G.R. No.

209165

LNL ARCHIPELAGO MINERALS, INC., Petitioner,

FACTS:

Petitioner LNL Archipelago Minerals, Inc. (LAMI) is the operator of a mining claim located in Sta. Cruz,
Zambales. LAMI embarked on a project to build a private, non-commercial port in Brgy. Bolitoc, Sta. Cruz,
Zambales.

LAMI secured the several permits and compliance certificates for the port project including a tree cutting
permit/certification from the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of the
DENR.

Representatives from the DENR PENRO in Zambales and the local government of Sta. Cruz conducted an
ECC compliance monitoring of LAMI’s property. The DENR PENRO team found that LAMI violated some of
its conditions under the ECC.

Meanwhile, respondent Agham Party List filed a Petition for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan against
LAMI, DENR, PPA, and the Zambales Police Provincial Office (ZPPO).

Agham alleged that LAMI violated: (1) Section 6823 of PD No. 705,24 as amended by Executive Order No.
277,25 or the Revised Forestry Code; and (2) Sections 5726 and 6927 of Republic Act No. 7942,28 or the
Philippine Mining Act of 1995 (Philippine Mining Act). Agham added that LAMI cut mountain trees and
flattened a mountain which serves as a natural protective barrier from typhoons and floods not only of
the residents of Zambales but also the residents of some nearby towns located in Pangasinan.

ISSUE: Whether or not LAMI violated the environmental laws

RULING: No.

There are two distinct and separate offenses punished under Section 68 of PD 705:

(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
authorization; and

(2) Possession of timber or other forest products without the legal documents required under
existing forest laws and regulations.44

In the present case, LAMI was given a Tree Cutting Permit by the CENRO dated 17 April 2012. In the permit,
LAMI was allowed to cut 37 trees with a total volume of 7.64 cubic meters within the port site, subject to
the condition that the trees cut shall be replaced with a ratio of 1-30 fruit and non-bearing fruit trees.
Thereafter, the Forest Management Service and Forest Utilization Unit, both under the DENR, issued a
Post Evaluation Report dated 3 May 2012 stating that LAMI properly followed the conditions laid down in
the permit. Since LAMI strictly followed the permit issued by the CENRO and even passed the evaluation
conducted after the issuance of the permit, then clearly LAMI had the authority to cut trees and did not
violate Section 68 of the Revised Forestry Code, as amended.

G.R. No. 165448

ERNESTO AQUINO, Petitioner,

FACTS:

On behalf of Teachers’ Camp, Sergio Guzman filed with the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) an application to cut down 14 dead Benguet pine trees within the Teachers’ Camp in
Baguio City. Thereafter Executive Director of the DENR, issued a permit allowing the cutting of 14 trees
subject to several terms and conditions:

Forest Rangers received information that pine trees were being cut at Teachers’ Camp without proper
authority. They proceeded to the site where they found Ernesto Aquino (petitioner), a forest ranger from
CENRO, and Cuteng supervising the cutting of the trees. The forest rangers found 23 tree stumps, out of
which only 12 were covered by the permit.

An Information for violation of Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 7055 (PD 705) was filed against
petitioner, Cuteng, Nacatab, Masing, and Santiago

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 68 of PD 705.

RULING: There are two distinct and separate offenses punished under Section 68 of PD 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.13

The provision clearly punishes anyone who shall cut, gather, collect or 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. In this case, petitioner was charged by CENRO to supervise the implementation of
the permit. He was not the one who cut, gathered, collected or removed the pine trees within the
contemplation of Section 68 of PD 705. He was not in possession of the cut trees because the lumber was
used by Teachers’ Camp for repairs. Petitioner could not likewise be convicted of conspiracy to commit
the offense because all his co-accused were acquitted of the charges against them.

Petitioner may have been remiss in his duties when he failed to restrain the sawyers from cutting trees
more than what was covered by the permit. As the Court of Appeals ruled, petitioner could have informed
his superiors if he was really intimidated by Santiago. If at all, this could only make petitioner
administratively liable for his acts. It is not enough to convict him under Section 68 of PD 705.

G.R. No. L-25026

HON. JUAN L. UTLEG, as Acting Director of the Bureau of Forestry, HON. JOSE Y. FELICIANO, as
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, petitioners,
vs.
HON. FRANCISCO ARCA, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch I, and the TINDALO
TIMBER CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS:

The Director of Forestry issued to Tindalo Timber Corporation Ordinary Timber License 181-'63 (new) to
cut and remove 14,340 cubic meters of timber from the public forest subject to the rules, terms and
conditions specified therein.

The respondent corporation filed with the District Forester of Davao an application for renewal of the
aforementioned timber license and paid the corresponding fees therefor which were duly accepted and
receipted for.

The acting Director of Forestry issued an order rejecting the application for renewal of license filed by the
respondent corporation on the ground that during the lifetime of its Ordinary Timber License 181-'63
(new), the corporation had cut timber outside its licensed area, in violation of the terms and conditions
of the said license.

The respondent corporation, filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila civil case for certiorari,
prohibition, and mandamus with preliminary injunction against the acting Director of the Bureau of
Forestry, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, and the Executive Secretary

The respondent court issued an order granting the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction applied for.

ISSUE: Whether the respondent court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in granting a writ of preliminary injunction against the
petitioners,

RULING: YES.

Only the Bureau of Forestry has jurisdiction to grant licenses for the taking of forest products, pursuant
to section 1816 of the Revised Administrative Code, which states:

Jurisdiction of Bureau of Forestry. — The Bureau of Forestry shall have jurisdiction and
authority over the demarcation, protection, management, reproduction, reforestation,
occupancy, and use of all public forests and forest reserves and over the granting of
 licenses for game and fish, and for the taking of forest products, including stone and earth
therefrom.

That the authority for the cutting, gathering or removal of forest products shall only be upon license to be
issued by the Bureau of Forestry, is further stressed by section 1831 of the said Code, thus:

License required for taking or removal of forest products. — Except as herein provided,
forest products shall be cut, gathered or removed in or from any forest only upon license
from the Bureau of Forestry.

Thus, with the expiration on June 30, 1963 of the respondent corporation's timber license and the denial
of its application for renewal thereof by the Director of Forestry, the right or authority of the respondent
corporation to continue cutting, gathering or removing logs had ceased. It could not and can no longer
continue conducting logging operations even within the area covered by its expired license.

However, the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the respondent court would allow the respondent
corporation to continue cutting, gathering and removing timber from the concession area in question
without license duly issued by the Director of Forestry, in violation of the aforequoted provisions of
section 1831 of the Revised Administrative Code. The said writ being against the law, is null and void.1 The
respondent court, in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction and thus allowing the respondent
corporation to conduct logging operations in the timber concession area in question, had in effect
arrogated unto itself the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Forestry and had resuscitated in 1965 a timber
license that expired on June 30, 1963. Clearly, it acted without or in excess of jurisdiction and/or with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in granting the issuance of the writ of
preliminary injunction complained of.

G.R. No. 158182

SESINANDO MERIDA, petitioner,

FACTS:

Petitioner was charged in the Regional Trial Court of Romblon, Romblon, Branch 81 (trial court) with
violation of Section 68 of PD 705, as amended, for "cut[ting], gather[ing], collect[ing] and remov[ing]" a
lone narra tree inside a private land in Mayod, Ipil, Magdiwang, Romblon (Mayod Property) over which
private complainant Oscar M. Tansiongco (Tansiongco) claims ownership.6

The prosecution evidence showed that on 23 December 1998, Tansiongco learned that petitioner cut a
narra tree in the Mayod Property. Tansiongco reported the matter to Florencio Royo (Royo), the punong
barangay of Ipil. On 24 December 1998,7 Royo summoned petitioner to a meeting with Tansiongco. When
confronted during the meeting about the felled narra tree, petitioner admitted cutting the tree but
claimed that he did so with the permission of one Vicar Calix (Calix) who, according to petitioner, bought
the Mayod Property from Tansiongco in October 1987 under a pacto de retro sale. Petitioner showed to
Royo Calix's written authorization signed by Calix's wife.8

On 11 January 1999, Tansiongco reported the tree-cutting to the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) forester Thelmo S. Hernandez (Hernandez) in Sibuyan, Romblon. When Hernandez
confronted petitioner about the felled tree, petitioner reiterated his earlier claim to Royo that he cut the
tree with Calix's permission. Hernandez ordered petitioner not to convert the felled tree trunk into
lumber.

On 26 January 1999, Tansiongco informed Hernandez that petitioner had converted the narra trunk into
lumber. Hernandez, with other DENR employees and enforcement officers, went to the Mayod Property
and saw that the narra tree had been cut into six smaller pieces of lumber. Hernandez took custody of the
lumber,9 deposited them for safekeeping with Royo, and issued an apprehension receipt to petitioner. A
larger portion of the felled tree remained at the Mayod Property. The DENR subsequently conducted an
investigation on the matter.10

Tansiongco filed a complaint with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Romblon (Provincial
Prosecutor) charging petitioner with violation of Section 68 of PD 705, as amended. During the preliminary
investigation, petitioner submitted a counter-affidavit reiterating his claim that he cut the narra tree with
Calix's permission. The Provincial Prosecutor11 found probable cause to indict petitioner and filed the
Information with the trial court (docketed as Criminal Case No. 2207).

During the trial, the prosecution presented six witnesses including Tansiongco, Royo, and Hernandez who
testified on the events leading to the discovery of and investigation on the tree-cutting. Petitioner testified
as the lone defense witness and claimed, for the first time, that he had no part in the tree-cutting.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is liable for violation of Section 68 of PD 705, as amended

RULING: YES.

Section 68 of PD 705 penalizes three categories of acts: (1) the cutting, gathering, collecting, or removing
of timber or other forest products from any forest land without any authority; (2) the cutting, gathering,
collecting, or removing of timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private land without
any authority;26 and (3) the possession of timber or other forest products without the legal documents as
required under existing forest laws and regulations.27 Petitioner stands charged of having "cut, gathered,
collected and removed timber or other forest products from a private land28 without the necessary
permit " thus his liablity, if ever, should be limited only for "cut[ting], gather[ing], collect[ing] and
remov[ing] timber," under the second category. Further, the prosecution evidence showed that petitioner
did not perform any acts of "gathering, collecting, or removing" but only the act of "cutting" a lone narra
tree. Hence, this case hinges on the question of whether petitioner "cut x x xtimber" in the Mayod
Property without a DENR permit.29

We answer in the affirmative and thus affirm the lower courts' rulings.

On the question of whether petitioner cut a narra tree in the Mayod Property without a DENR permit,
petitioner adopted conflicting positions. Before his trial, petitioner consistently represented to the
authorities that he cut a narra tree in the Mayod Property and that he did so only with Calix's permission.
However, when he testified, petitioner denied cutting the tree in question. We sustain the lower courts'
rulings that petitioner's extrajudicial admissions bind him.30 Petitioner does not explain why Royo and
Hernandez, public officials who testified under oath in their official capacities, would lie on the stand to
implicate petitioner in a serious criminal offense, not to mention that the acts of these public officers
enjoy the presumption of regularity. Further, petitioner does not deny presenting Calix'sauthorization to
Royo and Hernandez as his basis for cutting the narra tree in the Mayod Property.

GR NO. 136142
OCTOBER 24, 2000.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

FACTS:

Pastor Telen and his co-accused, Alfonso Dator and Benito Genol, were charged with the crime of violation
of Section 682 of Presidential Decree No. 705, otherwise known as the Revised Forestry Code,

While on patrol, police officers noticed a Isuzu cargo truck loaded with pieces of lumber bound toward
the town proper of Maasin. Suspicious that the cargo was illegally cut pieces of lumber, Police Station
Commander Rojas maneuvered their police vehicle and gave chase.4

Upon catching up with the Isuzu cargo truck they ordered the driver, accused Benito Genol, to pull over.
Benito Genol was left alone in the truck after his companions hurriedly left. When asked if he had the
required documents for the proper transport of the pieces of lumber, Genol answered in the negative.
Genol informed the police authorities that the pieces of lumber were owned by herein appellant, Pastor
Telen, while the Isuzu cargo truck bearing Plate No. HAF 628 was registered in the name of Southern Leyte
Farmers Agro-Industrial Cooperative, Inc. (SLEFAICO) which is a local cooperative. Consequently, Police
Officers Rojas and Bacala directed Benito Genol to proceed to the Maasin Police Station, Maasin, Southern
Leyte for further investigation.5

The defense denied any liability for the crime charged in the Information

The trial court rendered a decision convicting the accused.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT FOR VIOLATION OF SEC. 68, P. D. 705,

RULING: NO.

It is not disputed that appellant Pastor Telen is the owner of the fifty-one (51) pieces of assorted Antipolo
and Dita lumber with a total volume of 1,560.16 board feet. He alleged that the pieces of lumber were cut
from the track of land belonging to his mother in San Jose, Maasin, Southern Leyte which he intended to
use in the renovation of his house in Barangay Abgao of the same municipality. After having been
confiscated by the police, while in transit, in Barangay Soro-soro, appellant Telen failed to produce before
the authorities the required legal documents from the DENR pertaining to the said pieces of lumber.

The fact of possession by the appellant of the subject fifty-one (51) pieces of assorted Antipolo and Dita
lumber, as well as his subsequent failure to produce the legal documents as required under existing forest
laws and regulations constitute criminal liability for violation of Presidential Decree No. 705, otherwise
known as the Revised Forestry Code.22 Section 68 of the code 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: Provided, that in the case of partnerships, associations, or corporations, the officers who ordered
the cutting, gathering, collection or possession shall be liable, and if such officers are aliens, they shall, in
addition to the penalty, be deported without further proceedings on the part of the Commission on
Immigration and Deportation.

G.R. No. 170308

GALO MONGE, petitioner,

FACTS:

On 20 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.3 Petitioner fled the scene in that instant whereas Potencio was brought to the police
station for interrogation, and thereafter, to the DENR-Community Environment and Natural Resources
Office (DENR-CENRO).

An information was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City, Branch 35 charging petitioner and
Potencio with violation of Section 688 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 705,9 as amended by Executive
Order (E.O.) No. 277, series of 1997. T

The trial court found petitioner guilty as charged which was affirmed by the CA.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of violation of Sec 68 of P.D. 705.

RULING:

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.

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 regulations.19 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.20

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.
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. 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.21In other words, mere possession of timber or other forest products without the proper legal
documents, even absent malice or criminal intent, is illegal.22 It would therefore make no difference at all
whether it was petitioner himself or Potencio who owned the subject pieces of lumber.