7/27/2019 Case_Roldan v. Madrona

1/3

[G.R. No. 152989. September 4, 2002]

ROLDAN, JR. vs. HON. MADRONA, et al.

At bar is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65

of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

FACTS

Herein petitioner is the owner of a parcel ofland consisting of about 60,000 square meterscovered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. TP-331 which he bought from a certain IldefonsoO. Maglasang.

On August 9, 2001, petitioner applied for aPrivate Land Timber Permit (PLTP) from theDepartment of Environment and NaturalResources for him to cut some trees for aproposed road and poultry farm in his property.He also paid all the fees required by the variousgovernment agencies.

While waiting for the permit to be issued,petitioner was allegedly informed by someemployees from the Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources (DENR) thathe could proceed with the cutting of trees eventhough his application was still awaitingapproval.

Consequently, petitioner proceeded with thecutting of trees and bulldozing of theroadway. He used the cut logs as materials tobuild his chicken cages.

About three weeks later, representatives of theCommunity Environment and Natural ResourcesOffice (CENRO) of the Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources andpersonnel from the Intelligence Service, ArmedForces of the Philippines (ISAFP) of TaclobanCity raided petitioners place, allegedlywithout a search warrant. An inventory of thecut trees was conducted. The logs were notconfiscated but were entrusted to abarangay kagawadsince there was allegedly no

search warrant at that time.About two days later, the CENROrepresentatives came back with members ofthe media and ISAFP charging illegal loggingbut they failed to get the logs, again foralleged lack of search warrant.

Several days thereafter, the CENRO group andISAFP returned, this time armed with a searchwarrant and proceeded to confiscate 872

pieces of sawn lumber/flitches (8,506 boardfeet) and three felled timber logs with a totalmarket value of P235,454.68 at P27.00 perboard foot.

Consequently, on September 21, 2001, acomplaint for violation of Section 68 of PD 705

as amended was filed against herein petitionerby CENRO before the City Prosecutor of OrmocCity. Thereafter, the City Prosecutor issued aresolution dated November 16, 2001 findingprobable cause to convict petitioner forviolation of Section 68 of PD 705 as amended.

A motion for reconsideration proved futile for,as it turned out,the information had alreadybeen filed in court. Jurisdiction over the casewas transferred to the regional trial court, alsoa public respondent in this case.

A warrant for the arrest of petitioner was then

issued by the court a quo. In view thereof,herein petitioner filed with the trial court amotion for judicial determination of probablecause and the recall of his warrant of arrest.

After hearing the said motion, publicrespondent Judge Fortunito L. Madrona, in anorder dated February 15, 2000 denied themotion but reduced the recommended bail ofpetitioner.

Hence, the instant petition.

ISSUESBefore us, petitioner raises the followingissues: (1) whether the owner of a private land,the petitioner in this case, is criminally liableunder Section 68 of PD 705 for cutting treeswithin his own property; (2) whether the ownerof the private property is administrativelyliable under Sec. 14 of DENR AdministrativeOrder No. 2000-21 despite the fact that he didnot transport the logs out of his property andjust used them for his own agriculturalpurposes therein and (3) whether the logsconfiscated by the DENR should be returned to

the petitioner considering that the same werenot transported out and merely used for hisown agricultural purposes.

The fundamental question of law we seek toresolve in this case is: may a person who cutstrees for his own use within his propertywithout the necessary permit from the DENRand without transporting the same outside said

7/27/2019 Case_Roldan v. Madrona

2/3

property, be criminally charged for violatingPD 705?

RULING

First issue:

At the outset, the Court notes that while

petitioner continues to harp on the allegedquestions of law present in this case, thepetition at bar was filed via a petition forcertiorari under Rule 65. Nothing is moresettled than the rule that a writ of certiorarilies only where a court has acted without or inexcess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse ofdiscretion. The Court believes that none of theaforementioned circumstances is present in thiscase.

Be that as it may, although this Court at theoutset had pointed out that herein petitioneradopted the wrong remedy and committedcertain technical violations of the Rules on CivilProcedure which necessitate its outrightdismissal, nevertheless, in the interest ofsubstantial justice and in view of the novelty ofthe question of law involved, the Court in theexercise of its judicial discretion shall treat thispetition as having been filed under Rule 45.

Main

Section 68 of PD 705, as amended by E.O. 277,otherwise known as the Revised Forestry Codeof the Philippines provides:

SEC. 68. Cutting, Gathering and/or collectingTimber, or Other Forest Products WithoutLicense.- Any person who shall cut, gather,collect, remove timber or other forestproducts from any forest land, or timber fromalienable or disposable public land, or fromprivate land, without any authority, orpossess timber or other forest products withoutthe legal documents as required under existingforest laws and regulations, shall be punishedwith the penalties imposed under Articles309 and 310 of the Revised PenalCode: Provided, That in case of partnerships,

associations, or corporations, the officers whoordered the cutting, gathering, collection orpossession shall be liable, and if such officersare aliens, they shall, in addition to thepenalty, be deported without furtherproceedings on the part of the Commission onImmigration and Deportation.

The Court shall further order the confiscationin favor of the government of the timber or any

forest products cut, gathered, collected,removed, or possessed, as well as themachinery, equipment, implements and toolsillegally used in the area where the timber orforest products are found. (Emphasis supplied)xxx

Herein petitioner argues that even if the phrasepertaining to Articles 309 and 310 of the penalcode was only meant to prescribe theimposable penalty, since the cut trees werefrom his private land, his penalty should not beequated with that imposable on those whocommit theft inasmuch as theft and qualifiedtheft involve the unlawful taking of aproperty belonging to another.

The argument of petitioner is specious. UnderSection 68, PD 705 as amended by E.O. 277, itis clear that the violators of the said law arenot declared as being guilty of qualified theft.Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Codewere referred to only for the purpose ofdetermining the imposable penalties and not todefine acts which constitute qualified theft.

Moreover, petitioners argument that theprovisions of the law regarding qualified theftshould not be applied to him since he is theowner of the property is devoid of merit. Itmust be stressed that petitioner is not beingcharged for qualified theft but for violation ofSection 68, PD 705 hence his ownership of theland is of no moment. The said law does not

even distinguish whether or not the person whocommits the punishable acts under theaforementioned law is the owner of theproperty, for what is material in determiningthe culpability of a person is whether or notthe person or entity involved or charged withits violationpossesses the required permit,license or authorization from DENR at the timehe or it cuts, gathers or collects timber orother forest products.

As to his assertion that his penalty for cuttingtrees in his own land should not be equatedwith that for qualified theft, suffice it to say

that the judiciary is never concerned with thewisdom of the law. Whether or not thelegislature was correct in imposing on violatorsof PD 705 a penalty equal to that imposable onthose guilty of qualified theft is a questionbeyond the power of this Court to resolve. It isa settled rule that the fundamental duty of theCourt is to apply the law regardless of who maybe affected, even if the law is harsh -

7/27/2019 Case_Roldan v. Madrona

3/3

dura lex sed lex. The remedy is elsewhere clemency from the executive or anamendment of the law by the legislature.

Second

We come now to the second issue posed by

herein petitioner on whether the owner of aprivate property is administratively liable underSection 14 of DENR Administrative Order No.2000-21 despite the fact that he did nottransport the logs out of his property and usedthem for his own agricultural purposes.

Section 14 of Administrative Order No. 2000-21,the Revised Guidelines in the Issuance ofPrivate Land Timber Permit/Special PrivateLand Timber Permit, provides:

SEC. 14. Penal Provisions. - Anylog/timber or finished-wood productscovered by these regulations which aretransported without the prescribeddocuments shall be considered illegaland, therefore, subject toconfiscation in favor of thegovernment and shall be disposedin accordance with laws, rules andregulations governing the matter.

DENR Officials found issuing defectivecertificate of origin and other transportdocuments required in this Order shallbe subject to suspension withoutprejudice to the imposition of other

penalties as may be warranted byextant Civil Service Laws, rules andregulations.

The rule is clear. The aforementionedadministrative order considers the mere act oftransporting any wood product ortimber without the prescribed documents as anoffense which is subject to the penaltiesprovided for by law. As to the defense ofpetitioner that he never transported the logsout of his property, suffice it to say that such isa factual issue which this Court under Rule 45cannot determine. We are limited to resolving

questions of law.

On the issue of whether the logs confiscated bythe DENR should be returned to petitioner, anypronouncement thereon at this point would bepremature as the guilt of the petitioner has notbeen legally established. The records of thecase indicate that trial on the merits is still inprogress. Hence, this Court is not in a positionto speculate on or prescribe the courses of

action or remedies the petitioner may avail ofunder the aforementioned law. Well-entrenched is the rule that this Court is notduty bound to render advisory opinions.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack ofmerit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

(yes, mao jud na siya)