G.R. No. 224469 , January 5, 2021
Diosdado Sama y Hinupas and Bandy Masanglay y Aceveda, Petitioners, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Diosdado Sama y Hinupas and Bandy Masanglay y Aceveda, along with Demetrio Masanglay y Aceveda, were charged with violating Section 77 of Presidential Decree No. 705 (the Revised Forestry Code) for cutting a dita tree with an unregistered chainsaw without authority on March 15, 2005, in Barangay Calangatan, San Teodoro, Oriental Mindoro. The prosecution presented PO3 Villamor D. Ranee, who testified that his team, while on surveillance for illegal logging, heard a chainsaw and saw a tree falling. They apprehended the accused at the site with the cut tree and a bolo stuck in it. The accused admitted they had no permit. The defense presented Barangay Captain Rolando Aceveda, who testified that the accused were members of the Iraya-Mangyan indigenous peoples (IPs) and that they cut the tree for the construction of a community toilet within their ancestral domain. The Regional Trial Court convicted the accused, ruling that cutting timber without a permit is malum prohibitum and rejecting the IP defense. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, noting the lack of a permit and finding the claim of IP rights unsubstantiated. Only petitioners Sama and Bandy Masanglay appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners are guilty of violating Section 77 of P.D. No. 705, considering their claim that their act of cutting the dita tree is protected under the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) as an exercise of their rights to cultural integrity and ancestral domain.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED the decisions of the lower courts, and ACQUITTED petitioners Diosdado Sama y Hinupas and Bandy Masanglay y Aceveda. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Crucially, the Court recognized that petitioners, as members of the Iraya-Mangyan indigenous cultural community, have rights under the IPRA. The cutting of the dita tree for a communal toilet, as ordered by their community leaders, falls within their right to sustainably manage and use natural resources within their ancestral domain for their subsistence and development needs. The Court took judicial notice of the issued Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim (CADC) covering the area, affirming it as part of their ancestral domain. Since the act was pursuant to their recognized indigenous rights, it cannot be considered a violation of the forestry law. The Court emphasized the primacy of the IPRA in protecting indigenous peoples’ rights over their ancestral domains.