Supreme Court Decisions

PD 705

Atty. Ismael T. Manaligod

Chief Legal Division
DENR Region 2
QUESTION:

Your CENRO instructed you to supervise the

cutting of trees in an area where a permit to cut
was issued. The permit only authorized the
cutting of 10 trees. The permitee cut 20. Are you
liable for violation of Section 77 (previously
Section 68) of PD 705?
Aquino vs. People of the Philippines
July 27, 2009

FACTS

On May 19, 1993, RED Batcagan (CAR) issued a permit allowing the cutting of 14 dead
Benguet Pine trees within the Teacher’s Camp in Baguio City. On July 23, 1993, some of
the forest rangers proceeded at the teacher’s camp because they received information
that pine trees were being cut without proper authority. There they found petitioner FRs
Ernesto Aquino and Michael Cuteng who were supervising the cutting of the trees. The
forest rangers found that the trees cut exceeded the number of trees allowed by the
permit.

ISSUE

IS AQUINO GUILTY OF VIOLATING PD 705?

Aquino vs. People of the Philippines
July 27, 2009

RULING

NO. He was not the one who cut, gathered or collected. He

merely supervised. Also, he was not in possession of the cut
trees because the lumber was used by the Teacher’s camp for
repairs. His liability, may be, at best, purely administrative
QUESTIONS:

1. Can a person be held liable for cutting trees

in a private lot?

2. Can a private individual file a case of

violation of PD 705?
Merida v. People of the Philippines
June 12, 2008
FACTS

Tansiongco discovered that Sesinando Merida cut a narra tree in his private land, the
Mayod Property. Tansiongco reported the matter to the punong barangay who
summoned petitioner to a meeting. During that meeting, Merida made extrajudicial
admissions that he did cut the tree but claimed that he did so with the permission of
Vicar Calix, who, he alleges, bought the Mayod Property from Tansiongco.
Tansiongco again reported the matter, this time with the DENR. Merida made the same
extrajudicial admissions.

Tansiongco filed a complaint with the Provincial Prosecutor charging Merida with
violation of Section 68 of PD No. 705. The Prosecutor found probable cause and filed the
information with the trial court. The trial court found Merida guilty as charged. The
Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Merida v. People of the Philippines
June 12, 2008

ISSUES

(1) Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the case
considering that it was filed by a private individual and not
by a DENR forest officer.

(2) Whether Merida is guilty of violating Section 68 of PD No.

705
Merida v. People of the Philippines
June 12, 2008
RULING

(1) Yes. The trial court acquired jurisdiction.

According to the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the list of cases which must be
initiated by the complainant does not include cases concerning Section 68 of PD No. 705.
Moreover, “Section 80 of PD No. 705 does not prohibit an interested person from filing a
complaint before any qualified officer for violation of Section 68 of PD No. 705, as amended.”

(2) Yes. Merida is guilty of violating Section 68 of PD No. 705.

Merida constantly represented to the authorities that he cut a narra tree in the Mayod Property.
Therefore, his extrajudicial admissions are binding on him.

QUESTION TO ED: DAO 90-79 – lifting the ban on cutting in title property except premium
species still applicable?
QUESTION:

Can a person be held liable for possession of

illegal forest products if he merely accompanied
the truck?
 Taopa v. People of the Philippines
November 25, 2008

FACTS

CENRO Virac apprehended a truck loaded with illegally-cut lumber and arrested its
driver. Upon investigation, the driver pointed to Amado Taopa and Rufino Ogalesco
as the owners of the seized lumber. Subsequently, Taopa and Ogalesco were charged
with violating Section 68 of PD No. 705. The trial court convicted all of them of the
charge but only Taopa and the driver appealed the conviction.

DEFENSE OF TAOPA : “the prosecution failed to prove that he was one of the owners
of the seized lumber as he was not in the truck when the lumber was seized.”
Taopa v. People of the Philippines
November 25, 2008

RULING

Taopa is guilty because he had constructive possession of the forest

products. The truck was loaded with the cargo in front of Taopa’s
house and that Taopa and Ogalesco were accompanying the truck
driven by [the driver] up to where the truck and lumber were seized.
These facts proved Taopa’s (and Ogalesco’s) exercise of dominion and
control over the lumber loaded in the truck.
QUESTION:

If the owner of the apprehended lumber seized

by the DENR and conveyance presents to you a
release order from the prosecutor or the court,
will you release the same?
Calub v. Court of Appeals
April 27, 2000

FACTS

Two motor vehicles loaded with illegally-sourced lumber were

apprehended by the Forest Protection and Law Enforcement
Team (Team) of the DENR-CENRO. The drivers of the said motor
vehicles, Abuganda and Gabon, were unable to produce the
requisite permits or licenses. Thus, the Team seized the
vehicles together with the lumber.
Calub v. Court of Appeals
April 27, 2000

FACTS

Abuganda and Gabon refused to accept the seizure receipts.

Calub, the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources
Officer (PENRO) filed a criminal complaint against
Abuganda for violation of Section 68 of the Revised Forestry
Code. One of the vehicles, loaded with forest products, was
again later apprehended by the DENR-CENRO and the
Philippine Army. Calub filed another complaint against
Abuganda, a certain Abegonia, and several John Does for
violation of Section 68 of the Revised Forestry Code.
Calub v. Court of Appeals
April 27, 2000

FACTS

Babalcon, the vehicle owner, and Abuganda filed an application for

replevin to recover the impounded motor vehicles. This was granted by
the trial court. Petitioners Calub et al. filed a petition under Rule 65 with
an application for Preliminary Injunction and TRO against the Regional
Trial Court judge in the replevin case. The Supreme Court issued the TRO
and referred the petition to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals
denied the petition ruling that the seizure of the motor vehicles under the
authority of the Revised Forestry Code does not automatically place it
under custodia legis.
Calub v. Court of Appeals
April 27, 2000

RULING

Yes. The vehicles are in custodia legis. Under the Revised Forestry Code,
the DENR is authorized to seize all conveyances used in the commission of
an offense in violation of Section 78. Under this provision, mere
possession of forest products without the requisite legal documents is
unlawful. In this case, the motor vehicles loaded with forest products
were not accompanied with the necessary license or permit. “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.”
RELATED CASES

DENR VS DARAMAN (February 15, 2002,)

- A vehicle of Holy Cross Funeral Services was

apprehended by Forest Ranger loaded with lumber.
- DENR conducted ACP. RED Momongan confiscated
the lumber and the conveyance
- Daraman was acquitted. Vehicle owner did not
conspire. The court ordered the release of the
conveyance
RELATED CASES
DENR VS DARAMAN (February 15, 2002,)

RULING:
1. The guilt or the innocence of the accused in the criminal
case is immaterial, because what is punished under Section
68 is the transportation, movement or conveyance of forest
products without legal documents.

2. PD 705 takes out of the general jurisdiction of the regional

trial courts the confiscation of conveyances used in violation
of forestry laws.
 RELATED CASES
FACTORAN VS. CA (December 13, 1999)

RULING:

The DENR is not compelled to criminally prosecute and can just confiscate lumber. The
Secretary’s authority to confiscate forest products under Section 68 of PD No. 705 is
“distinct from and independent of the confiscation of forest products in a criminal action
provided for in Section
68 of PD No. 705.” In a former case, the Court has held that “precisely because of the need
to make forestry laws ‘more responsive to present situations and realities’ and in view of
the ‘urgency of conserve
the remaining resources of the country,’ that the government opted to add Section 68-A.
QUESTIONS:

1. If the forest products were not presented in

court, can the accused be convicted?

2. Is the apprehended lumber the corpus delicti

(body of the crime) of violation of PD 705?

3. How can you prove the value of the lumber?

Villarin vs People
August 21, 2011

FACTS

On December 31, 1995 in Pagalungan CDO, Granada saw a PUJ loaded with timber
stop in his house, Driver Latayada and Boyatac accompanied by 4 others unloaded
timber near the Batinay Bridge.
 
            On January 13, 1996, Casenas, a radio and TV personality of RMN-TV8, took
footages of the timber hidden and covered by coconut leaves. Casenas also took
footages of more logs inside a bodega at the other side of the bridge.  In the
following evening, the footages were shown in a news program on television. On
the same day, members of the DENR Region 10 Strike Force Team measured the
timber and determined that it totaled 4,326 board feet.
Villarin vs People
August 21, 2011

FACTS

Upon further investigation, it was learned that the timber was requisitioned by
Villarin, who was then Barangay Captain of Pagulangan, Cagayan de Oro City.  Villarin
gave the specifications for the requisitioned timber.  Thereafter, Boyatac informed
Villarin that the timber was already delivered on December 31, 1995. In defense,
Villarin alleged that the Barangay Council authorized the repairt of the bridge. He was
merely pressured by the clamor of the people to make the bridge passable again.  
Villarin also alleged that the timber which was already used in the bridge was not
presented, hence, the corpus delicti of the crime was not presented.
Villarin vs People
August 21, 2011

RULING

1. Villarin was convicted.

2. The confiscated lumber is not the corpus delicti in illegal possession of

lumber. The act punished is the possession of forest products without
authority from the DENR

3. Value of the lumber must be proven as a fact. (in People vs Dator the
SC held that there should be proof independent of the DENR
valuation.
QUESTION:

May an LGU pass an ordinance requiring the

issuance of permit to possess/transport lumber
within its AOR?
Ruzol vs. Sandigan Bayan
April 17, 2013

- Ruzol, then mayor of Nakar, Quezon was charged of 221 counts of

Article 177 (Usurpation of Authority) for issuing Wood Recovery
Permits. Ruzol issued the same under authority of Section 16 RA 7160
(General Welfare Clause of the LGC)

- The SC ruled that DENR has no exclusive authority to issue the permit
as the LGC may issue such within its AOR.

- The authority should complement and not substitute the requirements

of the DENR
MABBALO!