Roldan, Jr. petitioner v. Hon, Madrona et.al.

respondents
GR NO. 152989. September 4, 2002
Facts:
On August 9, 2001, petitioner applied for a Private Land Timber
Permit (PLTP) from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
for him to cut some trees for a proposed road and poultry farm in his
property. He also paid all the fees required by the various government
agencies. While waiting for the permit to be issued, petitioner was allegedly
informed by some employees from the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) that he could proceed with the cutting of trees
even though his application was still awaiting approval. Consequently,
petitioner proceeded with the cutting of trees and bulldozing of the
roadway. He used the cut logs as materials to build his chicken cages.
About three weeks later, representatives of the Community Environment
and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources and personnel from the Intelligence Service, Armed
Forces of the Philippines (ISAFP) of Tacloban City raided petitioners place,
allegedly without a search warrant. An inventory of the cut trees was
conducted there were 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.
Issue:
a. Whether a person who cuts trees for his own use within his
property without the necessary permit from the DENR and without
transporting the same outside said property, be criminally charged for
violating PD 705?
b. 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.
Ruling:

a. Yes, 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. As to the assertion that his penalty for cutting trees in his own land
should not be equated with that for qualified theft, suffice it to say that the
judiciary is never concerned with the wisdom of the law. Whether or not the
legislature was correct in imposing on violators of PD 705 a penalty equal
to that imposable on those guilty of qualified theft is a question beyond the
power of the Court to resolve. It is a settled rule that the fundamental duty
of the Court is to apply the law regardless of who may be affected, even if
the law is harsh - dura lex sed lex
Section 14 of Administrative Order No. 2000-21, the Revised
Guidelines in the Issuance of Private Land Timber Permit/Special Private
Land Timber Permit, provides:
SEC. 14. Penal Provisions. - Any log/timber or finishedwood products covered by these regulations which are
transported without the prescribed documents shall be
considered illegal and, therefore, subject to confiscation in favor
of the government and shall be disposed in accordance with
laws, rules and regulations governing the matter.
b. No, The rule is clear. The aforementioned 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.