calub vs CA april 27, 2000

DOCTRINE:
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is basic. Courts, for reasons of law, comity and convenience, should not
entertain suits unless the available administrative remedies have first been resorted to and the proper authorities have been given
an appropriate opportunity to act and correct their alleged errors, if any, committed in the administrative forum.
FACTS:
Petitioners, who were officers of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources seized two motor vehicles for
transporting illegally cut lumber. On January 28, 1992, the Forest Protection and Law Enforcement Team of the Community
Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of the DENR apprehended two (2) motor vehicles, described as follows:
Constancio Abuganda and Pio Gabon, the drivers of the vehicles, failed to present proper documents and/or licenses. Thus, the
apprehending team seized and impounded the vehicles and its load of lumber at the DENR-PENR (Department of Environment
and Natural Resources-Provincial Environment and Natural Resources) Office in Catbalogan. .[4]Seizure receipts were issued but
the drivers refused to accept the receipts. .[5] Felipe Calub, Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Officer, then filed
before the Provincial Prosecutors Office in Samar, a criminal complaint against Abuganda, in Criminal Case No. 3795, for
violation of Section 68 [78), Presidential Decree 705 as amended by Executive Order 277, otherwise known as the Revised
Forestry Code
The owner and the driver filed a case against them for the recovery of the possession of the motor vehicle.
ISSUE: w/n replevin and damages lies against the officers of the DENR
HELD:
YES. The vehicle is in custodia legis.
The RFC authorizes the DENR to seize all conveyances used in the commission of an offense in violation of Sec. 78. Since the
provision makes mere possession of lumber without the necessary documentation illegal, the act committed by Abuganda, was a
crime in itself.
There was prima facie violation of Sec. 78, as the ones in possession of the lumber were not able to present a permit for such.
Thus, a warrantless seizure of the involved vehicles and its load was allowed under Sec. 78-A and Sec. 89 of the RFC.
Since there was a prima facie violation of such, and the seizure was in accordance with law, the subject vehicles can be validly
deemed in custodia legis. Thus, such could not be an action for replevin as it is property lawfully taken by virtue of a legal
process.

People vs Que dec 17, 1996

DOCTRINE
In the first offense, one can raise as a defense the legality of said acts. However, in the second offense, mere possession without
proper documentation consummates the crime.

Provincial Task Force got wind that a that a ten-wheeler truck bearing plate number PAD-548 loaded with illegally cut lumber
will pass through Ilocos Norte. Acting on said information, members of the PTF went on patrol several times within the vicinity
of General Segundo Avenue in Laoag City.

On March 8, 1994, SPO1 Corpuz, together with SPO1 Zaldy Asuncion and SPO1 Elmer Patoc went on patrol around the area. At
about 1:00 in the morning, they posted themselves at the corner of General Segundo Avenue and Rizal Street. Thirty minutes
later, they saw a ten-wheeler truck with plate number PAD-548 pass by. They followed the truck and apprehended it at the
Marcos Bridge.
On June 23, 1994, accused-appellant was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Laoag with violation of Section 68 of
P.D. 705 as amended by E.O. 277. The Information alleged:
That on or about the 8th day of March, 1994, in the City of Laoag, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then the owner of an I(s)uzu Ten Wheeler Truck bearing Plate
No. PAD-548, with intent of gain, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in possession,
control and custody 258 pieces of various sizes of Forest Products Chainsawn lumber (Species of Tanguile) with a
total volume of 3,729.3 bd. ft. or equivalent to 8.79 cubic meters valued in the total amount of P93,232.50
atP25.00/bd. ft., necessary permit, license or authority to do so from the proper authorities
Accused-appellant denied the charge against him. He claimed that he acquired the 258 pieces of tanguile lumber from a legal
source. During the trial, he presented the private land timber permits (PLTP) issued by the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) to Enrica Cayosa[13] and Elpidio Sabal.[14] The PLTP authorizes its holder to cut, gather and dispose
timber from the forest area covered by the permit. He alleged that the tanguile lumber came from the forest area covered by th
PLTPs of Cayosa and Sabal and that they were given to him by Cayosa and Sabal as payment for his hauling services
ISSUE:
Whether or not Appellants activities consist an offense
HELD
YES. Possession of the lumber without the necessary permit is a violation of the RFC.
When the police apprehended Que, he failed to present documentary evidence to prove that he has the permit to possess and
transport the lumber. All he had was the permit for the coconut slabs. He even concealed the lumber so as to avoid it from being
seen upon first inspection of the load.
Under the circumstances, there is no doubt that the accused was aware that he needed documents to possess and transport the
lumber, but could not secure one and therefore, concealed such by placing it in such a manner that it could not be seen by merely
looking at the cargo.
There are 2 ways of violating Sec. 68 of the Revised Forestry Code:
a.

By cutting, gathering and/or collecting timber or other forest products without a license; and

b.

By possessing timber or other forest products without the required legal documents.

In the first offense, one can raise as a defense the legality of said acts. However, in the second offense, mere possession without
proper documentation consummates the crime.