Decision. DENR CASE No.

10129

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Environment and Natural Resources
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Visayas Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City

RE:
,
Appellant.
X--------------------------------------X

DENR Case No.

DECISION
(DRAFT)

Before this Office is an appeal from the Order of the

Department of Environment and Natural Resources – Cordillera
Administrative Region Office (DENR-CAR) dated 22 January 2020,
and another Order from the same Office dated 10 March 2020,
directing that the Thirty-three (33) pieces of Narra lumbers with a
total volume of 726.33 board feet and a Toyota Hi-Ace GL Grandia
Van with no plate number, color 2JL white pearl, with an engine and
chassis number 8 be confiscated in favor of the government.

The Facts

On July 22, 2019, at around 4:35 o’clock in the morning, a team

of the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office
(CENRO) personnel of stationed at spotted a suspicious 2JL white

Page 1 of 8
 Decision. DENR CASE No. 10129

pearl Toyota Hi-Ace Grandia without a plate number going towards

the direction of the monitoring station. The CENRO- team
immediately stood their post to flag down the said suspicious vehicle
but the said vehicle, instead of slowing down, increased its speed
moving towards the Santiago-Isabela road. The CENRO- team
immediately boarded their vehicle and motorcycles to chase the
speeding vehicle. The team were able to catch-up with the said
vehicle at and they tried to signal the driver to stop but the driver
ignored it. Instead, the driver speedily moved forward and in a
zigzag manner to block the CENRO-s team.

During the course of the hot pursuit, the team had the chance to
overtake the said vehicle. However, the vehicle veered off and
changed its direction going back to. The team also immediately
changed direction and continued to chase the vehicle until it
suddenly stopped and parked beside other vehicles in the residential
areas of C,. Thereafter, the team saw two (2) unidentified persons
jumped out of the vehicle and hastily ran towards the cornfields
leaving the vehicle with its lights on. The members of the CENRO-
team immediately secured the vehicle while the other members
searched the surrounding area to locate the two(2) unidentified
persons.

While securing the vehicle, the team observed that the

apprehended vehicle had no seats at the back and there was a strange
box-like object inside the vehicle. When the Philippine National
arrived at the apprehension site, the police officers opened the
vehicle and saw thirty-three (33) pieces of Narra lumbers having
different dimensions, a set of vehicle license plates bearing which
was found under the rubber mat on the passenger’s side of the
vehicle and a cherry mobile cellular phone.

On the same day, while loading the apprehended vehicle to the

flatbed truck of the Municipal government of, the owner of the
vehicle, herein arrived and inspected the vehicle. The apprehending
team explained to the Appellant the reason why his vehicle was
towed.

Thereafter, the hearing officer posted a notice of hearing on July

30, 2019, August 7, 2019 and August 14, 2019, respectively, for the
adjudication of the seized Narra lumber and the Toyota Hi-Ace
Grandia Van where said Narra lumber was found.

During the scheduled hearings, the driver of the vehicle never

appeared. On January 14, 2020, thru a Notice issued by the DENR-
CAR on December 19, 2019, herein Appellant submitted his position

Page 2 of 8
 Decision. DENR CASE No. 10129

paper and averred that he is leasing his white pearl Toyota Hi-Ace
Grandia since 2017 to different persons to cope up in paying the
mortgage of the said vehicle. He further argued that when rented his
vehicle, the Appellant did not know that his vehicle will be used by
Morales in transporting illegal Narra lumbers. According to the
Appellant, what he consented to was the transport of persons and not
goods. In fact, herein Appellant averred that he filed a criminal case
for Estafa against for the using the vehicle in a manner that was not
agreed upon. In short, Appellant alleges that lied to him. To prove
that he is the owner and is leasing his vehicle, Appellant attached to
his position paper a copy of the Certificate of Registration and
Official Receipt and his records showing that he is the owner thereof
and was leasing his vehicle, respectively.

After a series of hearings and the submission of the necessary

pleadings, the DENR-CAR, thru its Regional Executive Director, on
January 22, 2020, issued an Order directing the confiscation of the
Narra lumbers and the Toyota Hi-Ace Grandia van owned by the
Appellant in favor of the State. On February 18, 2020, the Appellant
filed a motion for reconsideration of the January 22, 2020 Order but
the DENR-CAR denied such motion in an Order dated March 10,
2020.

On July 20, 2020, the Appellant filed his appeal before this
Office seeking for the reversal of the Orders issued by the DENR-
CAR on January 22, 2020 and on March 10, 2020 and prayed for the
release of his vehicle.

Hence, this appeal.

The Issues

Upon a cursory review of the appeal and position paper of the

Appellant, the only issue raised is:

1. Whether or not the white pearl Toyota Hi-Ace GL Grandia,

bearing no plate number at the time of apprehension but with
an engine number and chassis number, owned by herein
Appellant and was used in transporting the undocumented
Narra lumber by a certain s, be confiscated in favor of the State.

Ruling

In the appeal and position paper filed by the Appellant before

this Office, he contends that the reliance of the DENR-CAR that the
filing of a criminal case for Estafa against by the Appellant is just an

Page 3 of 8
 Decision. DENR CASE No. 10129

afterthought is misplaced. In short, the filing of the criminal case

against is not within a reasonable period of time. He further contends
that the DENR-CAR fell short in appreciating his evidence to
controvert the presumption laid down under Paragraph 3 (b), Section
7 of DENR Administrative Order (DAO) no. 97-32.

The Appeal is meritorious.

It must be stressed that the Department of Natural Resources

has the discretion, after due notice and hearing to confiscate any
illegal lumber or any conveyance used in transporting an illegal
lumber. Paragraph c, Section 1 of DAO No. 97-32 states:

“CONFISCATION – Upon determination of guilt in

administrative proceedings outlined hereunder,
confiscation is the official act of the DENR declaring that
the items listed in Section 2 hereof become property of the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines.”

In relation thereto, Paragraph c, Section 2 of the DAO 97-32

states:

“CONVEYANCE – any mode or any type or class of

vehicle or craft or any other means used for
transportation either on land, water, air or any
combination thereof, whether motorized or not, used for
or in taking and/or maintaining temporary or permanent
possession or control, gathering, collecting, processing,
disposing of, or otherwise transporting, moving or
transferring illegal forest products.”

Basing from the above-cited rule, there is no question that the

DENR has the authority to confiscate any illegal forest products or
any conveyance used in transporting the same.

However, the confiscation of any conveyance allegedly used to

perpetrate the act must be based on evidence and reason.

I.

The Appellant contends that the reliance of the DENR-CAR that the
filing of a criminal case for Estafa against by the Appellant is just an
afterthought is misplaced.

The argument has merit.

Page 4 of 8
 Decision. DENR CASE No. 10129

The reason of DENR-CAR that the filing of a criminal case for

Estafa by, herein Appellant, against, the driver his vehicle, is just an
afterthought since it was filed after five (5) months, cannot be taken
or used against the Appellant because the filing of the criminal case is
well within the prescriptive period to file the said criminal case.

Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, it states:

“ART. 315. Swindling (estafa) – Any person who

shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned
hereinbelow shall be punished by:

1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its

maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum
period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but
does not exceed 22,000 pesos; and if such amount exceeds
the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph
shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one
year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty
which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years.
Xxx”

In relation to the above-cited provision of law, Article 90 of the

same Code provides the prescriptive period of filing a criminal case
for Estafa which states:

“ART. 90. Prescription of crimes – Xxx

Xxx xx

Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall

prescribe in ten years; with the exception of those
punishable by arresto mayor, which shall prescribe in
five years.”

Basing therefore from the above-cited provisions of law, the

filing of the criminal case for Estafa by the Appellant against is within
the reasonable time or period provided by law. Whatever the reasons
that the Appellant has why he filed the criminal case for Estafa after
five (5) months from the time he was allegedly swindled by cannot
be used against him. In fact, herein Appellant must be given the
benefit of the doubt for his effort to hold liable for his acts. The
Supreme Court, in the case of Sps. Bernadette and Rodulfo Vilbar v.
Angelito L. Opinion, G.R. No. 176043, January 15, 2014, ruled in this
wise:

Page 5 of 8
 Decision. DENR CASE No. 10129

“It is worth stressing at this point that bad faith cannot be

presumed. It is a question of fact that must be proven by
clear and convincing evidence. [T]he burden of proving
bad faith rests on the one alleging it.”

II.

The Appellant contend that the DENR-CAR fell short in

appreciating his evidence to controvert the presumption laid down
under Paragraph 3 (b), Section 7 of DAO No. 97-32.

The contention is meritorious.

Paragraph 3 (b), Section 7 of DAO No. 97-32 states:

“DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS – In
administrative proceedings conducted pursuant thereto,
the following shall be considered presumptions of fact
and/or law and taken as part of the evidence unless
specifically converted and successfully overcome by
preponderance of evidence:

(a) Xxx;

(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 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) Xxx.”

In relation to the above-cited rule, the Supreme Court, in

Theresita, Juan, Asuncion, Patrocinia, Ricardo, and Gloria, all
surnamed Dimaguila v. Jose and Sonia A. Monteiro, G.R. No. 201011,
January 27, 2014, defined preponderance of evidence as:

Page 6 of 8
 Decision. DENR CASE No. 10129

“Xxx preponderance of evidence, which is the weight,

credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side,
synonymous with the term “greater weight of the
evidence.” Preponderance of evidence is evidence which
is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than
that which is offered in opposition thereto. “
The presumption stated in Paragraph 3 (b), Section 7 of DAO
No. 97-32 was sufficiently controverted by the Appellant.

In this case, it is worthy to note, upon a cursory review of the

records, the Appellant, to rebut the presumption laid down by DAO
No. 97-32, alleged that he is leasing his white pearl Toyota Hi-Ace GL
Grandia by renting it to other persons and in support thereto,
submitted a list of those persons who rented his vehicle and on that
fateful day of July 22, 2019, the person who leased the vehicle was. It
is also worthy to note that the Appellant, on July 22, 2019, was not in
possession or in control of the subject vehicle. Further, he also
presented proof that he filed a criminal case for Estafa against s. The
DENR-CAR fell short in appreciating the evidence submitted by the
Appellant and the reasonable facts and circumstances that favors
him.

The totality of the documentary evidence and other facts and

circumstances supporting the claim of the Appellant is already of
great weight to rebut and controvert the disputable presumption
enunciated under Paragraph 3 (b), Section 7 of DAO No. 97-32. The
Supreme Court, in the case of Lolita Reyes doing business under the
name and style, Solid Brothers West Marketing vs. Century Canning
Corporation, G.R. No. 165377, February 16, 2010, stated the rationale
of preponderance of evidence in this wise:

“It does not mean absolute truth; rather, it means

that the testimony of one side is more believable than that
of the other side, and that the probability of truth is on
one side than on the other.”

As can be gleaned from the evidence submitted by the

Appellant, especially on the fact that he filed a criminal case for
Estafa against, the lessee of his van, and that fact that he is not in
possession of his vehicle on the date of apprehension as evinced by
the record or his list of the lessees of his vehicle, there is a strong
probability of truth as to allegations of the Appellant.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is granted. The second issue of the

Order of the DENR-CAR dated January 22, 2020 is hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The confiscation of the Narra lumbers
Page 7 of 8
 Decision. DENR CASE No. 10129

is sustained. However, the Toyota Hi-Ace GL Grandia Van with no

plate number, color 2JL white pearl, with an engine number
1KD2674335 and chassis number JTFRT13P1G8010388, owned by
the Appellant, is ORDERED RELEASED.

SO ORDERED.

Quezon City, Philippines, ___________________.

Director
Legal Affairs Service

Page 8 of 8