GALO MONGE - versus - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

FACTS:

1. In July 1994, petitioner and Potencio were found by barangay tanods Serdan and Molina in possession of and
transporting three (3) pieces of mahogany lumber in Barangay Santo Domingo, Iriga City. Right there and then,
the tanods demanded that they be shown the requisite permit and/or authority from the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) but neither petitioner nor Potencio was able to produce any.
2. The DENR-CENRO issued a seizure receipt for the three pieces of lumber indicating that the items, totaling 77 board
feet of mahogany valued at P1,925.00, had been seized from Potencio.
3. An information was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City, Branch 35 charging petitioner and Potencio with
violation of Section 68 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 705, as amended by Executive Order (E.O.) No. 277, series of
1997.
4. Trial ensued. On 16 January 1998, Potencio was discharged to be used as a state witness on motion of the
prosecutor. Accordingly, he testified on the circumstances of the arrest but claimed that for a promised fee he was
merely requested by petitioner, the owner of the log, to assist him in hauling the same down from the
mountain. Potencio’s testimony was materially corroborated by Molina.
5. Petitioner did not contest the allegations, except that it was not he but Potencio who owned the lumber. He
lamented that contrary to what Potencio had stated in court, it was the latter who hired him to bring the log from
the site to the sawmill where the same was to be sawn into pieces.
6. The trial court found petitioner guilty as charged.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner is guilty for violation of Section 68 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 705, as amended
by Executive Order (E.O.) No. 277, series of 1997.

HELD:

1. Yes. Petitioner and Potencio were caught in flagrante delicto transporting, and thus in possession of, processed
mahogany lumber without proper authority from the DENR. Petitioner has never denied this fact. But in his attempt
to exonerate himself from liability, he claims that it was Potencio, the owner of the lumber, who requested his
assistance in hauling the log down from the mountain and in transporting the same to the sawmill for
processing. The contention is unavailing.
2. Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended by E.O. No. 277,
criminalizes two distinct and separate offenses, namely: (a) the cutting, gathering, collecting and removing of
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 (b) the possession of timber or other forest products without the legal
documents required under existing laws and regulation.
3. DENR Administrative Order No. 59 series of 1993 specifies the documents required for the transport of timber and
other forest products. Section 3 thereof materially requires that the transport of lumber be accompanied by a
certificate of lumber origin duly issued by the DENR-CENRO. In the first offense, the legality of the acts of cutting,
gathering, collecting or removing timber or other forest products may be proven by the authorization duly issued by
the DENR. In the second offense, however, it is immaterial whether or not the cutting, gathering, collecting and
removal of forest products are legal precisely because mere possession of forest products without the requisite
documents consummates the crime
4. It is thus clear that the fact of possession by petitioner and Potencio of the subject mahogany lumber and their
subsequent failure to produce the requisite legal documents, taken together, has already given rise to criminal
liability under Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, particularly the second act punished thereunder.
5. Petitioner cannot take refuge in his denial of ownership over the pieces of lumber found in his possession nor in his
claim that his help was merely solicited by Potencio to provide the latter assistance in transporting the said
lumber. P.D. No. 705 is a special penal statute that punishes acts essentially malum prohibitum.
6. As such, in prosecutions under its provisions, claims of good faith are by no means reliable as defenses because the
offense is complete and criminal liability attaches once the prohibited acts are committed. Mere possession of
timber or other forest products without the proper legal documents, even absent malice or criminal intent, is illegalIt
would therefore make no difference at all whether it was petitioner himself or Potencio who owned the subject
pieces of lumber.
RODOLFO TIGOY versus COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

FACTS:

1. On August 3, 1993, Nestor Ong, who had been engaged in the trucking business in Iligan City since 1986, was
allegedly introduced by his friend Gamad Muntod to Lolong Bertodazo who signified his intent to rent the trucks of
Ong to transport construction materials from Larapan, Lanao del Norte to Dipolog City.
2. In the evening of October 3, 1993, Ong allegedly ordered Nestor Sumagang and petitioner Rodolfo Tigoy who had
been employed by him as truck drivers for two (2) years and ten (10) years, respectively, to bring the two trucks to
Lolong Bertodazo in Larapan, Lanao del Norte which is about fifteen (15) minutes away from Iligan City. He
instructed the two drivers to leave the trucks in Larapan for the loading of the construction materials by Lolong
Bertodazo, and to go back at dawn for the trip to Dipolog City. Thus, after meeting with Bertodazo, Sumagang and
petitioner Tigoy allegedly went home to return to Larapan at four oclock in the morning the next day. When they
arrived, the trucks had been laden with bags of cement and were half-covered
3. That same morning of October 4, 1993, Senior Inspector Rico Lacay Tome (then Deputy Chief of Police of Ozamis
City) received a dispatch from the 466th PNP Company situated at Barangay Bongbong, Ozamis City, informing
him that two trucks, a blue and green loaded with cement, that were going towards Ozamis City did not stop at
the checkpoint. Upon receiving the report, Tome, along with PO2 Peter Paul Nuqui and PO3 Bienvenido Real,
boarded their patrol vehicle, a mini cruiser jeep, to intercept the two trucks at Lilian Terminal, Ozamis City
4. At the Lilian Terminal, PO2 Nuqui, flagged down the two trucks but the same just sped away and proceeded
towards the direction of Oroquieta City. Aboard their patrol vehicle, they chased the trucks and overtook the same
at Barangay Manabay. They blocked the road with their vehicle causing the two trucks to stop. He asked the driver
who had alighted from the green truck why he did not stop at the checkpoint but the latter did not answer. When
he inquired what was loaded in the truck, the driver replied that there is S.O.P, which means grease money in street
parlance.
5. This raised the suspicion of Tome that the trucks were loaded with hot items.Upon inspection, the police officers
discovered piles of sawn lumber beneath the cement bags in both trucks. Tome inquired if the drivers had a permit
for the lumber but the latter could not produce any. The drivers were brought and turned over to the investigator at
the City Hall in Ozamis City. Consequently, the lumber and the vehicles were seized upon the order of the DENR
Regional Executive Director.[
6. On October 6, 1993, an Information was filed against Nestor Ong, Sumagang, Lolong Bertodazo and petitioner
Tigoy for possession of forest products without legal permit.The Regional Trial Court then rendered its Decision
finding accused Nestor Ong and Rodolfo Tigoy GUILTY of possession of dipterocarp lumber without the legal
documents as required by existing laws and regulations.
7. On March 24, 2000, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a Motion for Reconsideration praying for his acquittal
but the same was denied on August 23, 2000.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner Tigoy is guilty of conspiracy in possessing or transporting lumber without the necessary
permit in violation of the Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines.

HELD:

1. Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended by E.O. No. 277, otherwise known as the Revised Forestry Code of the
Philippines, provides:
Section 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. . . .
2. There are two ways of violating Section 68 of the above Code: 1) by cutting, gathering and/or collecting timber or
other forest products without a license; and, 2) by possessing timber or other forest products without the required
legal documents.
3. The evidence of the prosecution established that the two drivers of accused Ong refused to stop at a checkpoint,
a fact admitted by both in their affidavit Likewise, the two drivers refused to stop on the national highway near a
bus terminal when required by a uniformed policeman. When finally accosted, one of the drivers, whom witness
Tome identified as the driver of the green truck, Sumagang, but who actually was Tigoy (as he was the driver of the
green truck and who came to the road block first, being the lead driver) offered S.O.P. which to witness Tome
meant that the trucks were carrying hot items.
4. In offenses considered as mala prohibita or when the doing of an act is prohibited by a special law such as in the
present case, the commission of the prohibited act is the crime itself. It is sufficient that the offender has the intent
to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law, and that it is done knowingly and consciously.
5. Direct proof of previous agreement to commit an offense is not necessary to prove conspiracy. Conspiracy may be
proven by circumstantial evidence. It may be deduced from the mode, method and manner by which the offense
is perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused when such acts point to a joint purpose and design,
concerted action and community of interest. It is not even required that the participants have an agreement for an
appreciable period to commence it.
6. Petitioners actions adequately show that he intentionally participated in the commission of the offense for which he
had been charged and found guilty by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals.
 PERFECTO PALLADA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

FACTS:
1. 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.
2. DENR officers, assisted by the Philippine National Police, raided the company's warehouse in Poblacion, Valencia
on the strength of a warrant issued by the Regional Trial Court of Bukidnon 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. What is more, the pieces of lumber were cut by chain saw and thus could not
have come from a licensed sawmill operator.
3. The team made an inventory of the seized lumber which, all in all, constituted 29,299.25 board feet, worth
P488,334.45 in total. 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 but the motion was denied. Accordingly, the
remaining lumber was confiscated. By October 9, 1992, all the lumber in the warehouse had been seized.
4. On February 23, 1993, petitioners were charged with violation of 68 of P.D .No. 705, as amended. Judgment is
hereby rendered finding accused Perfecto Pallada and Francisco Tankiko guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
having in their possession timber products worth of P488,334.45 without the legal documents as charged in the
information in violation of Section 68 of Presidential Decree 705, as amended.
5. Petitioner and Francisco Tankiko appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, on October 31, 1997, affirmed
petitioner's conviction but acquitted Tankiko for lack of proof of his participation in the purchase or acquisition of
the seized lumber.

ISSUE:
Whether or not separate certificates of origin should be issued for lumber and timber.

HELD:
1. YES. 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. 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. In
support of his contention, petitioner invokes our ruling in Mustang Lumber, Inc. v. Court of Appeals.
2. 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. 705 means 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.
3. Indeed, different certificates of origin are required for timber, lumber and non-timber forest products. As already
noted, the opening paragraph of BFD Circular No. 10-83 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."
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. WILSON B. QUE

FACTS:

1. SPO1 Dexter Corpuz, a member of the Provincial Task Force on Illegal Logging, received an information that a ten-
wheeler truck bearing plate number PAD-548 loaded with illegally cut lumber will pass through Ilocos Norte. Acting
on said information, members of the Provincial Task Force went on patrol several times within the vicinity of General
Segundo Avenue in Laoag City.
2. On March 8, 1994, SPO1 Corpuz, together with SPO1 Zaldy Asuncion and SPO1 Elmer Patoc went on patrol around
the area, they saw a ten-wheeler truck with plate number PAD-548 pass by, they followed the truck and
apprehended it at the Marcos Bridge. SPO1 Corpuz checked the cargo and found that it contained coconut slabs.
When interviewed, accused-appellant told SPO1 Corpuz that there were sawn lumber inserted in between the
coconut slabs.
3. SPO1 Corpuz asked accused-appellant for the Cargos supporting documents, specifically: (1) certificate of lumber
origin, (2) certificate of transport agreement, (3) auxiliary invoice, (4) receipt from the DENR, and (5) certification
from the forest ranger regarding the origin of the coconut slabs. Accused-appellant failed to present any of these
documents. All he could show was a certification from the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office
(CENRO), Sanchez Mira, Cagayan that he legally acquired the coconut slabs. The certification was issued to
facilitate transport of the slabs from Sanchez Mira, Cagayan to San Vicente, Urdaneta, Pangasinan.
4. On June 23, 1994, accused-appellant was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Laoag with violation of
Section 68 of P.D. 705 as amended by E.O. 277. Accused-appellant denied the charge against him. He claimed
that he acquired the 258 pieces of tanguile lumber from a legal source. During the trial, he presented the private
land timber permits (PLTP) issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
5. The PLTP authorizes its holder to cut, gather and dispose timber from the forest area covered by the permit. He
alleged that the tanguile lumber came from the forest area covered by th PLTPs of Cayosa and Sabal and that
they were given to him by Cayosa and Sabal as payment for his hauling services.
6. The trial court found accused-appellant guilty and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. It also ordered the
confiscation of the seized lumber and the ten-wheeler truck owned by accused-appellant.

ISSUE:

Whether or not appellanr is guilty of violation of Section 68 of P.D 705, as amended by E.O No. 277.

HELD:

1. Significantly, at the time the accused was apprehended by the police offices, he readily showed documents to
justify his possession of the coconut slabs. Thus, he showed a certification issued by Remigio B. Rosario, Forest
Ranger, of the DENR, CENRO, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan and a xerox copy of the original certificate of title covering
the parcel of land where the coconut slabs were cut.
2. This certification is being issued upon the request of Mr. Wilson Que for the purpose of facilitating the transportation
of said coconut slabs from Sanchez Mira, Cagayan to San Vicente, Urdaneta, Pangasinan and is valid up to March
11, 1994 or upon discharge of its cargoes at its final destination, whichever comes first.
3. It is crystal clear, therefore, that the accused was given permit by the DENR to transport one (1) truckload of
coconut slabs only between March 7 to 11, 1994. The accused was apprehended on March 8, 1994 aboard his
truck bearing plate number PAD-548 which was loaded not only with coconut slabs but with chainsawn lumber as
well. Admittedly, the lumber could not be seen from the outside. The lumbers were placed in the middle and not
visible unless the coconut slabs which were placed on the top, sides and rear of the truck were removed.
4. Under these circumstances, the Court has no doubt that the accused was very much aware that he needed
documents to possess and transport the lumber (b)ut could not secure one and, therefore, concealed the lumber
by placing the same in such a manner that they could not be seen by police authorities by merely looking at the
cargo. Accused-appellant’s possession of the subject lumber without any documentation clearly constitutes an
offense under Section 68 of P.D. 705.
5. The court also reject appellants 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.
LT. GEN. ALFONSO P. DAGUDAG (Ret) vs. JUDGE MAXIMO G.W. PADERANGA

FACTS:

1. On or about 30 January 2005, the Region VII Philippine National Police Regional Maritime Group (PNPRMG)
received information that MV General Ricarte of NMC Container Lines, Inc. was shipping container vans containing
illegal forest products from Cagayan de Oro to Cebu. The shipments were falsely declared as cassava meal and
corn grains to avoid inspection by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
2. On 31 January 2005, a team composed of representatives from the PNPRMG, DENR, and the Philippine Coast
Guard inspected the container vans at a port in Mandaue City, Cebu. The team discovered the undocumented
forest products and the names of the shippers and consignees. The crew of MV General Ricarte failed to produce
the certificate of origin forms and other pertinent transport documents covering the forest products, as required by
DENR Administrative Order No. 07-94. Gen. Dagudag alleged that, since nobody claimed the forest products within
a reasonable period of time, the DENR considered them as abandoned and, on 31 January 2005, the Provincial
Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) Officer-in-Charge (OIC), Richard N. Abella, issued a seizure
receipt to NMC Container Lines, Inc.
3. On 2, 9, and 15 February 2005, DENR Forest Protection Officer Lucio S. Canete, Jr. posted notices on the CENRO and
PENRO bulletin boards and at the NMC Container Lines, Inc. building informing the unknown owner about the
administrative adjudication scheduled on 18 February 2005 at the Cebu City CENRO. Nobody appeared during the
adjudication. In a resolution dated 10 March 2005, Rivac, acting as adjudication officer, recommended to DENR
Regional Executive Director Clarence L. Baguilat that the forest products be confiscated in favor of the
government.
4. In a complaint dated 16 March 2005 and filed before Judge Paderanga, a certain Roger C. Edma (Edma) prayed
that a writ of replevin be issued ordering the defendants DENR, CENRO, Gen. Dagudag, and others to deliver the
forest products to him and that judgment be rendered ordering the defendants to pay him moral damages,
attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses. On 29 March 2005, Judge Paderanga issued a writ of replevin ordering
Sheriff Reynaldo L. Salceda to take possession of the forest products, however, the defendants DENR, CENRO, and
Gen. Dagudag prayed that the writ of replevin be set aside.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the issuance of writ of Replevin is proper.

HELD:

1. No. The DENR is the agency responsible for the enforcement of forestry laws. Section 4 of Executive Order No. 192
states that the DENR shall be the primary agency responsible for the conservation, management, development,
and proper use of the country’s natural resources.
2. Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705, as amended by Executive Order No. 277, states that possessing forest
products without the required legal documents is punishable. Section 68-A states that the DENR Secretary or his duly
authorized representatives may order the confiscation of any forest product illegally cut, gathered, removed,
possessed, or abandoned.
3. In the instant case, the forest products were possessed by NMC Container Lines, Inc. without the required legal
documents and were abandoned by the unknown owner. Consequently, the DENR seized the forest products.
Judge Paderanga should have dismissed the replevin suit outright for three reasons. First, under the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies, courts cannot take cognizance of cases pending before administrative
agencies.
4. In Factoran, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that: The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is
basic. Courts, for reasons of law, comity and convenience, should not entertain suits unless the available
administrative remedies have first been resorted to and the proper authorities have been given an appropriate
opportunity to act and correct their alleged errors, if any, committed in the administrative forum.
5. In the instant case, Edma did not resort to, or avail of, any administrative remedy. He went straight to court and
filed a complaint for replevin and damages. Section 8 of Presidential Decree No. 705, as amended, states that (1)
all actions and decisions of the Bureau of Forest Development Director are subject to review by the DENR Secretary;
(2) the decisions of the DENR Secretary are appealable to the President; and (3) courts cannot review the decisions
of the DENR Secretary except through a special civil action for certiorari or prohibition. In Dy, the Court held that all
actions seeking to recover forest products in the custody of the DENR shall be directed to that agency — not the
courts. In Paat, the Court held that: Dismissal of the replevin suit for lack of cause of action in view of the private
respondents’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies should have been the proper course of action by the lower
court instead of assuming jurisdiction over the case and consequently issuing the writ [of replevin]. Exhaustion of the
remedies in the administrative forum, being a condition precedent prior to one’s recourse to the courts and more
importantly, being an element of private respondents’ right of action, is too significant to be waylaid by the lower
court.