GR 115507; (May, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 115507 May 19, 1998
ALEJANDRO TAN, ISMAEL RAMILO and FRED MORENO, petitioners, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS
On October 26, 1989, Forest Guards Joseph Panadero and Eduardo Rabino intercepted a dump truck driven by petitioner Fred Moreno and loaded with narra and white lauan lumber in Cajidiocan, Sibuyan Island, Romblon. On October 30, 1989, the same forest guards apprehended another dump truck driven by Crispin Cabudol loaded with tanguile lumber in Barangay Cambajao. Both trucks and the lumber were owned by petitioner Alejandro Tan, and the drivers were his employees. Petitioner Ismael Ramilo was the caretaker and timekeeper of Tan’s construction firm. In both instances, no documents showing legal possession of the lumber were presented upon demand. Two Informations were filed charging the petitioners (Tan, Moreno, Ramilo, and Cabudol) with violation of Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705 (the Forestry Reform Code), as amended by Executive Order No. 277, for illegal possession of lumber without the required legal documents. The defense claimed the lumber was bought by Tan’s licensed lumber dealership from a corporation with a Tree Recovery Permit and was covered by an auxiliary invoice. The trial court convicted all accused, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
ISSUE
The legal issues are: (1) the constitutionality of Section 68 of Executive Order No. 277; (2) whether lumber is considered timber and/or a forest product under P.D. No. 705, as amended; and (3) whether there was a retroactive application of E.O. No. 277.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. It held that: (1) The constitutionality of Section 68 of E.O. No. 277 was not passed upon as it was unnecessary for resolving the case, the petitioners having been caught in possession of lumber without the required legal documents. (2) Lumber is included in the terms “timber” or “forest products” under Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended. The Court rejected the petitioners’ distinction between timber and lumber, stating that such a construction would defeat the law’s intent, as illegal loggers could simply saw timber on the spot to evade liability. (3) There was no retroactive application of E.O. No. 277, as the law penalizes the act of possession without legal documents, which was illegal both before and after its amendment. The Court affirmed the findings of the trial and appellate courts that the petitioners were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of lumber.