54. denr vs. daraman.docx

8/18/2019 54. DENR vs. Daraman.docx

1/8


2/8

T"IRD DI5I%I*N

6G&R& No& 78.,9,& $ebruary 7.! 8--8:

DEP'RT;ENT *$ EN5IR*N;ENT and N'T of #albayog #ity=ranch A8> in #riminal #ase No& 79.0& The assailedDecision disposed as followsB

+"ERE$*RE! for insufficiency of evidence! the#ourt hereby declares accused GREG*RI*D'R';'N and N'R#I%* L


3/8

replied that he had none because they were not his&Daraman further told him that 6they: went to rgy&lanca 'urora to secure some wood shavings fromthe furniture shop owned by 'san and 'san merelyas(ed him a favor of loading his assorted lumbers inthe vehicle of the "oly #ross $uneral %ervices to bebrought to his ='san)s> house in arangay 'brero!

#albayog #ity&

The prosecution has still another witness in theperson of *ligario ;abansag! but both theprosecution and the defense agreed to dispense withhis testimony considering that the case would bemerely corroborative 6of: those already offered byPablo *pinion& The prosecution rested its case withthe admission of E?hs& ') and ) and their series& ItsE?hs& #) and series were re3ected because thephotographer who too( them did not testify to identify6them:&

$or the defense! only accused Gregorio Daraman

testified because his co1accused would merely offer corroborative testimony& $rom his testimony! thefollowing facts have been establishedB

That on November A-! 799A in the afternoon hisemployer aby Lucenecio instructed him to procuresome wood shavings =sinapyo)> in %an @orge! %amar&"e used the service vehicle of the "oly #ross $uneral%ervices& "is companion6s: were ;elio edoya!$anny $iel and Ragi ;abutol& They went to barangaylanca 'urora! %an @orge! %amar and thereat! theygot some wood shavings from the furniture shopowned by a certain 'san 'bing& They loaded 8- sac(sof wood shavings! each sac( measuring 88 inches inheight by A8 748 inches in circumference as he

demonstrated in court& The wood shavings 6were:being used by the "oly #ross $uneral %ervices ascushions in the coffin& 'fter the 8- sac(s of woodshavings were loaded! 'san 'bing as(ed him a favor to bring his ='san> assorted lumber to his house inrgy& *brero! #albayog #ity where the "oly #ross$uneral %ervices 6was: also located& 'san himself personally loaded his assorted lumber into thevehicle& The sub3ect assorted lumber were already inthe furniture shop where they got the wood shavings&*n their way home as they passed by rgy& ulao!Pablo *pinion stopped him and too( the woodshavings& *pinion also inFuired about the assortedlumber and he told him that they were owned by

'san! owner of the furniture shop in rgy& lanca 'urora! who loaded them in his vehicle to be broughtto his ='san)s> house in arangay *brero! #albayog#ity& "e told *pinion also that 'san advised him thatif somebody would 6as(: about his lumber! 3ust to tellthe person that 'san had the papers for the lumber with him in his furniture shop at rgy& lanca 'urora!%an @orge! %amar& Pablo *pinion! however! did notta(e his word and he instead impounded the vehicletogether with the assorted lumber& 't about .B--o)cloc( in the afternoon! the vehicle was still not

returned to him and so Gregorio Daraman left andreturned to his employer at rgy& *brero! #albayog#ity and told the latter about what happened&Hiv6:

'fter trial! the RT# acFuitted both accused andordered the return of the disputed vehicle toLucenecio&

Prior to these court proceedings! the Department of Environment and Natural Resources1#ommunity andEnvironment and Natural Resources *ffice =DENR1#ENR*> of #atbalogan! %amar conductedadministrative confiscation proceedings on the seiCedlumber and vehicle in the presence of privaterespondents&v6.: The two failed to present documentsto show the legality of their possession andtransportation of the lumber seiCed& "ence! #ENR**fficer ;arciano T& Talavera recommended to theRegional E?ecutive Director =RED> the finalconfiscation of the seiCed lumber and conveyance&vi6/:

'tty& Pastor #& %alaCar filed a ;emorandum dated

@anuary 8/! 799! concurring with therecommendation to forfeit the lumber and the vehicleseiCed from private respondents& The ;emorandumwas approved by RED 'ugustus L& ;omongan and

'rty& $iel I& ;armita! chief of the Legal Division of theDENR! Region 5III! Tacloban #ity&vii6,:

'tty& Rogelio G& ato @r& of DENR! Region 0! Tacloban#ity! moved for the reconsideration of the assailedDecision! only insofar as it ordered the return of thesaid vehicle to the owner thereof&Hviii60: "e contendedthat the vehicle had already been administrativelyconfiscated by the DENR on December 8! 799A! andthat the RED approved its forfeiture on @anuary 8/!799&i?69: "e further claimed that the DENR had

e?clusive 3urisdiction over the conveyance! which hadbeen used in violation of the Revised $orestry #odepursuant to %ection /01' of PD ,-.! as amended byE* 8,,&

The trial court denied the ;otion via the assailed*rder&

Ruling of the Trial #ourt

The trial court acFuitted private respondents for insufficiency of evidence& The unrebutted testimony of Respondent Daraman was that! in e?change for the

wood shavings from 'san! the former agreed to ta(ethe lumber to the latter)s house in #albayog #ity!where the "oly #ross $uneral %ervices office wasalso located& 'san advised Daraman to reply! whenas(ed! that the papers showing the authoriCation for the lumber were in the former)s shop in arangaylanca 'urora& $inding the evidence againstRespondent Lucenecio to be li(ewise insufficient! theRT# considered the vehicle as an effect of the crimeand ordered its delivery to him&

Page 3 of 8


4/8

In the challenged *rder! the trial court ruled that the;otion for Reconsideration was untenable onprocedural and substantive grounds& %ince 'ssistantProvincial Prosecutor $eliciano 'guilar did not signthe ;otion! the RT# deemed his silence a sign of hisdisapproval of the ;otion&

%ubstantively! the trial court ruledB

? ? ? 6T:he #ourt finds the motion still wanting inmerits considering that as found by the #ourt theowner of the vehicle in Fuestion! %t& @ude!) which isthe "oly #ross $uneral Parlor owned by accusedNarciso Lucenecio! did not commit any violation of P&D& ,-.& Li(ewise! the prosecution failed tosufficiently establish that accused Gregorio Daramanhad ta(en or (ept control of the lumber sub3ect of themotion which would thereby demonstrate that he had? ? ? possession of the sub3ect forest products&Instead! as established by the evidence it was acertain 'san who owned the sub3ect lumber& ???&

?????? ???

The decision of the #ourt has never been brought onappeal! thereby the same has long become final ande?ecutory&

'gain! as shown by the evidence in the allegedconfiscation proceedings conducted by the *I#DENR *fficer ;arciano Talavera of %amar onDecember 8! 7998! the lumber in Fuestion 6was:found to be owned by 'san 'bing& utnotwithstanding this fact! for reasons not (nown to the#ourt! the said 'san 'bing was never made an

accused in the present case&

%ec& /017 of P&D& ,-. contemplates a situation wherethe owner of the vehicle is himself a violator of P&D&,-. or has been found to have conspired with anyother persons who committed the violation of %ec& /0of P&D& ,-. or consented to the use of his vehicle inviolating the said law& In the present case as shownby the evidence! neither the "oly #ross $uneralParlor or its owner accused Narciso Lucenecio hascommitted a violation of P&D& ,-. as already declaredby the #ourt in its decision of December /! 799. nor the driver! accused Gregorio Daraman& In fact bothwere declared acFuitted of the violation charged! and

the decision has not been appealed&H

?

67-:

"ence! this Petition&?i677:

Issues

In its ;emorandum! petitioner raises the followingissues for the #ourt)s considerationB

='>Regional Trial #ourts have no 3urisdiction and4or authority to order ? ? ? the return of property alreadyowned by the government&

=> Respondent 3udge utterlydisregarded and4or misinterpreted

the provisions of PresidentialDecree No& ,-.! as amended byE?ecutive *rder No& 8,,! otherwise(nown as the Revised $orestry#ode of the Philippines&

=#> The government is not estoppedfrom protecting its interest byreason of mista(e! error or failure of its officers to perform their duties&H?ii678:

%tated simply! the issues areB =7> whether the RT#had 3urisdiction to release the confiscated vehicle =8>

whether the trial court misconstrued PD ,-.! asamended and =A> whether! as a result of its filing of the criminal action! petitioner is estopped fromconfiscating the vehicle administratively&

The #ourt)s Ruling

The Petition is meritorious&

$irst IssueBJurisdiction to Order Return of Vehicle

Petitioner contends that the RT# overstepped its

3urisdiction when it ordered the return of the disputedvehicle! because the vehicle had already becomegovernment property by virtue of the forfeiture *rder issued by DENR on @anuary 8/! 799& The DENRsecretary or his duly authoriCed representative! under %ection /01' of PD ,-. as amended by E* 8,,! mayorder the confiscation and disposition of allconveyances 11 by land! water or air 11 used in illegallycutting! gathering! removing! possessing or abandoning forest products&

+e agree& @urisdiction is conferred by substantivelaw&?iii67A: ' comparison of the provisions of the tworelevant sections of PD ,-.! as amended! shows thatthe 3urisdiction of the RT# covers the confiscation of

the timber or forest products as well as the machinery!eFuipment! implements and tools illegally used in thearea where the timber or forest products are found itis the DENR that has 3urisdiction over the confiscationof forest products and! to stress! all conveyancesused in the commission of the offense& %ection /0readsB

%ection /0& Cutting, Gathering and/or Collecting Timber, or Other Forest roducts !ithout "icense# 11

Page 4 of 8


5/8

'ny person who shall cut! gather! collect! removetimber or other forest products from any forest land! or timber from alienable or disposable public land! or from private land! without any authority! or possesstimber or other forest products without the legaldocuments as reFuired under e?isting forest laws andregulations! shall be punished with the penalties

imposed under 'rticles A-9 and A7- of the RevisedPenal #odeB ? ? ?&

The #ourt shall further order the confiscation in favor of the government of the timber or any forest productscut! gathered! collected! removed! or possessed! aswell as the machinery! eFuipment! implements andtools illegally used in the area where the timber or forest products are found&H?iv67:

%ection /01'! in contrast! providesB

%E#& /01'& $dministrative $uthority of the%epartment &ead or &is %uly $uthori'ed

Representative to Order Confiscation# 11 In all casesof violations of this #ode or other forest laws rulesand regulations! the Department "ead or his dulyauthoriCed representative! may order the confiscationof any forest products illegally cut! gathered!removed! or possessed or abandoned! and allconveyances used either by land! water or air in thecommission of the offense and to dispose of the samein accordance with pertinent laws! regulations or policies on the matter&H?v67.:

If a statute is clear! plain and free from ambiguity! itmust be understood in its literal meaning and appliedwithout resort to interpretation! on the presumption

that its wording correctly e?presses its intent or will&The courts may not construe it differently&?vi67/:

(achinery is a collective term for machines andappliances used in the industrial arts?vii67,:e)uipment covers physical facilities available for production! including buildings! machineries andtools?viii670: and implements pertains to whatever maysupply a want! especially an instrument! tool or utensil&?i?679: These terms do not includeconveyances that are specifically covered by %ection/01'& The implementing guidelines of %ection /01'define conveyance in a manner that includes anytype or class of vehicle! craft! whether motoriCed or not! used either in land! water or air! or a combination

thereof or any mode of transport used in themovement of any forest product&H??68-:

"ence! the original and e?clusive 3urisdiction over theconfiscation of all conveyances used either by land!water or air in the commission of the offense and todispose of the sameH is vested in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources =DENR>secretary or a duly authoriCed representative& TheDENR secretary has supervision and control over the

enforcement of forestry! reforestation! par(s! gameand wildlife laws! rules and regulations&??i687:

To implement %ection /01'! DENR promulgated 'dministrative *rder ='*> No& .19A! amendingDepartment 'dministrative *rder =D'*> No& .919-&

'* .19A provides the guidelines for the confiscation!

forfeiture and disposition of conveyances used inviolation of forestry laws! rules and regulations&

Even the Information filed in #riminal #ase No& 79.0limited the acts attributed to private respondents towillfully! unlawfully and feloniously gather! collect andpossess seventy two =,8> pieces of assorted siCes of lumber! ? ? ? without first securing and obtaining anypermit or license therefor from the proper authorities!? ? ?&H The Information did not contain any allegationpertaining to the transportation or conveyance of illegally cut! gathered! possessed or abandonedlumber in violation of %ection /01' of PD ,-.! asamended&

Confiscation !ithout %ue rocess

Private respondents) main defense is that the *rder of $orfeiture ='nne? #H> is a false! falsified andper3urious document&H The *rder was attached to andmade part of the record only when petitioner filed its;otion for Reconsideration dated $ebruary /! 799/!or only after the trial court rendered the assailedDecision& Petitioner made it appear! according to theprivate respondents! that RED ;omongan hadapproved the ;emorandum on @anuary 8/! 799&This does not appear to be true because 'tty&;armita! officer1in1charge =*I#> of the DENR Legal

Division of Tacloban #ity! signed the ;emorandumrecommending approval only on @anuary A7! 799&

$urther! on 'pril /! 799.! @udge Rosales of the RT#of #albayog #ity =ranch A8> ordered the provincialenvironment and natural resources officer to transfer the confiscated vehicle and pieces of lumber inconnection with the prosecution of #riminal #ase79.0&??ii688: Reynaldo R& 5illafuerte! *I# of theProvincial Environment and Natural Resources *ffice=PENR*>! replied that his office could not deliver thevehicle because it was not in running condition&??iii68A:

+e are not persuaded& The validity and legality of the

*rder of $orfeiture falls outside the ambit of thereview of the assailed Decision and *rder& The basisfor the assailed *rder to release the vehicle wasprivate respondents) acFuittal of the charge of violating %ection /0& *n the other hand! the forfeiture*rder issued by the DENR was based on %ection /01

'! which involved a distinct and separate matter cogniCable by it& Petitioner is Fuestioning only theRT#)s 3urisdiction over the assailed *rder to releasethe confiscated vehicle& Private respondents have notappealed the DENR)s *rder of $orfeiture! the validity

Page 5 of 8


6/8

of which can thus be presumed&??iv68: Thegenuineness of the *rder and its proper service uponthem are factual issues that will not be dwelt upon bythis #ourt! which is not a trier of facts&??v68.:

The 3urisdiction of this #ourt! under Rule . of the799, Rules of #ourt! is in the main limited to

reviewing legal errors committed by a lower court&??vi68/:


7/8

i

ii

iii

iv

v

vi

vii

viii

ix

x

xi

xii

xiii

xiv

xv

xvi

xvii

xviii

xix


8/8

xx

xxi

xxii

xxiii

xxiv

xxv

xxvi

xxvii

xxviii

xxix

xxx

54. denr vs. daraman.docx

Documents