G.R. No. 104988, G.R. No. 106424, G.R. No. 123784 June 18, 1996
MUSTANG LUMBER, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, et al., respondents. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. TERESITA DIZON-CAPULONG, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Mustang Lumber, Inc., a registered lumber dealer, had its lumberyard subjected to surveillance by the DENR’s Special Actions and Investigations Division (SAID) on April 1, 1990. The team seized a company truck loaded with lumber after the driver failed to produce required transport documents. Unable to initially enter the premises, the team secured a search warrant on April 3, leading to the seizure of large quantities of narra, almaciga, and other forest products. An additional administrative seizure was effected on April 4 for failure to present certificates of lumber origin and auxiliary invoices. DENR Secretary Factoran subsequently ordered the confiscation of the lumber and the suspension of Mustang’s dealer permit. Mustang filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition challenging the warrantless seizure of the truck and the confiscation orders.
Separately, a criminal case for violation of the Revised Forestry Code was filed against Mustang’s owner, Ri Chuy Po. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the case, ruling that the information was insufficient for failing to allege the specific species of lumber illegally possessed. The prosecution’s petition for certiorari to challenge this dismissal was consolidated with Mustang’s civil cases.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) the validity of the warrantless seizure of the truck and lumber; (2) the propriety of the DENR Secretary’s confiscation order; and (3) the sufficiency of the criminal information filed against Ri Chuy Po.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled against Mustang Lumber on the first two issues but upheld the dismissal of the criminal case. On the seizure, the Court held that the warrantless seizure of the truck on a public street was valid under the plain view doctrine, as the lumber was readily visible and the driver’s inability to produce documents created probable cause for a violation of forestry laws. The subsequent confiscation order by the DENR Secretary was a valid administrative action pursuant to his powers under P.D. No. 705 (The Revised Forestry Code), distinct from a criminal penalty of forfeiture.
However, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the criminal information against Ri Chuy Po. The information merely alleged possession of “lauan and almaciga lumber” without the required documents. This was insufficient because the amended Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as revised by E.O. No. 277, penalizes possession of timber or other forest products without legal documents. The law requires specifying the particular forest product, as different species have varying regulatory requirements and legal implications. A generic allegation of “lumber” fails to inform the accused of the precise nature of the charge, violating his constitutional right to be informed of the accusation. The civil and administrative cases were thus decided separately from the criminal case’s procedural requirements.
