Mustang Lumber

Lily Cacatian

vs Court of Appeals

Mustang Lumber vs Court of Appeals

[G.R. No. 104988. June 18, 1996]MUSTANG LUMBER, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON.

FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., Secretary, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and ATTY. VINCENT A. ROBLES, Chief, Special

Actions and Investigation Division, DENR, respondents.

[G.R. No. 106424. June 18, 1996]PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. TERESITA DIZON-CAPULONG,

in her capacity as the Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 172, Valenzuela, Metro Manila, and RI CHUY

PO, respondents.

[G.R. No. 123784. June 18, 1996]MUSTANG LUMBER, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ATTY. VINCENT A. ROBLES, Chief, Special Actions and Investigation Division,

Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), ATTY. NESTOR V. GAPUSAN, TIRSO P. PARIAN, JR., and FELIPE H. CALLORINA, JR., respondents.

Facts• 1 April 1990 – the Special Actions and Investigation

Division (SAID) conducted a surveillance at Mustang lumberyard based on information that a huge pile of narra flitches, shorts, and slabs were seen inside the lumberyard of Mustang Lumber.

• The team (SAID) saw a truck loaded with lauan and almaciga lumber coming out of the lumberyard. Since the driver could not produce the required invoices and transport documents, the team seized the truck together with its cargo and impounded them at DENR compound.

• 3 April 1990 - RTC Valenzuela issued a search warrant. On same day, the team seized from the lumberyard narra shorts, trimmings and slabs, narra lumber, and various species of lumber and shorts.

Facts• 4 April 1990 - team returned to lumberyard and

placed under administrative seizure the remaining lumber because Mustang Lumber failed to produce required documents upon demand.

• Robles then submitted a memorandum report to Factoran, recommending the suspension and subsequent cancellation of petitioner’s Dealers Permit, filing of criminal charges, and confiscation of the trucks and lumbers.

• Mustang Lumber filed for a restraining order against Factoran and Robles, questioning the validity of the seizure and the lack of notice and hearing on the suspension of their permit.(First Civil Case)

Facts• Upon reports of violation of P.D. No. 705 (Revised

Forestry Code), DENR agents went to the business premises of the petitioner and caught that petitioner is still in operation although its permit had already been suspended. The team then effected a constructive seizure by issuing a receipt therefor.

• As a consequence, the petitioner filed with the RTC of Manila a petition for certiorari and prohibition. (2nd Civil Case)

• In the meantime, Robles filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ) a complaint against the petitioner's president and general manager, Ri Chuy Po, for violation of Section 68 of P.D. No. 705.

Facts• SEC. 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.

Facts• The prosecutor handed down a resolution

recommending the filing of an information against Po for illegal possession of approximately 200,000 bd. ft. of lumber consisting of almaciga and supa and for illegal shipment of almaciga and lauan in violation of Sec. 68 of PD 705.

• Po filed a Motion to Quash based on the grounds that the information does not charge an offense, for possession of lumber, as opposed to timber, is not penalized in Section 68 of P.D. No. 705 and that there was an illegal seizure.

• 1st and 2nd civil cases - RTC and CA ruled in favor of the respondents.

• Judge Capulong granted the motion to quash and dismissed the criminal case. Hence, a petition for certiorari was filed.

Issues• Whether or not a lumber can be considered timber and

that petitioner should be held liable under Sec. 68 of the Revised Forestry Code.

• Whether or not the search and seizures conducted by the respondents were valid.

RulingISSUE 1

• Yes. SC says that lumber is included in timber.

• The Revised Forestry Code contains no definition of timber or lumber. While Timber is included in the definition of forestry products in par (q) Sec.3. Lumber is mentioned in the same section (par aa) in the definition of “processing plants”.

• Forest product means timber, pulpwood, firewood, bark, tree top, resin, gum, wood, oil, honey, beeswax, nipa, rattan, or other forest growth such as grass, shrub, and flowering plant, the associated water, fish, game, scenic, historical, recreational and geological resources in forest lands.

Ruling• Processing plant is any mechanical set-up, machine or

combination of machine used for the processing of logs and other forest raw materials into lumber, veneer, plywood, wallboard, block-board, paper board, pulp, paper or other finished wood products.

• This simply means that lumber is a processed log or forest raw material. The Code uses lumber in ordinary common usage. In 1993 ed. of Webster’s International Dictionary, lumber is defined as timber or logs after being prepared for the market. Therefore, lumber is a processed log or timber. Sec 68 of PD 705 makes no distinction between raw & processed timber.

RulingISSUE 2

• Yes. The search and seizures made were all valid.

• (1) April 1 search was conducted on a moving vehicle, which could be lawfully conducted without a search warrant.

• (2) The search on April 4 was a continuation of the search on April 3 done under and by virtue of the search warrant issued on 3 April 1990 by Exec Judge Osorio. Under ROC Rule 126 Sec 9, a search warrant has a lifetime of 10 days. Hence, it could be served at any time within the said period, and if its object or purpose cannot be accomplished in 1 day, the same may be continued the following day or days until completed, provided it is still within the 10-day period.

RulingISSUE 2

• (3) SEC. 80 of PD 705 also provides that:

Arrest, Institution of Criminal Actions. A forest officer or employee of the Bureau or any personnel of the Philippine Constabulary/Integrated National Police shall arrest even without warrant any person who has committed or is committing in his presence any of the offenses defined in this chapter. He shall also seize and confiscate, in favor of the Government, the tools and equipment used in committing the offense, or the forest products cut, gathered or taken by the offender in the process of committing the offense.

Questions• What are the acts punished under section 68 of

PD 705?

– the cutting, gathering, collection, or removal of timber or other forest products from the places therein mentioned without any authority; and

– possession of timber or other forest products without the legal documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations.

Questions• What are the instances in which a search could

be lawfully conducted without a search warrant?

– search of a moving vehicle;– search as an incident to a lawful arrest;– seizure of evidence in plain view; – customs searches, and – consented warrantless search

End of slide