia Golden Harvest Corporation's possession of the
seized lumber was legal:
1. Certificate of Timber Origin;
2. Auxiliary Invoice;
3. Certificate of Transport Agreement;
4. Tally Sheet;
5. Delivery Receipt;
6. Cash Voucher; and
7. Official Receipt for Environmental Fee.
Ratio:

The Certificates of Timber Origin presented by petitioner was not given

credence since the lumber held by the company should be covered by
Certificates of Lumber Origin.
Petitioner contends that the term "timber" includes lumber and,
therefore, the Certificates of Timber Origin and their attachments should
have been considered in establishing the legality of the company's
possession of the lumber.
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.
Petitioner invokes the SC ruling in Mustang Lumber, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, which says that lumber is merely processed timber and, therefore,
the word "timber" embraces lumber. The question in this case is whether
separate certificates of origin should be issued for lumber and timber.
Indeed, different certificates of origin are required for timber, lumber and
non-timber forest products.
The SC also considered numerous irregularities and defects found in
the documents presented by the petitioner (i.e. the original typewritten
name of the consignee was clearly erased and changed, all the Auxiliary
Invoice were not properly accomplished: the data required to be filled are
left in blank).
The Certificate of Timber Origin in Exhibit 7 bears no date, the dorsal
side bears the certification that the logs were "scaled on August 7, 1991,"
while the receipt attached to that Certificate is dated February 6, 1992.
Moreover, the four delivery receipts list the sizes and volume of the lumber
sold, indicating that the company purchased cut lumber from the dealers,
thus belying the testimony of petitioner that when the company bought the
forest products, they were still in the form of flitches and logs, and they
were cut into lumber by the company.
The presence of such glaring irregularities negates the presumption
that the CTOs were regularly executed by the DENR officials concerned.
The presumption invoked by petitioner applies only when the public
documents are, on their faces, regular and properly accomplished.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed and the sentence is

modified to six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to twenty
(20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
(4) G.R. No. 136142 October 24, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALFONSO
DATOR et.al , Accused- Appelant
Facts:
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
Held:
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.
Ratio:
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 PD 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.

(5) PICOP RESOURCES, INC.vs. HON. AUGUSTUS L. CALO,

Presiding Judge,
G.R. No. 161798 October 20, 2004
Facts:
Petitioner PICOP Resources, Inc. (PICOP) owns and operates a multibillion 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 wnership (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.
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.
Held:
Petitioner had no right or interest to protect in the confiscated forest
products and conveyances.
Ratio:
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.

(6) G.R. No. 79538. October 18, 1990

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:
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.
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.
(7)JUAN ANTONIO, ANNA ROSARIO and JOSE ALFONSO, all
surnamed OPOSA, minors, and represented by their parents
vs.
THE HONORABLE FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR.
G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993
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 law and violative of plaintiffs' right to selfpreservation 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?

Held:
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.
Ratio:
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.
GR 152160
(8) Bon vs. People of the Philippines
Jan 13, 2014
Facts:
Petitioner Virgilio Bon and Alejandro Jeniebre, Jr. were charged for
violating Section 68 of PD 705, as amended,together with Rosalio Bon
under an Information. The petitioners cut, gather and manufacture into
lumber four (4) narra trees, one (1) cuyao-yao tree, and one (1) amugis tree,
with an approximate volume of 4,315 bd. ft. and valued at
approximately P25,000.00, without the knowledge and consent of the
owner Teresita Dangalan-Mendoza and without having first obtained from
proper authorities the necessary permit or license and/or legal supporting
documents, to the damage and prejudice of the Government and the owner
in the aforementioned amount of P25,000.00.
Receiving information that trees inside the land were being stolen, cut
[and] sawed into lumber by her administrator and/or workers, she sent her
brother Manuel Dangalan to investigate the report. Manuel Dangalan
sought the help of Barangay Captain, who in turn wrote a letter to one of
the barangay tanod to assist and investigate Teresitas complaint of Illegal
Cutting of Trees. On February 12, 1990, together with Julian Lascano,
Manuel Dangalan, Ricardo Valladolid, Natividad Legaspi and Virgilio Bon
repaired to the land of Teresita [Dangalan-Mendoza]. During their
investigation, the group discovered six (6) stumps of trees: four (4) Narra
trees, one cuyao-yao tree and one amugis tree. Virgilio Bon admitted
ordering the cutting and sawing of the trees into lumber. Oscar Narvaez
testified that he sawed the trees into six flitches upon instruction of
Alejandro Jeniebre, Jr.; Alexander Mendones, CENRO Officer, upon
complaint of Teresita for Illegal Cutting of Trees repaired to the land and
found four stumps of trees.
Issues
Whether hearsay testimony allegedly made to potential prosecution
witnesses who are not police operatives or media representatives is
admissible in evidence against the author
Held:

The Petition has no merit.

Ratio:
The time-tested rule is that the factual findings and conclusions of the trial
court on the credibility of witnesses deserve to be respected because of its
unique advantage of having observed their demeanor as they testified.
Punishable under the above provision are the following acts: (1) cutting,
gathering, collecting or removing timber or other forest products from the
places therein mentioned without any authority; and (b) possessing timber
or other forest products without the legal documents.
Petitioner was charged with the first offense. It was thus necessary for the
prosecution to prove the alleged illegal cutting, gathering or manufacture of
lumber from the trees.
It is undisputed that no direct evidence was presented. This kind of
evidence, however, is not the only matrix from which the trial court may
draw its conclusions and findings of guilt. Conviction may be based on
circumstantial evidence, as long as the circumstances proven constitute an
unbroken chain that leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion that the
accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.34
To sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, it is necessary
that the following elements concur:
1. There is more than one circumstance.
2. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven.
3. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt.35
Did the circumstances in this case satisfy the above requirements? We rule
in the affirmative.

(9) Chu vs. Judge Tamin

A.M. No. RTJ-03-1786. August 28, 2003
Facts:
Chu filed administrative complaint for gross ignorance of the law,
serious misconduct, and grave abuse of discretion against Judge Camilo E.
Tamin of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Molave, Zamboanga del Sur.
Judge Tamin issued search warrant against Chu for possession of forest
products of dubious origin in violation of PD 705 as applied for by
Communty Environment and Natural Resources Officer Michael dela Cruz
(CENRO dela Cruz). On the strength of the warrant, 576 pieces of pagtapat
lumber (mangrove specie) was seized from Chu. Chu assailed the validity
of the warrant for violating Sec. 5, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure because the certified copies he obtained from the court
did not contain any transcript of the judges examination of CENRO dela
Cruz or his witness Cuaresma. Judge Tamins contention: the certified
copies of the records obtained by complainant did not include the
transcript of his examination because the clerical staff in his office who

prepared the certified copies inadvertently failed to do so. Office of the

Court Administrator (OCA)s findings: Judge Tamin is liable for gross
ignorance of the law. Respondent judge apparently believes that searching
questions need not be in writing.
Issue: Whether Judge Tamin properly issued the search warrant against
Chu.
Held: SC held that Judge Tamin is grossly ignorant of the law and
ordered to pay P5,000.00 fine.
Ratio:
Art. III, Sec. 2 of Constitution and Rule 126, Sec. 5 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure implements the proscription against unreasonable
searches and seizures. The Court, in Pendon v. Court of Appeals, reiterated
the requirements of Section 2 on the issuance of search warrants, which
judges must strictly observe, as follows: Under the above provision, the
issuance of a search warrant is justified only upon a finding of probable
cause. x x x In determining
the existence of probable cause, it is required that: (1) the judge x x x must
examine the x x x witnesses personally; (2) the examination must be under
oath; and (3) the examination must be reduced to writing in the form of
searching questions and answers

(10) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF QUEZON (BRANCH VII)
G.R. No. L-46772 February 13, 1992
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.
On July 28, 29 and 30, 1976 at Barangay Mahabang Lalim Municipality of
General Nakar, Province of Quezon City, Godofredo Arrozal and Luis Flores
together with 20 other whose identities are still unknown enter the
privately-owned land of Felicitacion Pujalte. Inside the privately-owned
land they illegally cut, gather, take, steal and carry away without consent of
the owner and without any authority under a license agreement, lease
license or permit, 60 logs of different species consisting of about 541.48
cubic.

On March 23, 1977, the named accused filed a motion to

quash the information on two (2) grounds, to wit: (1) that the facts
charged do not , constitute an offense; and, (2) that the
informationdoes not conform substantially to the prescribed form. The
Trial court dismissed the information on thegrounds invoked and the
reconsideration sought was denied.Hence this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the information charged an offense.
Held:
The information substantially alleged all the elements of the crime of
qualified theft of logs as described in Section 68 of P.D. 705.
Ratio:
While it was admitted that the information did not precisely allege
that the taking of the logs in question was "without the consent of the
state," nevertheless, said information expressly stated that the accused
"illegally cut, gather, take, steal and carry away therefrom, without the
consent of said owner and without any authority under a license agreement,
lease, lease, license or permit, sixty (60) logs of different species." Since
only the state can grant the lease, license, license agreement or permit for
utilization of forest resources, including timber, then the allegation in the
information that the asportation of the logs was "without any authority"
under a license agreement, lease, license or permit, is tantamount to
alleging that the taking of the logs was without the consent of the state.
While it is only the state which can grant a license or authority to cut,
gather, collect or remove forest products it does not follow that all forest
products belong to the state. In the just cited case, private ownership of
forest products grown in private lands is retained under the principle in
civil law that ownership of the land includes everything found on its
surface.
Ownership is not an essential element of the offense as defined in
Section 60 of P.D. No. 705. Thus, the failure of the information to allege the
true owner of the forest products is not material; it was sufficient that it
alleged that the taking was without any authority or license from the
government.

(11) People vs. Que

G.R. No. 120365, December 17, 1996

Facts:
A member of the Provincial Task Force on Illegal Logging received a
reliable information that a ten-wheeler truck bearing plate number PAD548 loaded with illegal lumber would pass through Ilocos Norte. Two weeks
later, while members of the Provincial Task Force were patrolling along
General Segundo Avenue, they saw the ten-wheeler truck described by the
informant. When they apprehended it at the Marcos Bridge, Que, the owner
of the truck and the cargo, admitted that there were sawn lumber in
between the coconut slabs. When the police officers asked for the lumber's
supporting documents, accused-appellant could not present any. Que was
charged of and convicted for violation of Sec. 68 of PD 705 for possession of
illegally cut lumbers.
Ques contention: He argues that he cannot be convicted for violation of
Section 68 of P.D. 705 because E.O. 277 which amended Section 68 to
penalize the possession of timber or other forest products without the
proper legal documents did not indicate the particular documents
necessary to make the possession legal. Neither did the other forest laws
and regulations existing at the time
of its enactment. He also contended that the lumbers were fruits of an
illegal search and seizure and of an uncounselled extrajudicial admission.
Issue:
Whether he violated Sec. 68 pf PD 705.
Held:
Que was held guilty and sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua.
Ratio:
SC reject appellant's argument that the law only penalizes possession of
illegal forest products and that the possessor cannot be held liable if he
proves that the cutting, gathering, collecting or removal of such forest
products is legal. There are two (2) distinct and separate offenses punished
under Section 68 of P.D. 705, to wit:
(1) Cutting, gathering, collecting and removing timber or other forest
products from any forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable
public land, or from private land without any authority; and
(2) Possession of timber or other forest products without the legal
documents required under existing forest laws and regulations. In the first
offense, one can raise as a defense the legality of the acts of
cutting, gathering, collecting or removing timber or other forest products
by presenting the authorization issued by the DENR. In the second offense,
however, it is immaterial whether the cutting, gathering, collecting and
removal of the forest products is legal or not. Mere possession of forest
products without the proper documents consummates the crime. Whether
or not the lumber comes from a legal source is immaterial because E.O 277
considers the mere possession of timber or other forest products without
the proper legal documents as malum prohibitum. The constitutional
proscription against warrantless searches and seizures admits of certain

exceptions. Aside from a search incident to a lawful arrest, a warrantless

search had been upheld in cases of moving vehicles,
and the seizure of evidence in plain view. With regard to the search of
moving vehicles, this had been justified on the ground that the mobility of
motor vehicles makes it possible for the vehicle to be searched to move out
of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.

(12) ROLDAN, JR. vs. HON. MADRONA

G.R. No. 152989
September 4, 2002
FACTS: Petitioner is the owner of a parcel of land consisting of about
60,000 square meters covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. TP-331
which he bought from a certain Ildefonso O. Maglasang. 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. 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 petitioner's place, allegedly
without a search warrant. An inventory of the cut trees was conducted. The
logs were not confiscated but were entrusted to a barangay kagawad since
there was allegedly no search warrant at that time. Several days thereafter,
the CENRO group and ISAFP returned, this time armed with a search
warrant and proceeded to confiscate 872 pieces of sawn lumber/flitches
(8,506 board feet) and three felled timber logs with a total market value of
P235,454.68 at P27.00 per board foot. Consequently, on September 21,
2001, a complaint for violation of Section 68 of PD 705 as amended was
filed against herein petitioner by CENRO before the City Prosecutor of
Ormoc City.
ISSUE :
(1) whether the owner of a private land, the petitioner in this case, is
criminally liable under Section 68 of PD 705 for cutting trees within his
own property;
Held:
YES, he is still liable.
Ratio:

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.
Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code were referred to only for the
purpose of determining the imposable penalties and not to define acts
which constitute qualified theft. Section 68 of PD 705, as amended by E.O.
277, otherwise known as the Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines
provides: SEC. 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 from private land, without any
authority, or possess timber or other forest products without the legal
documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations, shall be
punished with the penalties imposed under Articles 309 and 310 of the
Revised Penal Code:Provided, That in 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 the Commission 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)
The said law does not even distinguish whether or not the person who
commits the punishable acts under the aforementioned law is the owner of
the property, for what is material in determining the culpability of a person
is whether or not the person or entity involved or charged with its violation
POSSESSES THE REQUIRED PERMIT, LICENSE OR AUTHORIZATION
FROM DENR at the time he or it cuts, gathers or collects timber or other
forest products. (2) whether the owner of the private property is
dministratively liable under Sec. 14 of DENR Administrative Order No.
2000-21 despite the fact that he did not transport the logs out of his
property and just used them for his own agricultural purposes therein and
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. As to the defense of petitioner that he never transported the logs out of
his property, suffice it to say that such is a factual issue which this Court
under Rule 45 cannot determine. We are limited to resolving questions of
law. 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. DENR Officials found issuing defective certificate of origin and
other transport documents required in this Order shall be subject to
suspension without prejudice to the imposition of other penalties as may be
warranted by extant Civil Service Laws, rules and regulations. (3) whether

the logs confiscated by the DENR should be returned to the petitioner

considering that the same were not transported out and merely used for his
own agricultural purposes. any pronouncement thereon at this point would
be premature as the guilt of the petitioner has not been legally established.