NATRES 2nd Set of Case Digest
NATRES 2nd Set of Case Digest
NATRES 2nd Set of Case Digest
115634
FELIPE CALUB and RICARDO VALENCIA, DEPARTMENT
of ENVIRONMENT and NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR),
CATBALOGAN, SAMAR vs. COURT OF APPEALS,
MANUELA T. BABALCON, and CONSTANCIO ABUGANDA
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 (2) motor vehicles
wherein Constancio Abuganda and Pio Gabon, 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.
Petitioner, Felipe Calub, Provincial Environment and
Natural Resources Officer, then filed a criminal complaint
against Abuganda, for violation of Section 68 of PD 705 as
amended by Executive Order 277, (Revised Forestry Code).
Lower court ruled in favor of accused, and even granted
recovery of possession to them via replevin.
Upon petitioners appeal, the Court of Appeals denied
said petition, stating that the mere seizure of a motor vehicle
pursuant to the authority granted by Section 68of P.D. No.
705 as amended by E.O. No. 277 does not automatically
place said conveyance in custodia legis. According to the
appellate court, such authority of the Department Head of
the DENR or his duly authorized representative to order the
confiscation and disposition of illegally obtained forest
products and the conveyance used for that purpose is not
absolute and unqualified. It is subject to pertinent laws,
regulations, or policies on that matter, added the appellate
court.
The DENR Administrative Order No. 59, series of 1990,
is one such regulation, the appellate court said. Additionally,
respondent CA noted that the petitioners failed to observe
the procedure outlined in DENR Administrative Order No. 59,
series of1990. They were unable to submit a report of the
seizure to the DENR Secretary, to give a written notice to the
owner of the vehicle, and to render a report of their findings
and recommendation to the Secretary. Moreover, petitioners
failure to comply with the procedure laid down by DENR
Administrative Order No. 59, series of1990, was confirmed
RULING:
First. 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 as stated in BFD
Circular No. 10-83where it expressly states that the issuance
of a separate certificate of origin for lumber is required in
order to "pinpoint accountability and responsibility for
shipment of lumber . . . and to have uniformity in
documenting the origin thereof.
"The contention that the term timber includes lumber
has no, merit. The statement in Mustang Lumber that lumber
is merely processed timber and, therefore, the word "timber"
embraces lumber, was made in answer to the lower court's
ruling in that case that the phrase "possess timber or other
forest products" in 68 of P.D. No. 705means that only those
who possess timber and forest products without the
documents required by law are criminally liable, while those
who possess lumber are not liable. Indeed, different
certificates of origin are required for timber, lumber and nontimber forest products.
Second. Even assuming that a Certificate of Timber
Origin could serve as a substitute for Certificate of Lumber
Origin, the trial court and the Court of Appeals were justified
in convicting petitioner, considering the numerous
irregularities and defects found in the documents presented
by the latter. These 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.
It is argued that the irregularities in the documentary
exhibits should not be taken against petitioner. This
contention is untenable. What render these documents
without legal effect are the patent irregularities found on
their faces. That petitioner may not have any responsibility
for such irregularity is immaterial. In any case, as the
corporate officer in charge of the purchase of the lumber,
petitioner should have noticed such obvious irregularities,
and he should have taken steps to have them corrected. He
cannot now feign ignorance and assert that, as far as he is
concerned, the documents are regular and complete.
The presence of such glaring irregularities negates the
presumption that the CTOs were regularly executed by the
ISSUE:
Whether or not 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.
GR 79538
FELIPE YSMAEL, JR. & CO., INC. vs. THE
DEPUTY EXECUTIVESECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES,THE
DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF FOREST DEVELOPMENT
and TWIN PEAKSDEVELOPMENT AND REALTY
CORPORATION
October 18, 1990
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 orders topping 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 reawarded 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.
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.
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.
GR 152160
VIRGILIO BON vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
January 13, 2004
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
accusatory portion of which reads as follows:
That sometime in the month of January or February,
1990, at Barangay Basud, Municipality of Sorsogon, Province
of Sorsogon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and
there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another, 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.
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 or by Community 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,
Rule126 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
is that 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 or not Judge Tamin properly issued the search
warrant against Chu?
RULING:
The Supreme Court held that Judge Tamin is grossly
ignorant of the law and ordered to pay P5,000.00 fine.
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
GR 101083
G.R. No.152989
ROLDAN, JR. vs. HON. MADRONA, et al.
September 4, 2002
FACTS:
Madrona is an owner of a parcel of land that is about
60,000 square meters. In 2009, Madrona applied for a
Private land transfer permit for him to be able to create a
road and a poultry farm in his property. He was then
informed that he can proceed with the cutting of the trees
even while his application was still pending.
After 3 weeks, representatives of CENRO raided his
property without a search warrant and the woods were
confiscated and were turned over to a barangay kagawad.
After a few days, CENRO returned with a search warrant and
confiscated the logs. Petitioner filed a case against CENRO,
however, he was then prosecuted for finding a probable
cause for violation of PD 705 Section68.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the owner of a private property can be
prosecuted for violating Sec 68 of PD705 for cutting trees
within his own property?
RULING:
Yes, the owner of a private property can be prosecuted
for violating Sec 68 of PD705 for cutting trees within his own
property. Sec 68 of PD 705 has stated that Any person who
Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.
Alternative Proxies: