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 cultural community (ICC), were charged with violating Section 77 of Presidential Decree No. 705 (P.D. 705) for cutting down a dita tree without the requisite permit or authority. They sought acquittal, averring that they were merely exercising their legitimate right to use and enjoy natural resources within their ancestral domains and were acting in accordance with their elders’ directions. The People argued that petitioners violated the law and must be held accountable, contending that their membership in an indigenous cultural group grants them no special right distinct from other citizens, and that the mere act of cutting a tree without a permit is sufficient for conviction.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners, as members of an indigenous cultural community, can be held criminally liable for cutting a tree without a permit under Section 77 of P.D. 705, considering the nature of the offense as mala prohibita and the requirement of intent to perpetrate the act.

RULING

The Separate Concurring Opinion concurs in the result of the ponencia acquitting the petitioners. It elaborates that while Section 77 of P.D. 705 criminalizes mala prohibita offenses where criminal intent is irrelevant for conviction, the prosecution must still establish that the accused had the intent to perpetrate the act (animus possidendi or voluntariness). This intent refers to the knowledge and volition in committing the act. Jurisprudence demonstrates that intent to perpetrate is assessed on a case-to-case basis, considering the accused’s prior and contemporaneous acts and surrounding circumstances. Temporary, incidental, casual, or harmless commission of a prohibited act may indicate the absence of such intent. The opinion implies that for indigenous peoples exercising rights within their ancestral domains under the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA), a superficial application of the forestry law without considering their cultural context and the absence of criminal volition could lead to unjust results. Thus, the determination of criminal liability must look beyond the literal wording of the law to avoid absurd consequences and consider practical exclusions, including the accused’s intent to perpetrate the prohibited act.