Case Digest (G.R. No. 104988)
Facts:
Mustang Lumber, Inc. v. Hon. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 104988), People of the Philippines v. Hon. Teresita Dizon-Capulong (G.R. No. 106424), and Mustang Lumber, Inc. v. Hon. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 123784), June 18, 1996, Supreme Court En Banc, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Mustang Lumber, Inc. was a registered lumber dealer whose permit expired 25 September 1990. Respondents included Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., then Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Atty. Vincent A. Robles, Chief of DENR-SAID, the Court of Appeals, Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong (RTC, Branch 172, Valenzuela), and private respondent Ri Chuy Po (Mustang's president).
On 1 April 1990 a DENR-SAID team surveilling Mustang's Valenzuela lumberyard intercepted a truck (Plate CCK-322) leaving the premises loaded with lauan and almaciga; lacking invoices and transport documents, the truck and cargo were seized and impounded. The SAID team initially could not enter the lumberyard. On 3 April 1990 the team procured a search warrant from Executive Judge Adriano Osorio (RTC, Valenzuela) and seized four truckloads of narra shorts and slabs, a small amount of narra lumber, and about 200,000 bd. ft. of assorted lumber including almaciga and supa. On 4 April 1990 the team placed under administrative seizure the remaining stockpile (≈311,000 bd. ft.) for failure to produce certificates of lumber origin, invoices, tally sheets and delivery receipts; under administrative seizure the owner retained physical possession but was prohibited from disposing of the goods.
On 10–11 April 1990 Robles denied Mustang's request for an extension to produce documents and recommended suspension/cancellation of Mustang's dealer's permit, confiscation of seized lumber if documents were not produced, and criminal prosecution of its officers. On 23 April 1990 Secretary Factoran suspended Mustang's lumber-dealer permit and directed written explanation. On 3 May 1990 Secretary Factoran ordered the approximately 311,000 bd. ft. confiscated in favor of the Government.
Mustang filed a certiorari/prohibition petition in RTC Manila (Civil Case No. 90-53648, Branch 35 — the FIRST CIVIL CASE) challenging the 1 April seizure and the DENR orders; Branch 35 on 7 June 1991 set aside the DENR confiscation order of 3 May 1990, directed respondents to report the seized articles to Judge Osorio, required respondents to prosecute appropriate actions regarding the 1 April seizures, and withheld any return of lumber pending proper court determination. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court on 29 November 1991 (CA-G.R. SP No. 25510); Mustang brought G.R. No. 104988 by petition for review on certiorari.
On 17 September 1990 DENR agents executed Special Order No. 897 at Mustang's Tondo premises, observed fresh sawing activity, and effected a constructive seizure (receipt issued) of about 20,000 bd. ft. lauan. Mustang filed a second certiorari/prohibition petition in RTC Manila (Civil Case No. 90-54610, Branch 24 — the SECOND CIVIL CASE). Branch 24 dismissed that petition on 24 September 1992; the Court of Appeals affirmed on 31 July 1995 (CA-G.R. SP No. 33778). Mustang sought review in G.R. No. 123784.
Concurrently, Robles filed a complaint with the Department of Justice; after investigation the prosecutor recommended filing an information for illegal possession and shipment of prohibited woods. An information was filed on 5 June 1991 in RTC Valenzuela (Criminal Case No. 324‑V‑91) charging Ri Chuy Po with violation of Section 68, P.D. No. 705, as amended. On 7 June 1991 Ri moved to quash the information for failure to charge an offense (arguing lumber is not covered ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the RTC, in Criminal Case No. 324‑V‑91, commit grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion to quash the information for failure to charge an offense?
- Does possession of "lumber" without required legal documents fall within "timber or other forest products" penalized under Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended?
- Was the warrantless seizure on 1 April 1990 of the moving truck and its cargo lawful, and was the 4 April 1990 seizure a valid continuation of the prior search under the warrant?
- Were DENR's administrative actions — suspension of Mustang's permit (23 April 1990) and confiscation order (3 May 1990) and the administr...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)