MUSTANG LUMBER v. CA, DENR SECRETARY FACTORAN, ET AL.

of foresters and policemen and sent it to conduct surveillance

G.R. No. 104988 | June 18, 1996 | Davide, Jr., J. at the said lumberyard
o In the course of the surveillance, the team members
SUMMARY saw coming out from the lumberyard the petitioner's
DENR received an information that a huge stockpile of narra flitches, truck, with Plate No. CCK322, loaded with lauan and
shorts, and slabs were seen inside the lumberyard of the MUSTANG almaciga lumber of assorted sizes and dimensions.
LUMBER in Valenzuela. DENR organized a team of foresters and o The truck driver could not produce the required
policemen and sent it to conduct surveillance at the said lumberyard. invoices and transport documents. Because of that, the
By virtue of said search warrant, the team seized on that date from PET’s team seized the truck together with its cargo and
lumberyard four truckloads of narra shorts, trimmings, and slabs; a impounded them at the DENR compound at Visayas
negligible number of narra lumber; and approximately 200,000 board Avenue, Quezon City
feet of lumber and shorts of various species including almaciga and o Team was not able to gain entry into the premises
supa. Mustang Lumber filed with RTC-Manila a petition for certiorari and because of the refusal of the owner
prohibition with a prayer for a restraining order or preliminary injunction  April 3 – The SAID team was able to secure a search warrant
against Factoran and Robles. Petitioner questioned the seizure without from RTC-Valenzuela. By virtue of said search warrant, the
any order issued by the judge, and the lack of prior notice and hearing. team seized on that date from PET’s lumberyard four
The issue was whether or not the Apr 4 search was a continuation of the truckloads of narra shorts, trimmings, and slabs; a negligible
Apr 3 search done under and by virtue of the search warrant issued on number of narra lumber; and approximately 200,000 board
Apr 3. The court held yes, citing Section 9, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, feet of lumber and shorts of various species including almaciga
a search warrant has a lifetime of ten days. Hence, it could be served and supa.
at any time within the said period, and if its object or purpose cannot  April 4 – Team returned to the premises of the petitioner's
be accomplished in one day, the same may be continued the following lumberyard in Valenzuela and placed under administrative
day or days until completed. seizure the remaining stockpile of almaciga, supa, and lauan
lumber with a total volume of 311,000 board feet because the
PROVISIONS petitioner failed to produce upon demand the corresponding
Section 9, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court: a search warrant has a certificate of lumber origin, auxiliary invoices, tally sheets, and
lifetime of ten days. Hence, it could be served at any time within the delivery receipts from the source of the invoices covering the
said period, and if its object or purpose cannot be accomplished in lumber to prove the legitimacy of their source and origin
one day, the same may be continued the following day or days until o Administrative seizure = owner retains the physical
completed possession of the seized articles. Only an inventory of
the articles is taken and signed by the owner or his
DOCTRINE representative. The owner is prohibited from disposing
When the search under a warrant on one day was interrupted, it may them until further orders
be continued under the same warrant the following day, provided it is  April 10 – Counsel for the petitioner sent a letter to Robles
still within the 10-day period requesting an extension of fifteen days from 14 April 1990 to
produce the required documents covering the seized articles
FACTS: because some of them, particularly the certificate of lumber
 DENR received an information that a huge stockpile of Narra origin, were allegedly in the Province of Quirino. Robles denied
flitches, shorts, and slabs were seen inside the lumberyard of the motion on the ground that the documents being required
the MUSTANG LUMBER in Valenzuela from the petitioner must accompany the lumber or forest
 April 1, 1990 – Acting on said information, the Special Actions products placed under seizure.
and Investigation Division (SAID) of the DENR organized a team
 April 23
o FACTORAN suspended PET’s lumber-dealer’s permit ISSUE AND HOLDING:
and directed PET to explain in writing within 15 days (Relevant to the Topic) WoN the Apr 4 search was a continuation of the
why it’s lumber-dealer’s permit should not be Apr 3 search done under and by virtue of the search warrant issued on
counseled Apr 3 – YES.
o PET’s counsel wrote Atty. ROBLES informing the latter  Under Section 9, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, a search
that the PET had already secured docs and was ready warrant has a lifetime of ten days. Hence, it could be served at
to submit them. But no document was submitted. any time within the said period, and if its object or purpose
 May 3 – FACTORAN issued another order where he ordered the cannot be accomplished in one day, the same may be
confiscation in favor of the Govt to be disposed of in continued the following day or days until completed
accordance with the law those found in the PET’s lumberyard  Thus, when the search under a warrant on one day was
 July 11 – PET MUSTANG LUMBER filed with RTC-Manila a petition interrupted, it may be continued under the same warrant the
for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for a restraining following day, provided it is still within the 10-day period
order or preliminary injunction against FACTORAN and ROBLES.
This FIRST CIVIL CASE was assigned to RTC Manila-B35. PET WoN the seizure of Mustang Lumber’s truck was valid – YES, it was a
questioned the ff: valid exercise of power vested upon a forest officer or employee by
o Seizure on Apr 1 without any search and seizure order Sec. 80, PD 705. The search was conducted on a moving vehicle, a
issued by a judge search that could be lawfully conducted without a search warrant
o FACTORAN’s Apr 23 and May 3 orders for lack of prior  Search of a moving vehicle is one of the five doctrinally
notice and hearing accepted exceptions to the constitutional mandate that no
 June 7, 1991 – RTC Manila-B35 decision search or seizure shall be made except by virtue of a warrant
o Apr 1 warrantless search and seizure of PET’s truck valid, issued by a judge after personally determining the existence of
fell under one of the exceptions where warrantless probable cause. The other exceptions are (1) search as an
search and seizure is justified = search of a moving incident to a lawful arrest, (2) seizure of evidence in plain view,
vehicle (3) customs searches, and (4) consented warrantless search
o Apr 4 seizure of large volume of almaciga, supa, and
lauan lumber and shorts was a continuation of the
seizure made on Apr 3, still pursuant to the search
warrant issued by Judge Osorio whose validity was not
questioned by PET. Although the search warrant did not
specifically mention almaciga, supa, and lauan lumber
and shorts, seizure valid because it is settled that the
executing officer is not required to ignore contrabands
observed during the conduct of search (Note that the
Apr 4 seizure was not one of the issues that were
supposedly raised by Mustang Lumber, as listed above,
but RTC decided on it... Possible that it was indeed
raised by Mustang, but was not included in the
narration of facts by the ponente of this SC decision.)
 MUSTANG LUMBER appealed the TC decision to the CA
 CA dismissed PET’s appeal and subsequent MR, hence PET filed
before the SC a PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI