DENR Administrative Order No. 59 series of 1993 specifies the documents required for the transport of timber and other forest products. Section 3 of the Administrative Order provides that the movement of logs, lumber, non-timber forest products and wood-based or wood based shall be covered with the appropriate Certificates of Origin. The transport of lumber shall be accompanied by CLO (Certificate of Lumber Origin). 2. No, because there are 2 distinct and separate offenses punished under Section 68 of P.D. 705. In the first offense, one can raise as a defense the legality of the acts of cutting, gathering, collecting or removing timber or other forest products by presenting the authorization issued by the DENR. In the second offense, however, mere possession of forest products without the proper documents consummates the crime. Whether or not the lumber comes from a legal source is immaterial because E.O 277 considers the mere possession of timber or other forest products without the proper legal documents as malum prohibitum. ROLDAN v MADRONA GR No. 152989, September 4, 2002 Facts Pending the application in the DENR for a Private Land Timber Permit on his own land, Roldan was allegedly informed by some DENR employees that he could proceed with the cutting of trees. Later, petitioner cut trees, bulldozed the roadway and used cut logs as materials to build chicken cages. The CENRO group confiscated 872 pieces of sawn lumber/flitches (8,506 board feet) and three felled timber logs with a total market value of P235,454.68 at P27.00 per board foot. Issues 1. Whether the petitioner’s penalty for cutting trees in his own land should not be equated with that for qualified theft. 2. Whether the owner of a private property is administratively liable under Section 14 of DENR Administrative Order No. 2000-21 despite the
fact that he did not transport the logs out of his property and used them for his own agricultural purposes. 3. Whether the logs confiscated by the DENR should be returned to petitioner. Held 1. No, Under Section 68, PD 705 as amended by E.O. 277, it is clear that the violators of the said law are not declared as being guilty of qualified theft; hence his ownership of the land is of no moment. The said law does not even distinguish whether or not the person who commits the punishable acts under the aforementioned law is the owner of the property, for what is material in determining the culpability of a person is whether or not the person or entity involved or charged with its violation possesses the required permit, license or authorization from DENR at the time he or it cuts, gathers or collects timber or other forest products. 2. No, the administrative order considers the mere act of transporting any wood product or timber without the prescribed documents as an offense which is subject to the penalties provided for by law. As to the defense of petitioner that he never transported the logs out of his property, suffice it to say that such is a factual issue which this Court under Rule 45 cannot determine.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 14 pages?
- Summer '18