Case Digest (G.R. No. 224469) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
[ G.R. No. 224469, January 05, 2021 ]
DIOSDADO SAMA y HINUPAS and BANDY MASANGLAY y ACEVEDA, Petitioners,
Facts:
Petitioners, members of the Iraya-Mangyan indigenous community in Barangay Baras, Baco, Oriental Mindoro, were charged by Information dated May 27, 2005 with willfully and unlawfully cutting a dita tree (500 board feet, valued at ₱20,000) without license, in violation of Section 77 of PD 705 (Revised Forestry Code). On March 15, 2005, a police‐DENR team led by PO3 Ranee was patrolling Barangay Calangatan, San Teodoro, Oriental Mindoro, when they heard a chainsaw and saw a tree fall. Crossing the river, they found petitioners, who admitted no permit, holding a chainsaw beside the felled tree. Photos and affidavits of apprehending officers were introduced. Petitioners presented Barangay Captain Aceveda, who testified that the land and tree were within the Mangyan ancestral domain and that petitioners cut the tree at the NGO's Case Digest (G.R. No. 224469) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Charge
- Petitioners Diosdado Sama y Hinupas and Bandy Masanglay y Aceveda are residents of Barangay Baras, Baco, Oriental Mindoro, and members of the Iraya-Mangyan Indigenous Cultural Community (ICC/IP).
- They were charged under Section 77 of Presidential Decree No. 705 (the Revised Forestry Code) for “willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly” cutting a dita tree (500 board feet, valued at ₱20,000) on March 15, 2005 in Barangay Calangatan, San Teodoro, Oriental Mindoro, without the required permit or authority.
- Proceedings
- At the Regional Trial Court (RTC), petitioners pleaded not guilty, filed a motion to quash under IPRA (denied), went on trial, and were convicted and sentenced (minimum arresto mayor to maximum prisión correccional).
- The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision and denied their motion for reconsideration.
- Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 45, seeking acquittal based on their IP rights.
Issues:
- Elements of the Offense
- Whether petitioners are shown beyond reasonable doubt to have (a) cut, gathered, collected or removed timber (dita tree) from forest, alienable/disposable public, or private land, (b) without any authority as required by Section 77 of P.D. 705.
- Lawful Authority under IPRA
- Whether the “authority” required by Section 77 is limited to DENR permits/license or must include lawful exercise of IP rights under R.A. 8371 (IPRA).
- Whether petitioners’ act of logging the dita tree for a communal toilet, pursuant to their ancestral domain rights, amounts to lawful “authority” under Section 77.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)