Case Digest (G.R. No. 224469)
Facts:
Diosdado Sama y Hinupas and Bandy Masanglay y Aceveda v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 224469, January 05, 2021, the Supreme Court En Banc, Lazaro-Javier, J., writing for the Court.By Information dated May 27, 2005 the provincial prosecutor charged petitioners and a co‑accused, Demetrio Masanglay y Aceveda, with violating Section 77 of Presidential Decree No. 705 (PD 705, the Revised Forestry Code) for cutting a dita tree on March 15, 2005 in Barangay Calangatan, San Teodoro, Oriental Mindoro without any authority and with an unregistered chainsaw. The case was raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 39, Calapan City; on arraignment all pleaded not guilty and later filed a Motion to Quash asserting among other things that they are members of the Iraya‑Mangyan indigenous community and thus protected by Republic Act No. 8371 (IPRA); the RTC denied the motion as a “mere scrap of paper” and proceeded to trial.
At trial the prosecution’s key witness was PO3 Villamor Ranee, who testified that a DENR‑police surveillance team heard a chainsaw, traced the sound and found the accused at a felled dita tree; prosecution introduced the apprehension affidavit, apprehension receipt and photographs. The defense presented Barangay Captain Rolando Aceveda, who testified that the accused are Mangyans and that the felled tree was on their ancestral land and intended for a communal toilet project; the defense submitted no documentary exhibits. On August 24, 2010 the RTC convicted the accused (sentencing them to an indeterminate term) and denied reconsideration.
Only petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a Decision dated May 29, 2015 (Twelfth Division), affirmed the RTC conviction essentially for lack of any license agreement, lease or permit and for petitioners’ failure to substantiate their claim that they are Iraya‑Mangyan or that the land is part of their ancestral domain; a motion for reconsideration was denied by CA resolution of April 11, 2016. Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 seeking acquittal; the NCIP Legal Affairs Office regularly appeared for petitioners in the lower courts and on appeal.
The Supreme Court granted review. The issues framed were whether petitioners proved (1) they are Iraya‑Mangyan IPs and (2) the elements of violation of ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Were petitioners shown beyond reasonable doubt to be Iraya‑Mangyan indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs)?
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt all elements of violation of Section 77 of PD 705, specifically: (a) that the dita tree is a specie of timber; (b) that the dita was cut from forest land, alienable or disposable public land, or private land as contemplated by Section 77; and (c) that the cutting was done withou...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)