PICOP vs Base metals dec 6, 2006

DOCTRINE
The Presidential Warranty cannot, in any manner, be construed as a
contractual undertaking assuring PICOP of eclusi!e "ossession
and en#oyment of its concession areas$ %uch an inter"retation &ould result in
the com"lete abdication by the %tate in fa!or of PICOP of the so!ereign
"o&er to control and su"er!ise the e"loration, de!elo"ment and utili'ation
of the natural resources in the area$
()CT%* Central +indanao +ining and De!elo"ment Cor"oration entered into
a +ines O"erating )greement &ith ,anaha& +ining andDe!elo"ment
Cor"orationPursuant to the terms of the )greement, ,anaha& +ining -led
a""lications for +ining .ease Contracts o!er the mining claims &ith
the,ureau of +ines$ On )"ril /0, 1022, ,anaha& +ining &as issued a +ines
Tem"orary Permit authori'ing it to etract and dis"ose of "recious minerals
found &ithin its mining claims
%ince a "ortion of ,anaha& +ining3s mining claims &as located in "etitioner
PICOP3s logging concession in )gusan del %ur, ,anaha&+ining and "etitioner
PICOP entered into a +emorandum of )greement, &hereby, in mutual
recognition of each other3s right to the areaconcerned, "etitioner PICOP
allo&ed ,anaha& +ining an access4right of &ay to its mining
claims ,anaha& +ining thereafter con!erted its mining claims to a""lications
for +ineral Production %haring )greements$While the +P%) &ere "ending,
,anaha& +ining, on December 12, 1005, decided to sell4assign its rights and
interests o!er thirty6se!enmining claims in fa!or of "ri!ate res"ondent ,ase
+etals +ineral Resources Cor"oration 7,ase +etals for bre!ity8$ The transfer
includedmining claims held by ,anaha& +ining in its o&n right as claim
o&ner, as &ell as those co!ered by its mining o"erating agreement
&ithC++CI$9"on being informed of the de!elo"ment, C++CI, as claim
o&ner, immediately a""ro!ed the assignment made by ,anaha& +ining
infa!or of "ri!ate res"ondent ,ase +etals, thereby recogni'ing "ri!ate
res"ondent ,ase +etals as the ne& o"erator of its claimsOn No!ember 12,
100:, "etitioner PICOP -led &ith the +ines ;eo6%ciences ,ureau 7+;,8,
Caraga Regional O<ce No$ =III an)d!erse Claim and4or O""osition to "ri!ate
res"ondent ,ase +etals3 a""lication on the follo&ing grounds*
I$ T>E )PPRO?). O( T>E )PP.IC)TION )ND I%%9)NCE O( T>E +P%)
O( ,)%E +ET).% WI.. ?IO.)TE T>ECON%TIT9TION). +)ND)TE
);)IN%T I+P)IR+ENT O( O,.I;)TION IN ) CONTR)CT
The Court of )""eals u"held the decision of the +),, ruling that the
Presidential Warranty of %e"tember /@, 1052 issued by thenPresident
(erdinand E$ +arcos merely con-rmed the timber license granted to PICOP
and &arranted the latter3s "eaceful and adeAuate "ossession and en#oyment
of its concession areas$ It &as only gi!en u"on the reAuest of the ,oard of
In!estments to establish the boundaries of PICOP3s timber license
agreement$ The Presidential Warranty did not con!ert PICOP3s timber license
into a contract becauseit did not create any obligation on the "art of the
go!ernment in fa!or of PICOP$ Thus, the non6im"airment clause -nds no
a""lication$ Neither did the Presidential Warranty grant PICOP the eclusi!e
"ossession, occu"ation and e"loration of the concession areas co!ered$If
that &ere so, the go!ernment &ould ha!e eBecti!ely surrendered its "olice
"o&er to control and su"er!ise the e"loration, de!elo"mentand utili'ation
of the country3s natural resources$
I%%9E*&4n the im"airment of contracts a""lyC
>E.D No$The guaranty is merely a collateral inducement )n eamination of
the Presidential Warranty at once re!eals that it sim"ly reassures PICOP of
the go!ernment3s commitment to u"hold theterms and conditions of its
timber license and guarantees PICOP3s "eaceful and adeAuate "ossession
and en#oyment of the areas &hich arethe basic sources of ra& materials for
its &ood "rocessing com"le$ The &arranty co!ers only the right to cut,
collect, and remo!e timber in its concession area, and does not etend to the
utili'ation of other resources, such as mineral resources, occurring &ithin the
concession$The Presidential Warranty cannot, in any manner, be construed
as a contractual undertaking assuring PICOP of eclusi!e "ossession
anden#oyment of its concession areas$ %uch an inter"retation &ould result in
the com"lete abdication by the %tate in fa!or of PICOP of theso!ereign "o&er
to control and su"er!ise the e"loration, de!elo"ment and utili'ation of the
natural resources in the area$
Merida vs People june 12 2008
DOCTRINE
In Peo"le !$ +erida 7;$R$ No$ 1@212/, Dune 1/, /EE28, the %u"reme Court
ruled that cutting a tree in "ri!ate land for timber &ithout a "ermit from the
DENR &as "unishable under this "ro!ision$
()CT%* The go!ernment hailed Petitioner before the Regional Trial Court of
Romblon, Romblon, ,ranch 21 7trial court8 &ith !iolation of %ection52 of PD
:E@, as amended, for FcutGtingH, gatherGingH, collectGingH and remo!GingHF a
lone narra tree inside a "ri!ate land in +ayod, I"il,+agdi&ang, Romblon
7+ayod Pro"erty8 o!er &hich "ri!ate com"lainant Oscar +$ Tansiongco
7Tansiongco8 claims o&nershi"The RTC handed #udgment ra"idly$ In its
Decision dated /I No!ember /EEE, the trial court found "etitioner guilty as
charged, sentenced him to fourteen 71I8 years, eight 728 months and one 718
day to t&enty 7/E8 years of reclusion tem"oral and ordered the sei'ed
umber forfeited in Tansiongco3s fa!or$
G1/HThe trial court dismissed "etitioner3s defense of denial in !ie& of his
re"eated etra#udicial admissionsthat he cut the narra tree in the +ayod
Pro"erty &ith Cali3s "ermission$ With this -nding and "etitioner3s lack of
DENR "ermit to cut thetree, the trial court held "etitioner liable for !iolation
of %ection 52 of PD :E@, as amended$
I%%9E&4n sec /2 of PD :E@ "rohibiting the cutting gathering and collecting of
timber and other forest "roducts a""ly to Petitioner $
>E.D
Petitioner is .iable for Cutting Timber in Pri!ate Pro"erty Without Permit
%ection 52, as amended, one of the 1/ actsG/@H"enali'ed under PD :E@,
"ro!ides*%ECTION 52$
Cutting, ;athering and4or Collecting Timber, or Other (orest Products
Without .icense
$ JKL )ny "erson &ho shall cut ,gather, collect, remo!e timber or other forest
"roducts from any forest land, or timberfrom alienable or dis"osable "ublic
land, or from "ri!ate land, &ithout any authority, or "ossess timber or other
forest "roducts &ithout the legal documents as reAuired under eistingforest
la&s and regulations, shall be "unished &ith the "enalties im"osed under
)rticles ME0 and M1E of the Re!ised Penal Code* Pro!ided,That in the case of
"artnershi"s, associations, or cor"orations, the o<cers &ho ordered the
cutting, gathering, collection or "ossession shall be liable, and if such o<cers
are aliens, they shall, in addition to the "enalty, be de"orted &ithout further
"roceedings on the "art of the Commission on Immigration and
De"ortation$The court shall further order the con-scation in fa!or of the
go!ernment of the timber or any forest "roducts cut, gathered,
collected,remo!ed, or "ossessed as &ell as the machinery, eAui"ment,
im"lements and tools illegally used in the area &here the timber or
forest "roducts are found$ 7Em"hasis su""lied8 %ection 52 "enali'es three
categories of acts* 718 the cutting, gathering, collecting, or remo!ing of
timber or other forest "roducts from anyforest land &ithout any authorityN 7/8
thecutting, gathering, collecting, or remo!ing of timber from alienable or
dis"osable "ublic land, or from "ri!ate land &ithout any authorityNG/5Hand 7M8
the "ossession of timber or other forest "roducts &ithout the legal
documents
+omongan !s Dudge Omi"on
(acts*
Dudge Omi"on conducted a PI for the !iolation Pres. Decree No. 705, Sec. 68-A and
Adm. Order No. 59 against the owner of the trc! sed for gathering tim"er and forest #rodcts
"t fond no #ro"a"$e case hence he issed an order for the re$ease of the trc!. Petitioner fi$ed
an action against %dge Omi#on a$$eging that res#ondent %dge sho$d ha&e trned o&er the trc!
to the 'ommnit( )n&ironment and Natra$ *esorces Office +')N*O, of San %an, Sothern
-e(te for a##ro#riate dis#osition.
.sse/
0on %dge Omi#on has a mandator( dt( to trn o&er the trc! to ')N*O
1e$d2
No. 3nder Sec. 4 of Adm. Order No. 59, if the a##rehension is not made "( D)N* fie$d offices,
de#ti5ed mi$itar( #ersonne$ and officia$s of other agencies a##rehending i$$ega$ $ogs and other
forest #rodcts and their con&e(ances sha$$ notif( the nearest D)N* fie$d offices and trn o&er
said forest #rodcts and con&e(ances for #ro#er action and dis#osition. A #eriod of a"ot two
wee!s $a#sed, from the time the sei5re was made "efore a com#$aint was fi$ed. Dring this
#eriod, the a##rehending #o$icemen had enogh time to trn o&er the $ogs and the trc! to the
nearest D)N* fie$d office for #ro#er action and dis#osition since the dt( to trn o&er the trc!
to the nearest D)N* fie$d office rests on the officia$s a##rehending the i$$ega$ $ogs. 6here "eing
no mandator( dt( on the #art of res#ondent %dge to trn o&er the trc!, he sho$d not "e
&isited with disci#$inar( sanction when he did not refer the same to the D)N* fie$d office in San
%an, Sothern -e(te.7
Provident tree farms vs Batario mar 28 199
DOCTRINE*
Cases before the ,OC must be fully Oeshed out before it "rior to ele!ating
the issues to a regular court in kee"ing &ith theehaustion of administrati!e
remedies$
()CT%*In the etrant case, PT(I seeks to set aside the 2 (ebruary 100E order
of res"ondent court and "rays for the continuation of the hearing inCi!il Case
No$ 206I22M5$ PT(I claims that &hat &as brought before the trial court &as a
ci!il case for in#unction, i$e$, Frestraining theentry of safety matches into the
country $ $ $ for the "ur"ose of securing com"liance &ith %ec$ M5 7l8 of the
(orestry Code and for damages,Fto seek redress of its right &hich has been
clearly !iolated by the im"ortation of safety matches $ $ $ $ 7&hich8 is a denial
to the "etitioner of the "rotection and incenti!e granted it by %ection M5 7l8 of
the (orestry Code $ $ $ $F

Naturally, PT(I asserts the ina""licability of the "rocedures outlined in R$)$
No$ 11/@ relati!e to incidents before the Court of Ta)""eals because the
instant action is not a "rotest case &here the aggrie!ed "arty is not an
im"orter$ It then argues that since it could not a!ail of the remedies aBorded
by the TariB and Customs Code, resort to the courts is &arranted, citing
Commissioner of Customs !$ )lik"ala$ Petitioner asserts his com"laint on a
statutory "ri!ilege or incenti!e granted under %ec$ M5, "ar$ 7l8, of the Re!ised
(orestry Code$ The onlysub#ect of this incenti!e is a ban against im"ortation
of &ood, &ood "roducts or &ood6deri!ated "roducts &hich is to be enforced
by the,ureau of Customs since it has, under the TariB and Customs Code,
the eclusi!e original #urisdiction o!er sei'ure and forfeiturecases and, in
fact, it is the duty of the Collector of Customs to eercise #urisdiction o!er
"rohibited im"ortations$The enforcement of the im"ortation ban under %ec$
M5, "ar$ 7l8, of the Re!ised (orestry Code is &ithin the eclusi!e realm of the
,ureau of Customs, and direct recourse of "etitioner to the Regional Trial
Court to com"el the Commissioner of Customs to enforce the ban isde!oid of
any legal basis$ No& it follo&s that to allo& the regular court to direct the
Commissioner to im"ound the im"orted matches, as "etitioner insisted,
isclearly an interference &ith the eclusi!e #urisdiction of the ,ureau of
Customs o!er sei'ure and forfeiture cases$ )n order of a #udge toim"ound,
sei'e or forfeit must ine!itably be based on his determination and
declaration of the in!alidity of the im"ortation, hence, anusur"ation of the
"rerogati!e and an encroachment on the #urisdiction of the ,ureau of
Customs$ In other &ords, the reliefs directedagainst the ,ureau of Customs
as &ell as the "rayer for in#unction against im"ortation of matches by "ri!ate
res"ondent )DIC may not begranted &ithout the court arrogating u"on itself
the eclusi!e #urisdiction of the ,ureau of Customs$
I%%9E&4n the ,OC holds #urisdiction in the matter of &ood "roduct
im"ortation
>E.DPetitionerPs "osition is inconcei!ableQ The claim of "etitioner that no
"rocedure is outlined for the enforcement of the im"ort ban under theTariB
and Customs Code, if true, does not at all diminish the #urisdiction of the
,ureau of Customs o!er the sub#ect matter$ Theenforcement of statutory
rights is not foreclosed by the absence of a statutory "rocedure$ The
Commissioner of Customs has the "o&er toF"romulgate all rules and
regulations necessary to enforce the "ro!isions of this 7TariB and Customs8
Code $ $ $ sub#ect to the a""ro!al of the %ecretary of (inance$F

+oreo!er, it has been held that F$ $ $ $ 7&8here the statute does not reAuire
any "articular method of "rocedure to be follo&ed by anadministrati!e
agency, the agency may ado"t any reasonable method to carry out its
functions$F,ut o!er and abo!e the foregoing, PT(I3s corres"ondence &ith the
,ureau of Customs contesting the legality of match im"ortations mayalready
take the nature of an administrati!e "roceeding the "endency of &hich
&ould "reclude the court from interfering &ith it under thedoctrine of
"rimary #urisdiction
People vs C!I fe" 1# 1992
DOCTRINE*
+ere "ossession of lumber is "unishableN o&nershi" is not an element of the
crime$
()CT%
Charges &ere le!ied against "ri!ate res"ondents for the crime of Auali-ed
theft of logs, de-ned and "unished under %ection 52 of Presidential Decree
No$ :E@, other&ise kno&n as the Re!ised (orestry Code of the Phili""ines, in
an information &hich read*That on or about the /2th, /0th and MEth days of
Duly 10:5, at ,arangay +ahabang .alim, +unici"ality of ;eneral Nakar,
Pro!ince of Rue'on, Phili""ines, and &ithin the #urisdiction of this >onorable
Court, the abo!e6namedaccused, ;odofredo )rro'al and .uis (lores, together
&ith t&enty 7/E8 other Dohn Does &hose identities are stillunkno&n, the -rst6
named accused being the administrator of the Infanta .ogging Cor"oration,
&ith intent to gain,cons"iring and confederating together and mutually
hel"ing one another, did then and there &illfully, unla&fully andfeloniously
enter the "ri!ately6o&ned land of one (elicitacion Pu#alte, titled in the name
of her deceased father,+acario Prudente, under Original Certi-cate of Title
No$ 5E/5, and once inside, illegally cut, gather, take, steal andcarry a&ay
therefrom, &ithout the consent of the said o&ner and &ithout any authority
under a license agreement,lease license or "ermit, sity 75E8 logs of diBerent
s"ecies, consisting of about @I1$I2 cubic meters, &ith total !alue of (I(TS
T>O9%)ND TWO >9NDRED (I?E PE%O% and (I(TS TWO CENT)?O%
7P@E,/E@$@/8 includinggo!ernment charges, to the damage and "re#udice of
the said o&ner in the aforesaid amount$On the -rst issue, the Peo"le alleged
that, contrary to the allegation of the "ri!ate res"ondents and the o"inion of
the trial court, theinformation substantially alleged all the elements of the
crime of Auali-ed theft of logs as described in %ection 52 of P$D$ :E@$ While
it&as admitted that the information did not "recisely allege that the taking of
the logs in Auestion &as F&ithout the consent of the state,Fne!ertheless, said
information e"ressly stated that the accused Fillegally cut, gather, take,
steal and carry a&ay therefrom, &ithout theconsent of said o&ner and
&ithout any authority under a license agreement, lease, lease, license or
"ermit, sity 75E8 logs of diBerents"ecies$ $ $ $F %ince only the state can grant
the lease, license, license agreement or "ermit for utili'ation of forest
resources, includingtimber, then the allegation in the information that the
as"ortation of the logs &as F&ithout any authorityF under a license
agreement, lease,

license or "ermit, is tantamount to alleging that the taking of the logs &as
&ithout the consent of the state$
I%%9EW4N the theft of logs &as committed in contra!ention of PD :E@
>E.DThe %Cs agrees &ith the "etitioner$%ec$ 52$Cutting, gathering and4or
collecting timber or other "roducts &ithout license$T )ny "erson &ho shall
cut,gather, collect or remo!e timber or other forest "roducts from any forest
land, or timber from alienable or dis"osable "ublic lands, or from "ri!ate
lands, &ithout any authority under a license agreement, lease, license or
"ermit, shall beguilty of Auali-ed theft as de-ned and "unished under
)rticles ME0 and M1E of the Re!ised Penal Code$ $ $ $When an accused in!okes
in a motion to Auash the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an
oBense 7Rule 11:, %ec$ / GaH Rules of Court8, the su<ciency of the
Information hinges on the Auestion of &hether the facts alleged, if
hy"othetically admitted, meet the essentialelements of the oBense de-ned
in the la& 7Peo"le !$ %ego!ia, 1EM Phil$ 115/ G10@2HN Peo"le !$ )bad, .6@@1M/,
)ugust ME, 1022, 15@%CR) @:8$The elements of the crime of Auali-ed theft of
logs are* 18 That the accused cut, gathered, collected or remo!ed timber or
other forest "roductsN /8 that the timber or other forest "roducts cut,
gathered, collected or remo!ed belongs to the go!ernment or to any
"ri!ateindi!idualN and M8 that the cutting, gathering, collecting or remo!ing
&as &ithout authority under a license agreement, lease, license, or "ermit
granted by the state$
O&nershi" is not an essential element of the oBense as de-ned in %ection 5E
of P$D$ No$ :E@$ Thus, the failure of the information toallege the true o&ner of
the forest "roducts is not materialN it &as su<cient that it alleged that the
taking &as &ithout anyauthority or license from the go!ernment$
The trial court erred in dismissing the case on the ground of lack of
#urisdiction o!er the sub#ect matter because the information &as -lednot
"ursuant to the com"laint of any forest o<cer as "rescribed in %ection 2E of
P$D$ :E@The %C thereby granted the "osition and re!ersed the trial courtPs
order of dismissing the information
)Auino !s Peo"le
(acts*
On "eha$f of 6eachers8 'am#, Sergio 95man fi$ed with the De#artment of
)n&ironment and Natra$ *esorces +D)N*, an a##$ication to ct down :4 dead
;enget #ine trees within the 6eachers8 'am# in ;agio 'it( to "e sed for re#airs
of the 6eacher8s 'am#.
DENR issued the "ermit$
(orest rangers -led a criminal com"laint against 'teng +s#er&isor of the
ctting of the trees,, Nacata" +s#er&isor,, <asing +saw(er,, and Santiago
+saw(er,for &io$ation of PD 705. 6he forest rangers fond => tree stm#s, ot of
which on$( := were co&ered "( the #ermit. 6he &o$me of the trees ct with
#ermit was :>.58 c"ic meters whi$e the &o$me of the trees ct withot #ermit
was :6.55 c"ic meters. 6he mar!et &a$e of the trees ct withot #ermit was
P:8=,447.=0, and the forest charges were P::,8>>.=5.
6he saw(ers a$$eged that the( were not aware of the trees to "e ct "ecase the
were nder the s#er&ision of the #etitioner. 0hi$e #etitioner a$$eged that he was
sent to s#er&ise the ctting of trees at 6eachers8 'am#. 1e a$$eged$( informed his
s#erior, Pa$ A#i$is, that he was not aware of the trees co&ered "( the #ermit.
1owe&er, he sti$$ s#er&ised the ctting of trees withot #rocring a co#( of the
&icinit( ma# sed in the ins#ection of the trees to "e ct. 1e c$aimed that he co$d
not #re&ent the o&erctting of trees "ecase he was ?st a$one whi$e 'teng and
Santiago were accom#anied "( three other men.
*6'- the saw(ers and the s#er&isor were fond gi$(
'A-ac@itted the saw(ers "t con&icted #etitioner.
.sse2
0hether #etitioner is gi$t( "e(ond reasona"$e do"t of &io$ation of Section 68 of
PD 705.
1e$d2
No. 6he #ro&ision c$ear$( #nishes an(one who sha$$ cut, gather, collect or
remove tim"er or other forest #rodcts from an( forest $and, or tim"er from
a$iena"$e or dis#osa"$e #"$ic $and, or from #ri&ate $and, withot an( athorit(. .n
this case, #etitioner was charged "( ')N*O to s#er&ise the im#$ementation of
the #ermit. 1e was not the one who ct, gathered, co$$ected or remo&ed the #ine
trees within the contem#$ation of Section 68 of PD 705. 1e was not in #ossession
of the ct trees "ecase the $m"er was sed "( 6eachers8 'am# for re#airs.
Petitioner co$d not $i!ewise "e con&icted of cons#irac( to commit the offense
"ecase a$$ his co-accsed were ac@itted of the charges against them.

Petitioner ma( ha&e "een remiss in his dties when he fai$ed to restrain the
saw(ers from ctting trees more than what was co&ered "( the #ermit. As the
'ort of A##ea$s r$ed, #etitioner co$d ha&e informed his s#eriors if he was
rea$$( intimidated "( Santiago. .f at a$$, this co$d on$( ma!e #etitioner
administrati&e$( $ia"$e for his acts. .t is not enogh to con&ict him nder Section
68 of PD 705.

Neither co$d #etitioner "e $ia"$e nder the $ast #aragra#h of Section 68 of
PD 705 as he is not an officer of a #artnershi#, association, or cor#oration who
ordered the ctting, gathering, or co$$ection, or is in #ossession of the #ine trees.
Mustan$ %um"er vs C& june 18, 1996
DOCTRINE*
Possession of lumber is not a crime under PD :E@$ Timber is the "unishable
act
()CT%
The authorities got &ind of a sus"icious stock"ile of narra Oitches, shorts,
and slabs that &ere seen inside the lumberyard of the "etitioner in
?alen'uela, +etro +anila$ Readily, the %)ID organi'ed a team of foresters
and "olicemen and sent it to conduct sur!eillance at thesaid
lumberyard$During the sting o"eration, the team members sa& coming out
from the lumberyard the "etitioner3s truck, &ith Plate No$ CCU6M//,
loaded&ith lauan and almaciga lumber of assorted si'es and dimensions$
%ince the dri!er could not "roduce the reAuired in!oices and
trans"ortdocuments, the team sei'ed the truck together &ith its cargo and
im"ounded them at the DENR com"ound at ?isayas )!enue, Rue'onCity$ The
team &as not able to gain entry into the "remises because of the refusal of
the o&ner$On /M )"ril 100E, %ecretary (actoran issued an order sus"ending
immediately the "etitioner3s lumber6dealer3s "ermit No$ NRD6I6E0/@0E6EI50
and directing the "etitioner to e"lain in &riting &ithin -fteen days &hy its
lumber6dealer3s "ermit should not be cancelled$On the same date, counsel
for the "etitioner sent another letter to Robles informing the latter that the
"etitioner had already secured thereAuired documents and &as ready to
submit them$ None, ho&e!er, &as submitted$
G
In resol!ing the said case, the trial court held that the &arrantless search and
sei'ure on 1 )"ril 100E of the "etitioner3s truck, &hich &asmo!ing out from
the "etitioner3s lumberyard in ?alen'uela, +etro +anila, loaded &ith large
!olumes of lumber &ithout co!eringdocument sho&ing the legitimacy of its
source or origin did not oBend the constitutional mandate that search and
sei'ure must besu""orted by a !alid &arrant$ The situation fell under one of
the settled and acce"ted ece"tions &here &arrantless search and sei'ure
is #usti-ed,!i'
$, a search of a mo!ing !ehicleThe trial court, ho&e!er, set aside %ecretary
(actoran3s order of M +ay 100E ordering the con-scation of the sei'ed
articles in fa!or of the;o!ernment for the reason that since the articles &ere
sei'ed "ursuant to the search &arrant issued by Eecuti!e Dudge Osorio they
shouldha!e been returned to him in com"liance &ith the directi!e in the
&arrant$On : Duly 1001, accused Ri Chuy Po -led in the CRI+IN). C)%E a
+otion to Ruash and4or to %us"end Proceedings based on thefollo&ing
grounds* 7a8 the information does not charge an oBense, for "ossession
of lumber , as o""osed totimber , is not "enali'ed in%ection 52 of P$D$ No$
:E@, as amended, and e!en granting arguendo that lumber
falls &ithin the "ur!ie& of the said section, the samemay not be used in
e!idence against him for they &ere taken by !irtue of an illegal sei'ureN and
7b8 Ci!il Case No$ 0E6@M5I2 of ,ranch M@of the RTC of +anila, the (IR%T CI?I.
C)%E, then "ending before the Court of )""eals, &hich in!ol!es the legality
of the sei'ure,raises a "re#udicial Auestion
I%%9E*Whether the com"laint charges an oBense
>E.D No$ The "etitioner "ro"osed to Auash the information in Criminal Case
No$ M/I6?601 on the ground that it does not charge anoBense$ Res"ondent
Dudge granted the motion reasoning that the sub#ect matter of the
information in the CRI+IN). C)%E is .9+,ER,&hich is neither FtimberF nor
Fother forest "roductF under %ection 52 of P$D$ No$ :E@, as amended, and
hence, "ossession thereof &ithoutthe reAuired legal documents is not
"rohibited and "enali'ed under the said section$9nder "aragra"h 7a8, %ection
M, Rule 11: of the Rules of Court, an information may be Auashed on the
ground that the facts allegedtherein do not constitute an oBense$ It has been
said that Fthe test for the correctness of this ground is the su<ciency of the
a!erments inthe information, that is, &hether the facts alleged, if
hy"othetically admitted, constitute the elements of the oBense, andmatters
aliunde
&ill not be considered$F )nent the su<ciency of the information, %ection 5,
Rule 11E of the Rules of Court reAuires, inter alia, that the information state
the acts or omissions com"lained of as constituting the oBense$
Tan !s Peo"le
(acts*
The accused Tan et al &ere charged of the crime of illegal possession of lumber under the
Information, under Section 68, P.D. No. 705, as amended b !"ecuti#e $rder No. %77.
&h forest guards intercepted % truc's loaded (ith narra and (hite lauan lumber o(ned b the petitioner
(ithout legal documents.
)*+ the constitutionalit of Section 68 of !$ %77, )%+ the treatment b the lo(er court of
lumber as timber and,or forest product (ithin the contemplation of PD 705, as
amended, and )-+ the alleged retroacti#e application of !$ %77.
The Court's Ruling
&he petition is not meritorious.
.eld/
Petitioners contend that possession of manufactured lumber is not punishable under the
0orestr 1eform 2ode, as amended. 3s e"plicitl pro#ided in Section 68 of both PD 705
and !$ %77 )the la( that amended the former+, onl the cutting, gathering, collecting
and,or possession, (ithout license, of timber and other forest products are prohibited.
3s e"pressl defined under Section -)4+ of PD 705, lumber is not timber or a forest
product. It is onl in Section 75 of the same la( (here the sale of lumber, (ithout
compliance (ith established grading rules and standards, is prohibited. Petitioners
submit that the forest la(s and regulations sufficientl differentiate bet(een timber and
lumber6 therefore, court should not construe lumber as timber.
&he 4uestion of (hether lumber is e"cluded from the co#erage of Section 68 of PD 705,
as amended, has been settled in Mustang Lumber, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,
24
in (hich
this 2ourt e"pressl ruled that 7lumber is included in the term timber.7
25
8e 4uote at
length the 2ourt9s discussion/
&he 1e#ised 0orestr 2ode contains no definition of either timber of lumber. 8hile the
former is included in forest products as defined in paragraph )4+ of Section -, the latter is
found in paragraph )aa+ of the same section in the definition of 7Processing plant,7 (hich
reads/
)aa+ Processing plant is an mechanical set:up, machine or combination
of machine used for the processing of logs and other forest ra( materials
into lumber, #eneer, pl(ood, (allboard, blac'board, paper board, pulp,
paper or other finished (ood products.
&aopa #s People
(acts*
the 'ommnit( )n&ironment and Natra$ *esorces Office of Airac, 'atandanes
sei5ed a trc! $oaded with i$$ega$$(-ct $m"er and arrested its dri&er, P$acido
'ison. 6he $m"er was co&ered with "nd$es of a"aca fi"er to #re&ent detection.
6ao#a, Oga$esco and 'ison were thereafter charged with &io$ating Section 68 of
Presidentia$ Decree +PD, No. 705,
:
B:C as amended, in the *egiona$ 6ria$ 'ort
+*6', of Airac, 'atandanes.
:B:C *e&ised Dorestr( 'ode.
.n this #etition,
=
B6C 6ao#a see!s his ac@itta$ from the charges against him. 1e
a$$eges that the #rosection fai$ed to #ro&e that he was one of the owners of the
sei5ed $m"er as he was not in the trc! when the $m"er was sei5ed.
;oth the *6' and the 'A ga&e scant consideration to 6ao#a8s a$i"i "ecase
'ison8s testimon( #ro&ed 6ao#a8s acti&e #artici#ation in the trans#ort of the
sei5ed $m"er. .n #artic$ar, the *6' and the 'A fond that the trc! was $oaded
with the cargo in front of 6ao#a8 ;oth the *6' and the 'A ga&e scant
consideration to 6ao#a8s a$i"i "ecase 'ison8s testimon( #ro&ed 6ao#a8s acti&e
#artici#ation in the trans#ort of the sei5ed $m"er. .n #artic$ar, the *6' and the
'A fond that the trc! was $oaded with the cargo in front of 6ao#a8s hose and
that 6ao#a and Oga$esco were accom#an(ing the trc! dri&en "( 'ison # to
where the trc! and $m"er were sei5ed. 6hese facts #ro&ed 6ao#a8s +and
Oga$esco8s, eEercise of dominion and contro$ o&er the $m"er $oaded in the trc!.
6he acts of 6ao#a +and of his co-accsed Oga$esco, constitted #ossession of
tim"er or other forest #rodcts withot the re@ired $ega$ docments. <oreo&er,
the fact that 6ao#a and Oga$esco ran awa( at the mere sight of the #o$ice was
$i!ewise $arge$( indicati&e of gi$t. 0e are ths con&inced that 6ao#a and Oga$esco
were owners of the sei5ed $m"er.

=B6C 3nder *$e 45 of the *$es of 'ort.
1owe&er, we disagree with "oth the *6' and 'A as to the #ena$t( im#osed
on 6ao#a.

Section 68 of PD 705, as amended,
>
B7C refers to Artic$es >09 and >:0 of the
*e&ised Pena$ 'ode +*P', for the #ena$ties to "e im#osed on &io$ators. Aio$ation
of Section 68 of PD 705, as amended, is #nished as @a$ified theft.
4
B8C 6he $aw
treats ctting, gathering, co$$ecting and #ossessing tim"er or other forest #rodcts
withot $icense as an offense as gra&e as and e@i&a$ent to the fe$on( of @a$ified
theft.

Artic$es >09 and >:0 read2

Art. 309. Penalties. F An( #erson gi$t( of theft sha$$ "e #nished "(2

:. 6he #ena$t( of prision mayor in its minimm and medim #eriods, if
the &a$e of the thing sto$en is more :=,000 #esos "t does not eEceed
==,000 #esos/ "t if the value of the thing stolen exceeds the latter
amount, the penalty shall be the maximum period of the one
M G:H %ection 52 "ro!ides* V%ec$ 52$ Cutting, Gathering and/or Collecting Timber, or
Other Forest Products without License. W )ny "erson &ho shall "ossess timber or
other forest "roducts &ithout the legal documents as reAuired under eisting forest
la&s and regulations shall be "unished &ith the "enalties im"osed under )rticles ME0
and M1E of the Re!ised Penal Code$L
4 B8C Merida v. People, 9.*. No. :58:8=, := %ne =008 citing People v. Dator, >98
Phi$. :09, :=4 +=000,.
prescribed in this paragraph, and one year for each additional ten
thousand pesos, "t the tota$ of the #ena$t( which ma( "e im#osed
sha$$ not eEceed twent( (ears. .n sch cases, and in connection with
the accessor( #ena$ties which ma( "e im#osed and for the #r#ose of
the other #ro&isions of this 'ode, the #ena$t( sha$$ "e termed prision
mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case ma( "e. +em#hasis s##$ied,

=. EEE

Art. 310. Qualified theft. F 6he crime of theft sha$$ "e #nished "( the
#ena$ties neEt higher "( two degrees than those respectively specified in the
next preceding articles EEE +em#hasis s##$ied,.



6he acta$ mar!et &a$e of the ::> #ieces of sei5ed $m"er was P67,6>0.
5
B9C
Do$$owing Artic$e >:0 in re$ation to Artic$e >09, the im#osa"$e #ena$t( sho$d "e
reclusion temporal in its medim and maEimm #eriods or a #eriod ranging from
:4 (ears, eight months and one da( to =0 (ears #$s an additiona$ #eriod of for
(ears for the eEcess of P47,6>0.
5 B9C 6he 'A did not contest the correctness of the &a$e as stated in the information.
1owe&er, the 'A c$arified that the &a$e of the $m"er #egged at P99,:=0 was inc$si&e
of srcharges and forest charges. 6he 'A ths #ro&ided a "rea!down of the &a$es for a
more correct com#tation of the #ena$ties to "e im#osed on the accsed. 6he re$e&ant
#ortion of the 'A decision reads2 G6he Statement of -m"er A##rehended, which was
#re#ared "( Dorest *anger %ose San *o@e, states that the mar!et &a$e of the ::> #ieces
of $m"er is on$( P67,6>0. .t a##ears that that the amont of P99,:=0 was arri&ed at "(
adding reg$ar forest charges in the amont of P7,940 and >00H srcharges in the
amont of P=>,8=0 to the mar!et &a$e of the $m"er #egged at P67,B6>C0.7Rollo, #. >9.
6he minimm term of the indeterminate sentence
6
B:0C im#osa"$e on 6ao#a
sha$$ "e the #ena$t( neEt $ower to that #rescri"ed in the *P'. .n this case, the
minimm term sha$$ "e an(where "etween :0 (ears and one da( to :4 (ears and
eight months or prision mayor in its maEimm #eriod to reclusion temporal in its
minimm #eriod.

6he maEimm term sha$$ "e the sm of the additiona$ for (ears and the
medim #eriod
7
B::C of reclusion temporal in its medim and maEimm #eriods or
:6 (ears, fi&e months and :: da(s to :8 (ears, two months and =: da(s of
reclusion temporal. 6he maEimm term therefore ma( "e an(where "etween :6
(ears, fi&e months and :: da(s of reclusion temporal to == (ears, two months and
=: da(s of reclusion perpetua.
s hose and that 6ao#a and Oga$esco were
5 G1EH %ection 1 of the Indeterminate %entence .a& 7R) I1EM8 "ro!ides* V%ECTION 1$
>ereafter, in im"osing a "rison sentence for an oBense "unished by the Re!ised
Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an
indeterminate sentence the maimum term of &hich shall be that &hich, in !ie& of
the attending circumstances, could be "ro"erly im"osed under the rules of the said
Code, and the minimum &hich shall be &ithin the range of the "enalty net lo&er to
that "rescribed by the Code for the oBense$ L
7 B::C 6he medim #eriod is im#osed fo$$owing Artic$e 64 of the *P' which states2
G0hen there is neither aggra&ating nor mitigating circmstances, the( sha$$ im#ose the
#ena$t( #rescri"ed "( $aw in its medim #eriod.7 A$thogh PD No. 705 is a s#ecia$ $aw,
the #ena$ties therein were ta!en from the *P'. 1ence, the r$es in the *P' for
gradating "( degrees or determining the #eriod sho$d "e a##$ied. 6his is #rsant to
People v. Simon, 9.*. No. 9>0=8, =9 %$( :994, =>4 S'*A 555.
+onge !s Peo"le
(acts*
'i$o( vs C& june 26, 2006
DOCTRINE
In oBenses considered as mala "rohibita or &hen the doing of an act is
"rohibited by a s"ecial la& such as in the "resent case, thecommission of the
"rohibited act is the crime itself$ It is su<cient that the oBender has the
intent to "er"etrate the act "rohibited by the s"ecial la&, and that it is done
kno&ingly and consciously$
()CT% Nestor Ong, &ho had been engaged in the trucking business in Iligan
City since 1025, introduced by his friend ;amad +untod to .olong,ertoda'o
&ho re!ealed a desire to rent the trucks of Ong to trans"ort construction
materials from .ara"an, .anao del Norte to Di"ologCity
In the e!ening of October M, 100M, Ong allegedly ordered Nestor %umagang
and "etitioner Rodolfo Tigoy &ho had been em"loyed by himas truck dri!ers
for t&o ears, to bring the t&o trucks to .olong ,ertoda'o in .ara"an, .anao
del Norte &hich is about -fteen 71@8 minutesa&ay from Iligan City$ >e
instructed the t&o dri!ers to lea!e the trucks in .ara"an for the loading of
the construction materials by .olong,ertoda'o, and to go back at da&n for
the tri" to Di"olog City$ Thus, after meeting &ith ,ertoda'o, %umagang and
"etitioner Tigoyallegedly &ent home to return to .ara"an at four oPclock in
the morning the net day$ When they arri!ed, the trucks had been laden
&ith bags of cement and &ere half6co!ered &ith can!as$That same morning
of October I, 100M, %enior Ins"ector Rico .acay Tome 7then De"uty Chief of
Police of O'amis City8, &hile escortingPro!incial Director Dionisio Coloma at
the ICC )rts Center in O'amis City, along &ith the members of the %"ecial
O"eration ;rou",recei!ed a dis"atch from the I55th PNP Com"any situated
at ,arangay ,ongbong, O'amis City, informing him that t&o trucks, a blue
andgreen loaded &ith cement, that &ere going to&ards O'amis City did not
sto" at the check"oint$ 9"on recei!ing the re"ort, Tome, along&ith PO/ Peter
Paul NuAui and POM ,ien!enido Real, boarded their "atrol !ehicle, a mini
cruiser #ee", to interce"t the t&o trucks at .ilianTerminal, O'amis City$)t the
.ilian Terminal, PO/ NuAui, &ho &as the only one in uniform among the
"olice o<cers, Oagged do&n the t&o trucks but the same #ust s"ed a&ay and
"roceeded to&ards the direction of OroAuieta City$ )board their "atrol
!ehicle, they chased the trucks and o!ertook thesame at ,arangay +anabay$
They blocked the road &ith their !ehicle causing the t&o trucks to sto"$The
"olice chief hassled the dri!er &ho had alighted from the green truck &hy he
did not sto" at the check"oint but the latter did notans&er$ When he inAuired
&hat &as loaded in the truck, the dri!er re"lied that there is F%$O$P,F &hich
means grease money in street "arlance$ This raised the sus"icion of Tome
that the trucks &ere loaded &ith Fhot items$FImmediately thereafter, an
Information &as -led against Nestor Ong, %umagang, .olong ,ertoda'o and
"etitioner Tigoy for "ossession of forest "roducts &ithout legal "ermit
I%%9E*W4n kno&ledge &as necessary to incur liability for the !iolation of the
timber la&
>E.D* No$ The crime is mala "rohibita
%tated other&ise, the core issue "resented is &hether or not "etitioner Tigoy
is guilty of cons"iracy in "ossessing or trans"orting lumber &ithout the
necessary "ermit in !iolation of the Re!ised (orestry Code of the
Phili""ines$%ection 52 of P$D$ No$ :E@, as amended by E$O$ No$ /::,
other&ise kno&n as the Re!ised (orestry Code of the
Phili""ines, "ro!ides*%ection 52$ Cutting, ;athering and4or Collecting Timber
or Other (orest Products Without .icense$ W )ny "erson &ho shall cut,gather,
collect, remo!e timber or other forest "roducts from any forest land, or
timber from alienable or dis"osable "ublic land,or from "ri!ate land, &ithout
any authority, or "ossess timber or other forest "roducts &ithout the legal
documents as reAuiredunder eisting forest la&s and regulations, shall be
"unished &ith the "enalties im"osed under )rticles ME0 and M1E of
theRe!ised Penal Code$ $ $ $There are t&o &ays of !iolating %ection 52 of the
abo!e Code* 18 by cutting, gathering and4or collecting timber or other forest
"roducts&ithout a licenseN and, /8 by "ossessing timber or other forest
"roducts &ithout the reAuired legal documents$Petitioner &as charged &ith
and con!icted of trans"orting lumber &ithout a "ermit &hich is "unishable
under %ection 52 of the Code$ >e,%umagang and the rest of their
com"anions &ere a""rehended by the "olice o<cers
in

Oagrante delicto
as they &ere trans"orting thesub#ect lumber from .ara"an to Di"olog
City$Petitioner maintains that he could not ha!e cons"ired &ith .olong
,ertoda'o as he did not kno& about the unlicensed lumber in the trucks$>e
belie!ed that &hat he &as trans"orting &ere bags of cement in !ie& of the
contract bet&een Ong and ,ertoda'o$ )lso, he &as notaround &hen
,ertoda'o loaded the trucks &ith the lumber hidden under the bags of
cement$When -nally accosted, one of the dri!ers, &hom &itness Tome
identi-ed as the dri!er of the green truck, %umagang, but &ho actually
&asTigoy 7as he &as the dri!er of the green truck and &ho came to the road
block -rst, being the lead dri!er8 oBered F%$O$P$F &hich to&itness Tome
meant that the trucks &ere carrying Fhot items$FWhy &ould the dri!ers
refuse to sto" &hen reAuiredC Did they fear ins"ection of their cargoC Why
&ould F%$O$P$F 7&hich in street "arlance is grease money8 be oBered to
facilitate the "assage of the trucksC The only logical ans&er to all these
Auestions is that the dri!erskne& that they &ere carrying contraband lumber$
This Court belie!es that the dri!ers had kno&ledge of the fact that they &ere
trans"ortingand &ere in "ossession of undocumented lumber in !iolation of
la&$ In oBenses considered as
mala "rohibita
or &hen the doing of an act is "rohibited by a s"ecial la& such as in the
"resent case, thecommission of the "rohibited act is the crime itself$ It is
su<cient that the oBender has the intent to "er"etrate the act "rohibited by
thes"ecial la&, and that it is done kno&ingly and consciously$Direct "roof of
"re!ious agreement to commit an oBense is not necessary to "ro!e
cons"iracy$ Cons"iracy may be "ro!en bycircumstantial e!idence$ It may be
deduced from the mode, method and manner by &hich the oBense is
"er"etrated, or inferred from theacts of the accused &hen such acts "oint to
a #oint "ur"ose and design, concerted action and community of interest$ It is
not e!en reAuiredthat the "artici"ants ha!e an agreement for an a""reciable
"eriod to commence it
Pallada !s Peo"le
(acts*
People vs )ue dec 1*, 1996
DOCTRINE
In the -rst oBense, one can raise as a defense the legality of said acts$
>o&e!er, in the second oBense, mere "ossession &ithout
"ro"er documentation consummates the crime$
Pro!incial Task (orce got &ind that a that a ten6&heeler truck bearing "late
number P)D6@I2 loaded &ith illegally cut lumber &ill "assthrough Ilocos
Norte$ )cting on said information, members of the PT( &ent on "atrol se!eral
times &ithin the !icinity of ;eneral%egundo )!enue in .aoag City$On +arch
2, 100I, %PO1 Cor"u', together &ith %PO1 Xaldy )suncion and %PO1 Elmer
Patoc &ent on "atrol around the area$ )t about1*EE in the morning, they
"osted themsel!es at the corner of ;eneral %egundo )!enue and Ri'al
%treet$ Thirty minutes later, they sa& aten6&heeler truck &ith "late number
P)D6@I2 "ass by$ They follo&ed the truck and a""rehended it at the +arcos
,ridge$On Dune /M, 100I, accused6a""ellant &as charged before the Regional
Trial Court of .aoag &ith !iolation of %ection 52 of P$D$ :E@as amended by
E$O$ /::$ The Information alleged*That on or about the 2th day of +arch,
100I, in the City of .aoag, Phili""ines, and &ithin the #urisdiction of this
>onorableCourt, the abo!e6named accused, being then the o&ner of an
I7s8u'u Ten Wheeler Truck bearing Plate No$ P)D6@I2, &ithintent of gain, did
then and there &illfully, unla&fully and feloniously ha!e in "ossession,
control and custody /@2 "ieces of !arious si'es of (orest Products Chainsa&n
lumber 7%"ecies of Tanguile8 &ith a total !olume of M,:/0$M bd$ ft$ or
eAui!alentto 2$:0 cubic meters !alued in the total amount of P0M,/M/$@E
atP/@$EE4bd$ ft$, necessary "ermit, license or authority to do sofrom the
"ro"er authorities)ccused6a""ellant denied the charge against him$ >e
claimed that he acAuired the /@2 "ieces of tanguile lumber from a
legalsource$ During the trial, he "resented the "ri!ate land timber "ermits
7P.TP8 issued by the De"artment of En!ironment and NaturalResources
7DENR8 to Enrica CayosaG1MH and El"idio %abal$G1IH
The P.TP authori'es its holder to cut, gather and dis"ose timber from
theforest area co!ered by the "ermit$ >e alleged that the tanguile lumber
came from the forest area co!ered by th P.TPPs of Cayosa and%abal and that
they &ere gi!en to him by Cayosa and %abal as "ayment for his hauling
ser!ices
I%%9E*Whether or not )""ellantPs acti!ities consist an oBense
>E.DSE%$ Possession of the lumber &ithout the necessary "ermit is a
!iolation of the R(C$When the "olice a""rehended Rue, he failed to "resent
documentary e!idence to "ro!e that he has the "ermit to "ossess and
trans"ort thelumber$ )ll he had &as the "ermit for the coconut slabs$ >e
e!en concealed the lumber so as to a!oid it from being seen u"on
-rstins"ection of the load$9nder the circumstances, there is no doubt that
the accused &as a&are that he needed documents to "ossess and trans"ort
the lumber, butcould not secure one and therefore, concealed such by
"lacing it in such a manner that it could not be seen by merely looking at the
cargo$There are / &ays of !iolating %ec$ 52 of the Re!ised (orestry Code*a$,y
cutting, gathering and4or collecting timber or other forest "roducts &ithout a
licenseN and b$,y "ossessing timber or other forest "roducts &ithout the
reAuired legal documents$In the -rst oBense, one can raise as a defense the
legality of said acts$ >o&e!er, in the second oBense, mere "ossession
&ithout "ro"er documentation consummates the crime$