G.R. No.

165448

July 27, 2009

ERNESTO AQUINO, Petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF T E P ILIPPINES, Respondent. DECISION !ARPIO, J.: T"# !$%# Before the Court is a petition for review 1 assailing the !une 1""# De$ision% and %& Septe'(er %))& Resolution * of the Court of +ppeals in C+,-.R. CR No. 1# *&. T"# A&'#(#)#&' F$('% On (ehalf of .ea$hers/ Ca'p, Sergio -u0'an filed with the Depart'ent of Environ'ent and Natural Resour$es 1DENR2 an appli$ation to $ut down 1& dead Benguet pine trees within the .ea$hers/ Ca'p in Baguio Cit3. .he trees, whi$h had a total volu'e of 1*.*# $u(i$ 'eters, were to (e used for the repairs of .ea$hers/ Ca'p. On 1" 4a3 1""*, (efore the issuan$e of the per'it, a tea' $o'posed of 'e'(ers fro' the Co''unit3 Environ'ent and Natural Resour$es Offi$e 1CENRO2 and 4i$hael Cuteng 1Cuteng2, a forest ranger of the 5orest Se$tion of the Offi$e of the Cit3 +r$hite$t and Par6s Superintendent of Baguio Cit3, $ondu$ted an inspe$tion of the trees to (e $ut. .hereafter, Sa(ado .. Bat$agan, E7e$utive Dire$tor of the DENR, issued a per'it allowing the $utting of 1& trees under the following ter's and $onditions8 %. .hat the $ut ti'(er shall (e utili0ed as lu'(er and fuel,wood (3 the per'ittee9 *. +s repla$e'ent, the per'ittee shall plant one hundred fort3 11&)2 pine seedlings in an appropriate pla$e within the area. In the a(sen$e of planta(le area in the propert3, the sa'e is re:uired to plant within

forest area dul3 designated (3 CENRO $on$erned whi$h shall (e properl3 'aintained and prote$ted to ensure;enhan$e growth and develop'ent of the planted seedlings9 &. <iolation of an3 of the $onditions set hereof is punisha(le under Se$tion => of PD #) as a'ended (3 E.O. No. %##, Series of 1">#9 and . .hat non,$o'plian$e with an3 of the a(ove $onditions or violations of forestr3 laws and regulations shall render this per'it null and void without pre?udi$e to the i'position of penalties in a$$ordan$e with e7isting laws and regulations. .his PER4I. is non,transfera(le and shall e7pire ten 11)2 da3s fro' issuan$e hereof or as soon as the herein authori0ed volu'e is e7hausted whi$hever $o'es first.& On %* !ul3 1""*, 5orest Rangers Ra'il @indo, 4oises So(repeAa, Daniel Sala'o, Pa(lo -uinawan, +ntonio +(ellera, and 5orester Paul +pilis re$eived infor'ation that pine trees were (eing $ut at .ea$hers/ Ca'p without proper authorit3. .he3 pro$eeded to the site where the3 found Ernesto +:uino 1petitioner2, a forest ranger fro' CENRO, and Cuteng supervising the $utting of the trees. .he3 also found saw3ers Benedi$to Santiago 1Santiago2 and 4i6e 4asing 14asing2 on the site, together with Cle'ente Salinas 1Salinas2 and +ndrew Na$ata( 1Na$ata(2, who were also supervising the $utting of the trees. .he forest rangers found %* tree stu'ps, out of whi$h onl3 1% were $overed (3 the per'it. .he volu'e of the trees $ut with per'it was 1*. > $u(i$ 'eters while the volu'e of the trees $ut without per'it was 1=. $u(i$ 'eters. .he 'ar6et value of the trees $ut without per'it was P1>%,&&#.%), and the forest $harges were P11,>**.% . +n Infor'ation for violation of Se$tion => of Presidential De$ree No. #) 1PD #) 2 was filed against petitioner, Cuteng, Na$ata(, 4asing, and Santiago, as follows8 .hat on or a(out the %*rd da3 of !ul3, 1""*, and su(se:uent thereto, in the Cit3 of Baguio, Philippines, and within the ?urisdi$tion of this Bonora(le Court, the a(ove,na'ed a$$used, $onspiring, $onfederating and 'utuall3 aiding one another, and without an3

authorit3, li$ense or per'it, did then and there willfull3, unlawfull3 and feloniousl3 $ut nine 1"2 pine trees with a total volu'e and 'ar6et pri$e as P1>%,&&#.%) 1<olu'e 1=. 4* &%& (d. ft.;4* and unit pri$e C P%=.)) (d. ft.2 and with a total forest $harge of P11,>**.% or having a total su' of P1"&,%>).& at .ea$hers Ca'p, Baguio Cit3, without the legal do$u'ents as re:uired under e7isting forest laws and regulations, parti$ularl3 the Depart'ent of Environ'ent and Natural Resour$es Cir$ular No. ) , Series of 1">", in violation of the afore$ited law.=
lawphil

4asing alleged that he was not aware of the li'itations on the per'it as he was not given a $op3 of the per'it. 4asing stated that he $ut 1) pine trees under the supervision of petitioner who $lai'ed to (e in possession of the ne$essar3 per'it. Be stated that three of the trees were stu'ps a(out four or five feet high and were not fit for lu'(er. Be stated that while he was $utting trees, petitioner and Salinas were present. Santiago testified that he $ut trees under petitioner/s supervision. Be stated that petitioner was in possession of the per'it. Be stated that he $ut 1) trees, si7 of whi$h were $ut into lu'(er while two were stu'ps and two were rotten. Salinas testified that 4asing and Santiago were 'erel3 hired as saw3ers and the3 'erel3 followed petitioner/s instru$tions. Cuteng testified that he was part of the tea' that inspe$ted the trees to (e $ut (efore the per'it was issued. Be stated that the trees $ut (3 Santiago were $overed (3 the per'it. Na$ata( testified that he onl3 went to .ea$hers/ Ca'p on 1* !ul3 1""* and he saw Santiago and 4asing $utting down the trees in petitioner/s presen$e. Petitioner alleged that he was sent to supervise the $utting of trees at .ea$hers/ Ca'p. Be allegedl3 infor'ed his superior, Paul +pilis, that he was not aware of the trees $overed (3 the per'it. Bowever, he still supervised the $utting of trees without pro$uring a $op3 of the vi$init3 'ap used in the inspe$tion of the trees to (e $ut. Be $lai'ed that he $ould not prevent the over$utting of trees (e$ause he was ?ust alone while Cuteng and Santiago were a$$o'panied (3 three other

'en. T"# *#(+%+o& o, '"# T-+$l !ou-' In its %= 4a3 1""& De$ision, # the Regional .rial Court of Baguio Cit3, Bran$h 1trial $ourt2, ruled as follows8 @BERE5ORE, the Court finds and de$lares the a$$used ERNES.O +DEINO 3 ES.IPEF+R, 4ICB+EF CE.EN- 3 FESC+O and BENEDIC.O S+N.I+-O 3 DOCFES guilt3 (e3ond reasona(le dou(t of the $ri'e $harged and here(3 senten$es E+CB of the' to suffer an indeter'inate penalt3 of SIG 1=2 HE+RS of prision $orre$$ional, as 'ini'u', to .@EN.H 1%)2 HE+RS of re$lusion te'poral, as 'a7i'u'9 to inde'nif3, ?ointl3 and severall3, the -overn'ent in the a'ounts of P1>%,&##.%) and P11,>**.% , representing the 'ar6et value of and forest $harges on the Benguet pine trees $ut without per'it9 and to pa3 their proportionate shares in the $osts. .he $hainsaw $onfis$ated fro' the a$$used Santiago is here(3 de$lared forfeited in favor of the -overn'ent. On the other hand, the a$$used +NDRE@ N+C+.+B 3 DODOH and 4IIE 4+SIN- 3 -+N+S are a$:uitted on reasona(le dou(t, with $osts de ofi$io, and the $ash (onds the3 deposited for their provisional li(ert3 in the a'ount of P#, )).)) ea$h under O.R. Nos. 1*"=) and 1*"=&=, dated 5e(ruar3 &, 1""= and 5e(ruar3 %*, 1""&, respe$tivel3, are ordered released to the' upon proper re$eipt therefor. SO ORDERED.> .he trial $ourt ruled that the trees $ut e7$eeded the allowed nu'(er of the trees authori0ed to (e $ut. .he trial $ourt further ruled that the $utting of trees went (e3ond the period stated in the per'it. Petitioner, Cuteng and Santiago appealed fro' the trial $ourt/s De$ision. T"# *#(+%+o& o, '"# !ou-' o, A..#$l% In its !une 1""# De$ision, the Court of +ppeals 'odified the trial

$ourt/s De$ision as follows8 @BERE5ORE, the de$ision of the $ourt a :uo is 4ODI5IED. .he a$$used,appellants Benedi$to Santiago and 4i$hael Cuteng are here(3 a$:uitted on reasona(le dou(t. .he appellant Ernesto +:uino is found guilt3, and is here(3 senten$ed to suffer the indeter'inate penalt3 of si7 1=2 3ears and one 112 da3 of prision 'a3or as 'ini'u', to fourteen 11&2 3ears, eight 1>2 'onths, and one 112 da3 of re$lusion te'poral, as 'a7i'u'. .he award of da'ages is deleted. No $osts. SO ORDERED." .he Court of +ppeals ruled that as a forest guard or ranger of the CENRO, DENR, petitioner had the dut3 to supervise the $utting of trees and to ensure that the saw3ers $o'plied with the ter's of the per'it whi$h onl3 he possessed. .he Court of +ppeals ruled that while it was .ea$hers/ Ca'p whi$h hired the saw3ers, petitioner had $ontrol over their a$ts. .he Court of +ppeals re?e$ted petitioner/s $lai' that he was restrained fro' ta6ing a (older a$tion (3 his fear of Santiago (e$ause petitioner $ould have infor'ed his superiors (ut he did not do so. .he Court of +ppeals further re?e$ted petitioner/s $ontention that the law $onte'plated $utting of trees without per'it, while in this $ase there was a per'it for $utting down the trees. .he Court of +ppeals ruled that the trees whi$h were $ut (3 the saw3ers were not $overed (3 the per'it. .he Court of +ppeals ruled that $onspira$3 was not suffi$ientl3 proven. +s su$h, the Court of +ppeals found that the prose$ution failed to prove Cuteng/s guilt (e3ond reasona(le dou(t. .he Court of +ppeals li6ewise a$:uitted Santiago (e$ause he was onl3 following orders as to whi$h trees to $ut and he did not have a $op3 of the per'it. Petitioner filed a 'otion for re$onsideration. In its %& Septe'(er %))& Resolution, the Court of +ppeals denied the 'otion for la$6 of 'erit. Ben$e, the petition (efore this Court. T"# I%%u# .he onl3 issue in this $ase is whether petitioner is guilt3 (e3ond

reasona(le dou(t of violation of Se$tion => of PD #) . T"# Rul+&/ o, '"+% !ou-' .he petition has 'erit. .he Soli$itor -eneral alleges that the petition should (e denied (e$ause petitioner onl3 raises :uestions of fa$ts and not :uestions of law. @e do not agree. + :uestion of law arises when there is dou(t as to what the law is on a $ertain state of fa$ts, while there is a :uestion of fa$t when the dou(t arises as to the truth or falsit3 of the alleged fa$ts. 1) 5or :uestions to (e one of law, the sa'e 'ust not involve an e7a'ination of the pro(ative value of the eviden$e presented (3 the litigants. 11 .he resolution of the issue 'ust rest solel3 on what the law provides on the given set of $ir$u'stan$es.1% In this $ase, petitioner $hallenges his $onvi$tion under Se$tion => of PD #) . Se$tion => of PD #) provides8 Se$tion =>. Cutting, -athering and;or Colle$ting .i'(er or Other 5orest Produ$ts @ithout Fi$ense.,+n3 person who shall $ut, gather, $olle$t, re'ove ti'(er or other forest produ$ts fro' an3 forest land, or ti'(er fro' aliena(le or disposa(le pu(li$ land, or fro' private land, without an3 authorit3, or possess ti'(er or other forest produ$ts without the legal do$u'ents as re:uired under e7isting forest laws and regulations, shall (e punished with the penalties i'posed under +rti$les *)" and *1) of the Revised Penal Code8 Provided, that in the $ase of partnerships, asso$iations, or $orporations, the offi$ers who ordered the $utting, gathering, $olle$tion or possession shall (e lia(le, and if su$h offi$ers are aliens, the3 shall, in addition to the penalt3, (e deported without further pro$eedings on the part of the Co''ission on I''igration and Deportation. .here are two distin$t and separate offenses punished under Se$tion => of PD #) , to wit8 112 Cutting, gathering, $olle$ting and re'oving ti'(er or other forest produ$ts fro'

land, or ti'(er fro' aliena(le or disposa(le pu(li$ land, or fro' private land w authorit39 and

1%2 Possession of ti'(er or other forest produ$ts without the legal do$u'ents re:u e7isting forest laws and regulations.1* .he provision $learl3 punishes an3one who shall (u', /$'"#-, (oll#(' o- -#0o1# ti'(er or other forest produ$ts fro' an3 forest land, or ti'(er fro' aliena(le or disposa(le pu(li$ land, or fro' private land, without an3 authorit3. In this $ase, petitioner was $harged (3 CENRO to supervise the i'ple'entation of the per'it. Be was not the one who $ut, gathered, $olle$ted or re'oved the pine trees within the $onte'plation of Se$tion => of PD #) . Be was not in possession of the $ut trees (e$ause the lu'(er was used (3 .ea$hers/ Ca'p for repairs. Petitioner $ould not li6ewise (e $onvi$ted of $onspira$3 to $o''it the offense (e$ause all his $o,a$$used were a$:uitted of the $harges against the'. Petitioner 'a3 have (een re'iss in his duties when he failed to restrain the saw3ers fro' $utting trees 'ore than what was $overed (3 the per'it. +s the Court of +ppeals ruled, petitioner $ould have infor'ed his superiors if he was reall3 inti'idated (3 Santiago. If at all, this $ould onl3 'a6e petitioner ad'inistrativel3 lia(le for his a$ts. It is not enough to $onvi$t hi' under Se$tion => of PD #) . Neither $ould petitioner (e lia(le under the last paragraph of Se$tion => of PD #) as he is not an offi$er of a partnership, asso$iation, or $orporation who ordered the $utting, gathering, or $olle$tion, or is in possession of the pine trees. 2 EREFORE, we GRANT the petition. @e SET ASI*E the !une 1""# De$ision and %& Septe'(er %))& Resolution of the Court of +ppeals in C+,-.R. CR No. 1# *&. Petitioner Ernesto +:uino is A!QUITTE* of the $harge of violation of Se$tion => of Presidential De$ree No. #) . Costs de officio. SO OR*ERE*. ANTONIO T. !ARPIO+sso$iate !usti$e