G.R. No. 252423 - Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office of Virac, Catanduanes vs. Eastern Island Shipping Lines Corp.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 252423)

Factual antecedents and criminal conviction

On March 13, 2018, two accused were found to have transported 196 pieces of lumber without proper DENR documentation. The truck used (plate ACO‑1836) was allegedly owned by respondent Eastern Island and leased to Belen. The accused were arraigned and pleaded guilty on March 16, 2018; the RTC convicted them the same day for violation of P.D. No. 705, sentenced them, and ordered confiscation of the lumber. The RTC directed submission of documents to determine whether the truck should also be confiscated, and temporarily permitted bond and petition for probation filings.

RTC’s confiscation order and denial of third‑party relief

After law enforcers refused to consent to release the truck, the RTC by order dated March 22, 2018 declared the truck confiscated in favor of the Government pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the DENR. Respondent’s subsequent motion to reopen the confiscation aspect, intervene as a third‑party claimant, and secure release of the truck was denied by the RTC in its May 25, 2018 Order. The RTC reasoned that Section 68 of P.D. No. 705 mandates judicial confiscation of “machinery, equipment, implements and tools” used in illegal forest product activities and that this provision, as a special law, prevails over Article 45 of the RPC.

Court of Appeals’ ruling and its grounds

The Court of Appeals granted Eastern Island’s petition for certiorari, declaring the RTC Order null and void for grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, and ordered the release of the truck to Eastern Island within five days. The CA’s reasoning: (1) P.D. No. 705 contains distinct administrative (Section 68‑A) and judicial (Section 68) confiscation mechanisms, and Section 68 does not explicitly override Article 45 of the RPC; (2) Article 45 of the RPC bars confiscation when the instrument or tool is property of a third person not liable for the offense; and (3) respondent established ownership and non‑participation (the truck was leased to Belen), and respondent was not impleaded in the criminal case nor given opportunity to litigate its claim, thus violating its due process rights.

Issues presented to the Supreme Court

Primary issues: (1) Whether the confiscation of a vehicle used to transport illegal timber may be judicially ordered under Section 68 of P.D. No. 705 irrespective of third‑party ownership; and (2) Whether the rule in P.D. No. 705, as a special law, displaces Article 45 of the RPC so that ownership or third‑party non‑liability is immaterial to judicial confiscation.

Threshold procedural consideration—failure to file reconsideration

The Supreme Court noted respondent’s failure to seek reconsideration of the RTC’s May 25, 2018 Order before filing the petition for certiorari with the CA, normally required before invoking Rule 65 remedies. However, the Court found exceptions applicable due to respondent’s claim of denial of due process in confiscation—an instance where immediate relief by certiorari was warranted.

Distinction between administrative and judicial confiscation under P.D. No. 705 and DAO 97‑32

The Court affirmed the legal distinction: Section 68‑A vests the DENR with administrative authority to confiscate “all conveyances” used in the commission of forestry offenses and to dispose of them pursuant to procedures (DAO 97‑32), whereas Section 68 (second paragraph) confers judicial power to confiscate timber, machinery, equipment, implements and tools found illegally used where the forest products are found. The statutory text of Section 68 does not expressly include “conveyances,” a term specifically included in Section 68‑A.

Suppletory application of Article 45, RPC

Because Section 68 is silent on judicial confiscation of conveyances, the Court held Article 45 of the RPC may be applied suppletorily (Article 10, RPC) to criminal convictions under P.D. No. 705. Article 45 provides that instruments or tools used in a crime shall be forfeited to the Government unless they are the property of a third person not liable for the offense. The Court treated motor vehicles as instruments of crime under established doctrine and DAO 97‑32’s forfeiture provisions as consistent with the suppletory use of Article 45.

Due process constraints and third‑party rights

The Court emphasized that Article 45 protects third‑party owners from forfeiture without their being informed and given opportunity to prove non‑participation. A mere suspicion of the owner’s involvement does not suffice for confiscation. Administrative confiscation under DAO 97‑32 also requires notice and hearing; likewise, judicial proceedings must permit the third‑party claimant to present evidence (e.g., by new trial or reopening of confiscation aspect) to establish ownership and lack of participation.

Error in RTC procedure and limits of the Court of Appeals’ remedy

The Supreme Court concluded the RTC erred by ordering confiscation without affording Eastern Island due process to prove ownership and non‑participation; thus, the May 25, 2018 Order was void for denying constitutional due process. The CA correctly found grave abuse of discretion but erred in ordering outright release of the truck to Eastern Island because the CA relied solely on documents appended to Eastern Island’s omnibus motion; those documents were not formally offered or tested through evidence or adversarial examination before the RTC.

Holding and disposition by

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 252423)

Case Caption, Court and Decision

Full case caption as presented: THIRD DIVISION [ G.R. No. 252423, January 16, 2023 ] DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES-APROVINCIAL ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE (DENR-PENRO) OF VIRAC, CATANDUANES, AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONERS, VS. EASTERN ISLAND SHIPPING LINES CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.
Decision authored by Justice Gaerlan, with concurrences noted in the final disposition by Caguioa (Chairperson), Inting, Dimaampao, and Singh, JJ.
Petition under Review: Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Court of Appeals Decision dated February 19, 2020 in CA-G.R. SP No. 157075.

Antecedent Criminal Case and Charges

Underlying criminal case: Criminal Case No. 6531, involving alleged violation of Section 77 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 705 (Revised Forestry Code), as amended and renumbered.
Accused in the criminal information: Marvin Soria y Sarmiento and Elmer Morauda III y Mirabuna.
Allegations in the Information: On March 13, 2018, the accused possessed and transported 196 pieces of lumber products using a ten-wheeler Isuzu dump truck (plate no. ACO 1836) without necessary DENR documents/certification (Rollo, p. 46).
Ownership and lease allegations: The subject truck was purportedly owned by respondent Eastern Island Shipping Lines Corporation and allegedly leased by Elmer B. Belen from respondent under a Contract of Lease dated February 26, 2018 (Rollo, p. 28).
Custody of items: The lumber products and the subject truck were confiscated by law enforcement officers pending disposition by the RTC (Rollo, p. 8).

Plea, Conviction and RTC Judgment (March 16, 2018)

Arraignment and plea: On March 16, 2018, the two accused were arraigned and pleaded guilty; they manifested understanding of consequences of their plea (Rollo, p. 29).
RTC Judgment (dispositive portion quoted): Found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 77 of P.D. No. 705; considered two mitigating circumstances (plea of guilty and voluntary surrender); sentenced to an indeterminate penalty with specified minimum and maximum terms; ordered the confiscation of 196 pieces of lumber (2,178 board feet) in favor of the government and directed disposal pursuant to DENR rules (Rollo, pp. 47-48).
Regarding the subject truck: The RTC noted agreed need for accused to submit documents proving that the truck was used without knowledge of the registered owner and to prove existence of a Lease Contract between registered owner and an alleged sender (Engr. Gene Guerrero), with counsel committed to submit documents by March 21, 2018; the accused were allowed to post bond and file petition for probation (Rollo, p. 47-48; emphasis in original).

Post-Judgment Proceedings Regarding the Truck

Law enforcers' manifestation: On March 20, 2018 law enforcers manifested they would not consent to the release of the subject truck (Rollo, p. 30).
RTC Order on March 22, 2018: RTC declared the confiscation of the subject truck in favor of the Government to be disposed of pursuant to DENR rules and regulations (Rollo, pp. 49-50).
Motion for reconsideration by accused was denied by RTC (Order dated April 6, 2018) (Rollo, pp. 51-52).

Respondent’s Omnibus Motion in the RTC (May 9, 2018)

Reliefs sought by respondent: (a) reopen trial on the confiscation aspect only; (b) for intervention/third-party claim; and (c) release of the vehicle with plate no. ACO 1836 (Rollo, pp. 53-69).
Respondent’s factual assertions: Respondent claimed it only learned of the confiscation on April 27, 2018; asserted lack of knowledge that the truck was used unlawfully; denied consent or participation in the commission of the crime; prayed for release invoking Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code (Rollo, pp. 30-31).

RTC Order Denying Respondent’s Motion (May 25, 2018)

RTC disposition: Denied respondent’s Omnibus Motion (Rollo, pp. 44-45).
RTC reasoning: Relied on Section 68 (formerly Section 68) of P.D. No. 705, particularly the last paragraph directing confiscation in favor of the Government of timber/forest products and the "machinery, equipment, implements, or tools" used in illegal cutting, gathering or collection; held no exemption in confiscation of such machinery/equipment regardless of ownership; concluded that Section 68 (special law) prevails over Article 45 of the RPC (Rollo, pp. 44-45).

Proceeding in the Court of Appeals and Its Decision (Feb. 19, 2020)

Petition filed: Respondent filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals.
CA ruling (dispositive quoted): The CA granted the petition, declared the RTC Order dated May 25, 2018 null and void for grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, and directed DENR-PENRO to release the Isuzu dump truck with plate ACO-1836 to Eastern Island within five days from receipt of the decision (Rollo, p. 42).
CA legal conclusions:
- Distinction of confiscation types: Identified two kinds of confiscation under P.D. No. 705—administrative (Section 68-A) and judicial (Section 68), concluding the present case involved judicial confiscation (Rollo, pp. 35-39).
- Applicability of Article 45 RPC: Held P.D. No. 705 did not render Article 45 inapplicable; Article 45 applies and instruments/tools used in crime are confiscable except where property belongs to a third person not liable for the offense (Rollo, pp. 35-39).
- Due process / impleading: Found respondent’s right to due process violated because it was not impleaded and there was no showing of respondent’s knowledge or participation; accepted respondent’s proof of ownership and non-participation based on documents submitted with the Omnibus Motion and ordered release of the truck (Rollo, pp. 39-42).

Petition to the Supreme Court: Grounds Raised by Petitioners

Petitioners: DENR-PENRO of Virac, Catanduanes, and the People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General.
Two principal contentions (ascribed error to the CA):
I. Confiscation of vehicle used in transporting timber and forest products is part of the imposable penalty under Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended.
II. P.D. No. 705, as amended, is a special law that prevails over the Revised Penal Code (RPC) (Rollo, p. 11).
Petitioners’ argument summarized:
- Section 68 covers confiscation of timber and also machinery/equipment/implements/tools used in connection therewith; no distinction based on ownership; proof only required as to use of vehicle in transport of illegal forest products (Rollo, pp. 12-17).
- Special law supremacy: P.D. No. 705, being a special law, should govern and determine confiscation; relevance of RPC limited to theft penalty provisions (Rollo, pp. 12-17).

Respondent’s Position Before the Supreme Court

Respondent’s stance: Court of Appeals decision correct; two kinds of confiscation (administrative and judicial) under P.D. No. 705 were correctly distinguished; the truck was judicially confiscated but the RTC had no jurisdiction to order confiscation because respondent was not impleaded and there was no administrative confiscation (Rollo, pp. 17-19).
Reliance on precedent: Invoked Sea Lion Fishing Corporation v. People (661 Phil. 621 (2011)) to argue that a third-party claimant not liable for the offense must establish ownership and non-participat