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, members of the Iraya-Mangyan indigenous peoples (IPs) in Mindoro, were caught on March 15, 2005, cutting a dita tree using an unregistered power chainsaw. They were charged under Section 77 of the Forestry Code, as amended, for cutting timber without authority. Petitioners admitted to having no license but argued their act was justified as an exercise of their right as IPs to utilize natural resources within their ancestral domain for a communal purpose—specifically, to build a community toilet. They invoked their rights under the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA). The lower courts convicted them, treating the violation as malum prohibitum.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners should be acquitted of the charge under Section 77 of the Forestry Code due to the prosecution’s failure to prove their criminal liability beyond reasonable doubt, considering their claim of exercising IP rights to utilize natural resources for subsistence within their ancestral domain.

RULING

Petitioners should be acquitted. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the second element of the offense under Section 77—that the act was done “without any authority.” While the first element is present (cutting timber, a natural resource owned by the State, from within an ancestral domain), the second element is doubtful given petitioners’ undisputed claim that they cut a single dita tree for a communal toilet, a purpose consistent with their rights as IPs. The IPRA and other laws, such as the Expanded National Integrated Protected Areas System Act, recognize IPs’ priority rights and authority to utilize natural resources within their ancestral domains for subsistence and domestic needs. This reflects a legislative intent to authorize such small-scale utilization, aligning with the constitutional allowance for small-scale use of natural resources. Penal statutes must be construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused; any doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused. Therefore, criminal liability under Section 77 is not established beyond reasonable doubt.