envi case digests 2

7/21/2019 Envi Case Digests 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/envi-case-digests-2 1/21

AQUINO v. PEOPLEGR No. 165448July 27, 2009

FAC!"

The Teacher’s Camp filed with the DENR an application to cut down 14 dead Benguet pinetrees within their area in Baguio City. The trees were to e used for the repairs of TeachersCamp.

!fter the inspection of the trees to e cut" the E#ecuti$e Director of the DENR issued a permitallowing the cutting of 14 trees.

Thereafter" a group of forest rangers recei$ed information that pine trees were eing cut withoutproper authority at the Teacher’s Camp. They went to the site where they found petitioner

!%uino" a forest ranger from CENR&" another forest ranger" two super$isors" and two sawyers.The forest rangers found '( tree stumps" out of which only 1' were co$ered y the permit.

!n information was then filed against the fi$e indi$iduals for cutting without permit the nine )*+pine trees in conspiracy. The trial court ruled that despite the e#istence of a permit" the trees cute#ceeded the allowed numer of the trees authori,ed to e cut and that the cutting of trees wenteyond the period stated in the permit.

Nonetheless" all of the accused ha$e een ac%uitted in the trial court and on appeal" e#cept for the petitioner.

-etitioner’s defense was that he was merely sent to super$ise the cutting of trees at theTeacher’s Camp and he was not aware of the trees co$ered y the permit. owe$er" he stillsuper$ised the cutting of trees without procuring a copy of the $icinity map used in the

inspection of the trees to e cut. e claimed that he could not pre$ent the o$ercutting of treesecause he was /ust alone and that he feared one of the sawyers" 0antiago.

I!!UE

2oN petitioner is guilty eyond reasonale dout of $iolation of 0ection 3 of -D 567

#EL$

NO. 0ection 3 of -D 567 punishes anyone who shall %u&, '(&)*+, %oll*%& o+ +*ov* &-*+ o+ o&)*+ /o+*& +ou%& /+o (3y /o+*& l(3 " or &-*+ /+o (l-*3(l* o+ -o(l*ul-% l(3, o+ /+o +-v(&* l(3" without any authority .

8n this case" petitioner was charged y CENR& to super$ise the implementation of the permit.e was not the one who cut" gathered" collected or remo$ed the pine trees within thecontemplation of 0ection 3 of -D 567. e was not in possession of the cut trees ecause thelumer was used y Teachers Camp for repairs. -etitioner could not li9ewise e con$icted of conspiracy to commit the offense ecause all his co:accused were ac%uitted of the chargesagainst them.



-etitioner may ha$e een remiss in his duties when he failed to restrain the sawyers fromcutting trees more than what was co$ered y the permit. !s the C! ruled" petitioner could ha$einformed his superiors if he was really intimidated y 0antiago. 8f at all" this could only ma9epetitioner administrati$ely liale for his acts. 8t is not enough to con$ict him under 0ection 3 of -D 567.



AN v. PEOPLEGR No. 115507(y 19, 1998

FAC!"

&n the e$ening of &ctoer '3" 1** in 0iuyan 8sland" Romlon" two forest guards intercepteda dump truc9 loaded with narra and white lauan lumer. The truc9 was dri$en y -etitioner ;oreno" an employee of ! < E Construction. &n the e$ening of &ctoer (6" 1**" this time inBarangay Cama/ao" the same forest guards apprehended another dump truc9 with loaded withtanguile lumer. 0aid truc9 was dri$en y Caudol" also an employee of ! < E Construction.Both motor $ehicles" as well as the construction firm" were owned y -etitioner Tan. 8n othinstances" no documents showing legal possession of the lumer were" upon demand"presented to the forest guards= thus" the pieces of lumer were confiscated.

Tan and ;oreno" together with 8smael Ramilo" careta9er and time9eeper of ! < E Construction"were charged y >irst !ssistant -ro$incial -rosecutor with $iolation of 0ection 3" -D No. 567"

as amended y E& No. '55. The accused were all con$icted for failure to comply with the>orestry Reform Code which re%uires )1+ an au#iliary in$oice" )'+ a certificate of origin" )(+ asales in$oice" )4+ scale?tally sheets and )7+ a lumer dealer permit. The C! found no cogentreason for the re$ersal or modification of the decision.

I!!UE

1+ 2oN 0ection 3 of E& '55 is unconstitutional.'+ 2oN @lumer@ is to e construed as @timer@ and?or forest product within the contemplation of -D 567.

#EL$

1+ NO. 0ection 3 deals with penali,ing the @cutting" gathering and?or collecting timer or other forest products without license.@ &ne of the essential re%uisites for a successful /udicial in%uiryinto the constitutionality of a law is the e#istence of an actual case or contro$ersy in$ol$ing aconflict of legal rights susceptile of /udicial determination. !s respondent C! correctly pointedout" petitioners were not Acharged with the unlawful possession of firewood" ar9" honey"eeswa#" and e$en grass" shru" the associated water’ or fish’ thus" the inclusion of any of these enumerated items in E& '55 Ais asolutely of no concern to petitioners. They are notasserting a legal right for which they are entitled to a /udicial determination at this time.Besides" they did not present any con$incing e$idence of a clear and une%ui$ocal reach of theConstitution that would /ustify the nullification of said pro$ision. ! statute is always presumed toe constitutional" and one who attac9s it on the ground of unconstitutionality must con$incingly

pro$e its in$alidity.

'+ E!. 8n ;ustang Fumer 8nc $. C!" 0upreme Court held that lumer is included in the termtimer. 8n the 1**( copyright edition of 2ester’s Third New 8nternational Dictionary" lumer isdefined" inter alia" as timer or logs after eing prepared for the mar9et.’ 0imply put" lumer isa processed log or timer. To e#clude possession of @lumer@ from the acts penali,ed in 0ection3 would emasculate the law itself.



8t is settled that in the asence of legislati$e intent to the contrary" words and phrases used in astatute should e gi$en their plain" ordinary" and common usage meaning. !nd insofar aspossession of timer without the re%uired legal documents is concerned" 0ection 3 of -.D. No.567" as amended" ma9es no distinction etween raw or processed timer. Neither do we. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguire debemus.

!fter all" the phrase forest products’ is road enough to encompass lumer which" to reiterate"is manufactured timer. 8ndeed" to mention lumer in the aforesaid section would simply resultin tautology.

Clearly" petitioners are liale for $iolation of 0ection 3 of the >orestry Reform Code.



$AGU$AG v. PA$ERANGAA.. No. RJ062017Ju3* 19, 2008

FAC!"

The -N- Regional ;aritime Group recei$ed information that ;H General Ricarte of N;CContainer Fines" 8nc. was shipping container $ans containing illegal forest products fromCagayan de &ro to Ceu. The shipments were falsely declared as cassa$a meal and corngrains to a$oid inspection y the DENR.

!fter a team composed of representati$es from the -N-R;G" DENR and -CG" the CENR&&8C Foreto !. Ri$ac )Ri$ac+ sent a notice to N;C Container Fines" 8nc. as9ing for e#planationwhy the go$ernment should not confiscate the forest products. The latter’sI Branch ;anager inan affida$it stated that he did not see why the go$ernment should not confiscate the forestproducts and that N;C Fines had no 9nowledge of the actual content of the container $ans.

!fter the posting of notices to inform the un9nown owner aout the administrati$e ad/udicationwith no one appearing on the same" Ri$ac recommended to the DENR Regional E#ecuti$eDirector that the forest products e confiscated in fa$or of the go$ernment.

Nonetheless" after aout a month" a certain Edma prayed that a writ of reple$in e issuedefore respondent Judge -aderanga ordering the defendants DENR" CENR&" Dagudag" andothers to deli$er the forest products to him and that /udgment e rendered ordering thedefendants to pay him damages. Thereafter" Judge -aderanga issued a writ of reple$in ordering0heriff 0alceda to ta9e possession of the forest products.

I!!UE

2oN respondent Judge -aderanga should ta9e cogni,ance of the reple$in suit

#EL$

NO. Judge -aderanga should ha$e dismissed the reple$in suit outright for three reasons.

First " under the o%&+-3* o/ *)(u&-o3 o/ (-3-&+(&-v* +**-*" courts cannot ta9ecogni,ance of cases pending efore administrati$e agencies. 8n the instant case" Edma did notresort to" or a$ail of" any administrati$e remedy. e went straight to court and filed a complaintfor reple$in and damages. 0ection of -residential Decree No. 567" as amended" states that)1+ all actions and decisions of the Bureau of >orest De$elopment Director are su/ect to re$iewy the DENR 0ecretary= )'+ the decisions of the DENR 0ecretary are appealale to the

-resident= and )(+ courts cannot re$iew the decisions of the DENR 0ecretary e#cept through aspecial ci$il action for certiorari or prohiition.

Second " under the o%&+-3* o/ +-(+y u+--%&-o3" courts cannot ta9e cogni,ance of casespending efore administrati$e agencies of special competence. The DENR is the agencyresponsile for the enforcement of forestry laws. The complaint for reple$in itself stated thatmemers of DENR’s Tas9 >orce 0agip Kali9asan too9 o$er the forest products and roughtthem to the DENR CENR&. This should ha$e alerted Judge -aderanga that the DENR had



custody of the forest products" that administrati$e proceedings may ha$e een commenced"and that the reple$in suit had to e dismissed outright.

Third " the forest products are already in custodia legis and thus cannot e the su/ect of reple$in. The Court has pre$iously held that properties lawfully sei,ed y the DENR cannot ethe su/ect of reple$in.



PRO!. AAO v. JU$GE LILAGAN : !#ERIFF AGUILARA.. No. RJ011651!*&**+ 4, 2001

FAC!"

!s ;?F adi/a was unloading its cargo at the port of Tacloan City" NB8:EHR& L decided to$erify the accompanying documents of the shipments of said watercraft" which consisted of around 166 tons of tanar9. The NB8 agents found the documents irregular and incomplete andthus" ordered the unloading of the cargo stopped. The tanar9" the oat ;?F adi/a" and ( cargotruc9s were then sei,ed and impounded.

NB8:EHR& L Regional Director Caaay filed a criminal complaint for $iolation of 0ection 3)now 0ection 5+ of -.D. No. 567 against the captain and crew of the ;?F adi/a. e alsodirected the sei,ure y the DENR of the tanar9" the oat ;?F adi/a" and the ( cargo truc9s.

ernande," the consignee of said shipments" howe$er" filed in the RTC Feyte a case for

reple$in to reco$er said sei,ed items. erein respondent Judge Filagan then issued a writ of reple$in and directed respondent 0heriff !guilar to ta9e possession of the items sei,ed y theDENR and to deli$er them to ernande, after the e#piration of 7 days.

ence" !tty. Taao filed this administrati$e complaint.

I!!UE!

1+ 2oN it is correct for respondent Judge Filagan to ta9e cogni,ance of the reple$in suit

'+ 2oN respondent 0heriff !guilar’s act of releasing the sei,ed items to ernande, constitutes

gross negligence and irregularity in the performance of his duty as a court employee

#EL$

1+ NO. Respondent Judge FilaganIs act of ta9ing cogni,ance of the su/ect reple$in suit clearlydemonstrates ignorance of the law.

The complaint for reple$in itself states that the shipment of tanar9 and the $essel on which itwas loaded were sei,ed y the NB8 for $erification of supporting documents. 8t also states thatthe NB8 turned o$er the sei,ed items to the DENR for official disposition and appropriate action.

! copy of the document e$idencing the turno$er to DENR was attached to the complaint. These

allegations would ha$e een sufficient to alert respondent /udge that the DENR has custody of the sei,ed items and that administrati$e proceedings may ha$e already een commencedconcerning the shipment.

Mnder the doctrine of primary jurisdiction" courts cannot ta9e cogni,ance of cases pendingefore administrati$e agencies of special competence. The plaintiff in the reple$in suit whosee9s to reco$er the shipment from the DENR had not e#hausted the administrati$e remediesa$ailale to him. The prudent thing for respondent /udge to ha$e done was to dismiss thereple$in suit outright.



'+ NO. Respondent 0heriff !%uilar merely complied with his ministerial duty to ser$e the writ withreasonale celerity and to e#ecute it promptly in accordance with its mandates. ence" Thecharges against respondent sheriff were dismissed for lac9 of merit.



AANEO v. !#ERIFF AGUUNA.. No. P981264July 28, 1999

FAC!"

The forest employees of the DENR" Cordillera !dministrati$e Region tas9ed with theenforcement of forestry laws" intercepted a 0an ;iguel Corporation )0;C+ $an with narraflitches wrapped in nylon sac9 and co$ered with empty eer ottles and cartons. The dri$er of the $an could not produce any legal permit authori,ing him to transport the narralumer. The $ehicle and its load of narra flitches were confiscated.

! criminal complaint against dri$er ;artine, was filed for $iolation of 0ec. 5 of -.D. 567as amended. !fter due notice and opportunity to e heard" an order of forfeiture of the $ehicleand its load was issued y the DENR Regional &ffice pursuant to its %uasi:/udicial authority.

Thereafter" 0;C" the owner of the $ehicle" filed a case for reco$ery of personal property and

damages with application for writ of reple$in with the RTC of Tuguegarao" Cagayan. Thetrial court issued a warrant of sei,ure of personal property which was enforced y Dep.0heriff ;agumun despite the refusal of the DENR employees and officials on the ground thatit had already een forfeited in fa$or of the go$ernment and was now in custodia legis.The sheriff too9 the $an without permission and turned it o$er to a 0;C agent.

I!!UE

2oN the deputy sheriff committed a gra$e misconduct in ta9ing hold of the personal propertywhich is already in custodial legis confiscated y other go$ernment agency

#EL$

E!. ! sheriff’s prerogati$e does not gi$e him the lierty to determine who among the parties isentitled to the possession of the attached property= much less does he ha$e any discretion todecide which agency has primary /urisdiction and authority o$er the matter at hand.

2hen a writ is placed in the hands of a sheriff" it is his duty" -3 &)* (*3%* o/ (3y-3&+u%&-o3 &o &)* %o3&+(+y, &o +o%** ;-&) +*(o3(l* %*l*+-&y (3 +o&3*&o **%u&* -& (%%o+-3' &o -& (3(&*. owe$er" the prompt implementation of a warrant of sei,ure is called for only in instances where there is no %uestion regarding the right of theplaintiff to the property. 8n this case" the prudent recourse then for respondent was todesist from e#ecuting the warrant and con$ey the information to his /udge and to theplaintiff.



$ v. CAG.R. No. 121587(+%) 9, 1999

FAC!

&n ;ay (1" 1**(" the ;ayor of Butuan City issued E#ecuti$e &rder No. *(:61 creating Tas9>orce Kali9asan to comat Aillegal logging" log smuggling or possession of and?or transport of illegally cut or produced logs" lumer" flitches and other forest products in that city. The teamwas composed of personnel of the -hilippine !rmy" -N-" DENR and the &ffice of the City ;ayor of Butuan. Respondent &del Bernardo Fausa" who was the acting chief of ci$ilian security in themayor’s office" was a memer of the team.

&n July 1" 1**(" the memers of the Tas9 >orce Kali9asan of Butuan City recei$ed confidentialinformation that two )'+ truc9loads of illegally:cut lumer would e rought to Butuan City fromthe !mpayon:Taguie:Tiniwisan area.

!ccordingly" the team set up a chec9point. They finally caught up with the two $ehicles at thecompound of oung ;etalcraft and -eterwood !gro:>orest 8ndustries. 2hen re%uested y theteam" the careta9er of said compound was not ale to produce any documents pro$ing thelegality of possession of the forest products. DENR officers then sei,ed the truc9 and lumer"and since there were no claimants after posting the notice of confiscation" it was deemedforfeited in fa$or of the go$ernment.

Two months after said forfeiture" petitioner herein filed a suit for reple$in to reco$er the truc9sand lumer" to which respondent Fausa" acting chief of ci$ilian security in the mayor’s office"and memer of the Tas9 >orce" filed a motion for appro$al of a counterond and dismissal of thereple$in since the sei,ure was pursuant to the Re$ised >orestry Code. The trial court ruled infa$or of petitioner" ut such decision re$ersed on appeal in fa$or of Fausa. ence this petition.

I!!UE

2&N the Regional Trial Court could ta9e cogni,ance of the reple$in suit

#EL$

NO. The rule is that a party must e#haust all administrati$e remedies efore he can resort to thecourts. Before a party may e allowed to see9 the inter$ention of the court" it is a pre:conditionthat he should ha$e a$ailed himself of all the means afforded y the administrati$e processes.ence" if a remedy within the administrati$e machinery can still e resorted to y gi$ing theadministrati$e officer concerned e$ery opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his

/urisdiction" then such remedy should e e#hausted first efore a court’s /udicial power can esought. a$ing een forfeited pursuant to -D No. 567" as amended" the lumer properly cameunder the custody of the DENR and all actions see9ing to reco$er possession thereof should edirected to that agency.

Nonetheless" the appellate court’s directi$e to the trial court /udge to allow the respondent agentof the DENR to file a counterond in order to reco$er custody of the lumer should edisregarded as eing contrary to its order to dismiss the reple$in suit of petitioner. >or" indeed"



what it should ha$e done was to dismiss the case without pre/udice to petitioner filing her claimefore the DENR.



PRO!. AAO v. JU$GE LILAGAN : !#ERIFF AGUILARA.. No. RJ011651!*&**+ 4, 2001

FAC!"

!s ;?F adi/a was unloading its cargo at the port of Tacloan City" NB8:EHR& L decided to$erify the accompanying documents of the shipments of said watercraft" which consisted of around 166 tons of tanar9. The NB8 agents found the documents irregular and incomplete andthus" ordered the unloading of the cargo stopped. The tanar9" the oat ;?F adi/a" and ( cargotruc9s were then sei,ed and impounded.

NB8:EHR& L Regional Director Caaay filed a criminal complaint for $iolation of 0ection 3)now 0ection 5+ of -.D. No. 567 against the captain and crew of the ;?F adi/a. e alsodirected the sei,ure y the DENR of the tanar9" the oat ;?F adi/a" and the ( cargo truc9s.

ernande," the consignee of said shipments" howe$er" filed in the RTC Feyte a case for

reple$in to reco$er said sei,ed items. erein respondent Judge Filagan then issued a writ of reple$in and directed respondent 0heriff !guilar to ta9e possession of the items sei,ed y theDENR and to deli$er them to ernande, after the e#piration of 7 days.

ence" !tty. Taao filed this administrati$e complaint.

I!!UE!

(+ 2oN it is correct for respondent Judge Filagan to ta9e cogni,ance of the reple$in suit

4+ 2oN respondent 0heriff !guilar’s act of releasing the sei,ed items to ernande, constitutes

gross negligence and irregularity in the performance of his duty as a court employee

#EL$

(+ NO. Respondent Judge FilaganIs act of ta9ing cogni,ance of the su/ect reple$in suit clearlydemonstrates ignorance of the law.

The complaint for reple$in itself states that the shipment of tanar9 and the $essel on which itwas loaded were sei,ed y the NB8 for $erification of supporting documents. 8t also states thatthe NB8 turned o$er the sei,ed items to the DENR for official disposition and appropriate action.

! copy of the document e$idencing the turno$er to DENR was attached to the complaint. These

allegations would ha$e een sufficient to alert respondent /udge that the DENR has custody of the sei,ed items and that administrati$e proceedings may ha$e already een commencedconcerning the shipment.

Mnder the doctrine of primary jurisdiction" courts cannot ta9e cogni,ance of cases pendingefore administrati$e agencies of special competence. The plaintiff in the reple$in suit whosee9s to reco$er the shipment from the DENR had not e#hausted the administrati$e remediesa$ailale to him. The prudent thing for respondent /udge to ha$e done was to dismiss thereple$in suit outright.



4+ NO. Respondent 0heriff !%uilar merely complied with his ministerial duty to ser$e the writ withreasonale celerity and to e#ecute it promptly in accordance with its mandates. ence" Thecharges against respondent sheriff were dismissed for lac9 of merit.



FACORAN v. CAG.R. No. 9<540$*%**+ 1<, 1999

FAC!

&n !ugust *" 1*" ' police officers of the ;ari9ina intercepted a si#:wheeler truc9" carryingnarra lumer as it was cruising along the ;arcos ighway. They apprehended the truc9 dri$er"pri$ate respondent Jesus 0y" and rought the truc9 and its cargo to the -ersonnel 8n$estigationCommittee?0pecial !ctions and 8n$estigation Di$ision )-8C?0!8D+ of the DENR &ffice in Oue,onCity. There" petitioner !tty. Hicente Roles of the -8C?0!8D in$estigated them" and disco$eredthe discrepancies in the documentation of the narra lumer.

Due to the failure of respondents to show the re%uired documents" petitioner >actoran" then0ecretary of En$ironment and Natural Resources issued an order for the confiscation of thenarra lumer and the si#:wheeler truc9. -ri$ate respondents neither as9ed for reconsideration of nor appealed" the said order to the &ffice of the -resident. Conse%uently" these items were

then forfeited in fa$or of the go$ernment. They were suse%uently ad$ertised to e sold atpulic auction on ;arch '6" 1**.

Respondents then filed for preliminary in/unction and reple$in" to which the trial court acceded.-etitioner then refused to oey the writ of sei,ure and filed a counterond" to which the courtdenied ecause of lac9 of ser$ice to the respondents. Court of appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision.

I!!UE

2oN respondents can $alidly e restored possession of their truc9s and lumer ased on thewrit of reple$in

#EL$

NO. >irstly" herein respondents ne$er appealed the confiscation order of petitioner 0ecretary tothe &ffice of the -resident as pro$ided for in 0ec. of -.D. No. 567.

The doctrine of e#haustion of administrati$e remedies is asic. Courts" for reasons of law"comity and con$enience" should not entertain suits unless the a$ailale administrati$e remediesha$e first een resorted to and the proper authorities ha$e een gi$en an appropriateopportunity to act and correct their alleged errors" if any" committed in the administrati$e forum.owe$er" petitioners wai$ed this ground for failure to raise such in their motion to dismiss.Ne$ertheless" in order for reple$in to prosper" the wrongful detention y the defendant of the

properties sought in an action for reple$in must e satisfactorily estalished. 8f only amechanistic a$erment thereof is offered" the writ should not e issued. 8n the case at ar" thesu/ect narra lumer and si#:wheeler truc9 were confiscated y petitioner 0ecretary pursuant to0ection 3:! of -.D. No. 567" as amended y E#ecuti$e &rder )E.&.+ No. '55.

-roperty lawfully ta9en y $irtue of legal process is deemed to e in custodia legis. 2hen athing is in official custody of a /udicial or e#ecuti$e officer in pursuance of his e#ecution of a legalwrit" reple$in will not lie to reco$er it. &therwise" there would e interference with thepossession efore the function of law had een performed as to the process under which the



property was ta9en. Fastly" 0ec. 6 of -. D. No. 567 which re%uires deli$ery of the sei,ed forestproducts within 3 hours from the time of the sei,ure to the appropriate official designated y lawto conduct preliminary in$estigations applies only to criminal prosecutions pro$ided for in 0ec.3" and not to administrati$e confiscation pro$ided for in 0ection 3:!.



AGALI#OG v. CAG.R. No.96<56Ju3* 27, 1991

FAC!"

!fter disemar9ing at the ;asate !irport" Rep. Espinosa was shot to death y gunmen amongwhich one fled on a motorcycle witnesses’ account. &n the same day" the petitioner’s house"which was near in the airport was searched with his consent to see if the 9illers had soughtrefuge there ut the said search ecame futile.

Two days later" pri$ate respondent Capt. Ro#as and his men from the -hilippine Constaularysei,ed the petitioner’s motorcycle without a search warrant and too9 it to the -C head%uarters in;asate. The motorcycle was impounded on the suspicion that it was one of the $ehicles usedy the 9illers.

!fter the in$estigation" the petitioner and se$eral others were charged with multiple murder and

frustrated murder for the 9illing of Rep. Espinosa and three of his odyguards and the woundingof another person.

Thereafter" petitioner filed a complaint against Capt. Ro#as for the reco$ery of the motorcyclewith the application of writ of reple$in plus damages )-77"666.66+. e also filed an urgentmanifestation for the deposit of the motorcycle with Cler9 of Court of the RTC ;asate" on theground that the -C soldiers were using the $ehicle without authority. The motion was grantedy Judge Butalid" who later inhiited and the case was transferred to Branch 47 of respondentJudge >ernande,.

!fterwards" Judge >ernande, dismissed the Ci$il Case.

That the %uestion to e resol$ed is whether Reple$in is proper to reco$er the possession of thesu/ect motorcycle which is in the possession of the Cler9 of Court of ;asate to e used ase$idence.

The court opined the same court has no /urisdiction to release e$idence impounded or surrendered to the -C tas9 force handling the case of Rep. Espinosa. >urther" the court saidthat

• -roperty sei,ed in enforcing criminal laws is in the custody of the law and cannot

e reple$ied until such custody is ended.

• Granting as claimed y the plaintiff that said motorcycle was illegally sei,ed" he

can raise the issue when presented during the trial.

• The proper court to release " the motorcycle in %uestion is the presiding Judge of

;a9ati RTC Branch 73" wherefore dismissing the petition for lac9 of /urisdiction.

I!!UE

2oN reple$in is proper to reco$er the possession of the su/ect property



#EL$

E!. The motorcycle was in$alidly sei,ed and therefore petitioner has a right to its return P theproper remedy for this purpose is his complaint for reco$ery and the issuance of writ of reple$in.8n refusing to grant him relief and dismissing the case instead on the ground of lac9 of

/urisdiction the respondent court committed re$ersile error.

The mere fact that the pri$ate respondent’s $iew the crime in$ol$ed is heinous and the $ictimwas a man of conse%uences did not authori,e disregard of the constitutional guaranty : thepro$ision protects not only the innocent ut also those who appear to e guilty ut ne$erthelesspresumed. >or his strong con$iction aout the guilt of the petitioner" the pri$ate respondent muststill aide y the Constitution and oser$e the re%uirements of the Bill of Rights P !rt. 888 0ec '.Neither did Asuperior orders condone the omission for they could not in any case e superior to the constitution.

8n dismissing the case" the respondent /udge said he had no /urisdiction o$er the motorcycleecause it was a custodia legis )in the custody of the law+ and only the /udge trying the criminal

case against the petitioner and his co: accused could order its release. e cited the generaldoctrine that

-roperty sei,ed in enforcing criminal laws is in the custody of the law and cannote reple$ied" until such custody is ended.

)* %ou+& o-3* &)* +ul* &)(& +o*+&y )*l ( *v-*3%* -3 %+--3(l %(* %(33o& *+*l*v-* (l-* o3ly ;)*+* &)* +o*+&y - l(;/ully )*l &)(& - *-=* -3 (%%o+(3%*;-&) &)* +ul* ('(-3& ;(++(3&l* *(+%)* (3 *-=u+* o+ -& (%%*&* *%*&-o3. !thing is in custodia legis when it is shown that it has een and su/ected to the official custodyof the /udicial e#ecuti$e officer in pursuance of his e#ecution of a legal writ.

O3ly ;)*3 +o*+&y - l(;/ul &(>*3 y v-+&u* o/ l*'(l +o%* - -& %o3-*+* -3 &)*

%u&oy o/ &)* l(; (3 3o& o&)*+;-*.

The order of the respondent /udge was set aside and the case was reinstated for further proceedings.



?LA!ON! ENERPRI!E! ?. CAG.R. No. L61688O%&o*+ 28, 1987

FAC!

>lorencio 0osuan purchased two pieces of sal$aged ron,e propeller from Fo Bu. Thereafter"he filed a ci$il action in the C>8 of ;anila for the reco$ery of possession of the same against FoBu and also against persons from whom Fo Bu purchased the same" !lfonso Cali#to andErnesto Halen,uela= and alternati$ely against Hlasons Enterprises.

! few months efore" the same propellers had een sei,ed y $irtue of a search warrant issuedy another ranch of the C>8 of ;anila presided o$er y Judge ;aceren. 8t was issued at theinstance of Hlasons Enterprises who claimed that a certain Cali#to stole the propellers from their $essel that sun9 in Bataan. The complaints for theft against Cali#to and Halen,uela" as well asthe complaint for !nti:>encing against 0osuan" were dismissed.

Mpon 0osuan’s motion in the ci$il action for reco$ery" Judge Cru, authori,ed 0osuan to ta9epossesson of the propellers pending action. The order pointed out that no criminal action hadeen filed in connection with the sei,ure of the propellers in %uestion.

I!!UE!

2hether Judge Cru, erred in 1+ authori,ing the release of the propellers considering that it wasunder the custody of Judge ;aceren’s court= '+ in ordering the transfer of the propellers to0osuan pending actionQ

#EL$

1+ NO. 2here personalty has een sei,ed under a search warrant" and it appears reasonalydefinite that the sei,ure will not e followed y the filing of any criminal action for theprosecution of the offenses in connection with which the warrant was issued" the pulicprosecutors ha$ing pronounced the asence of asis therefor" and there are" moreo$er"conflicting claims asserted o$er the sei,ed property" the appropriate remedy is the institution of an ordinary ci$il action y any interested party" or of a special ci$il action of interpleader y theGo$ernment itself.

The ordinary action and the interpleader are cogni,ale not only y the court issuing the searchwarrant )in this case Judge ;aceren’s ranch+ ut y any other competent court to which it maye assigned y raffle. 8n such a case" the sei,ing court shall transfer custody of the sei,ed

articles to the court ha$ing /urisdiction of the ci$il action at any time" upon due application y aninterested party. Thus" it was proper for Judge Cru, to order the transfer of the propeller’s to hisranch. There is no conflict of /urisdiction ecause there was no pending criminal action andJudge ;aceren’s court was merely acting as custodian of the sei,ed property.

This case is different from the -ag9alinawan case. 8n -ag9alinawan the same property waseing sei,ed at the same time y different courts upon different writs one y search warrant"the other y writ of sei,ure issued in a reple$in action. There was then a palpale and realconflict in /urisdiction. !nd the -ag9alinawan ruling was laid down precisely to a$oid that conflict



in /urisdiction. 8n the instant case" howe$er" since it was fairly certain that no criminal actioncould possily ensue suse%uent to or in connection with the search warrant" no such conflict in

/urisdiction or in the ultimate disposition of the sei,ed property could e e#pected to arise.

'+ E0. The asence of any criminal prosecution in the ;aceren Branch in relation to thepropeller has no rele$ance whate$er to the %uestion of whether or not in the ci$il suit efore the

Cru, Branch the plaintiff" who claims to e the owner of the propeller" is entitled to itspossession pending action as against defendant Hlasons" who also claims to e the owner thereof. Non sequitur . 8t merely ma9es necessary the ci$il suit to precisely resol$e that issue. 8tdoes not of itself furnish asis for or warrant the transfer of possession from one party to theother in the ci$il action.

Nothing in the record therefore /ustifies the &rder of Judge Cru, transferring possession of theproperty in contro$ersy to the plaintiff pendente lite. That relief can e awarded only after trial"y final /udgment declaring in whom the title to said property rests. 2hat may e done in themeantime" as already ao$e pointed out" is simply the transfer y the ;aceren Branch" uponproper application" of custody o$er the property to the Cru, Branch" there to await the outcomeof the suit



#EIR! OF AUNAEGUI v. $IRECOR OF FORE!RG.R. No. L2787<Nov**+ 29, 198<

FAC!"

There were two petitions for re$iew on certiorari %uestioning the decision of the Court of !ppealswhich declared the disputed property as forest land" not su/ect to titling in fa$or of pri$atepersons" Borre and !munategui.

The Director of >orestry" through the -ro$incial >iscal of Capi," also filed an opposition to theapplication for registration of title claiming that the land was mangro$e swamp which was stillclassified as forest land and part of the pulic domain.

!nother oppositor" Emeterio Bereer filed his opposition insofar as a portion of Fot No. 7containing 115"*73 s%uare meters was concerned and prayed that title to said portion e

confirmed and registered in his name.

I!!UE

2oN the lot in %uestion can e su/ect of registration and confirmation of title in the name of thepri$ate person

#EL$

The opposition of the Director of >orestry was strengthened y the appellate courtIs finding thattimer licenses had to e issued to certain licensees and e$en Jose !munategui himself too9the troule to as9 for a license to cut timer within the area. 8t was only sometime in 1*76 that

the property was con$erted into fishpond ut only after a pre$ious warning from the District>orester that the same could not e done ecause it was classified as @pulic forest.

! forested area classified as forest land of the pulic domain does not lose such classificationsimply ecause loggers or settlers may ha$e stripped it of its forest co$er. @>orest lands@ do notha$e to e on mountains or in out of the way places. 0wampy areas co$ered y mangro$etrees" nipa palms" and other trees growing in rac9ish or sea water may also e classified asforest land. The possession of forest lands" no matter how long" cannot ripen into pri$ateownership. Therefore" the lot in %uestion ne$er ceased to e classified as forest land of pulicdomain.



#E $IRECOR OF FORE!R v. ?ILLAREALG.R. No. L<2266F*+u(+y 27, 1989

FAC!

The petitioner" Director of >orestry was one of the se$eral persons who opposed the applicationfor registration of a parcel land classified as mangro$e swamps in the municipality of 0apian"Capi, with an area of 15"11( s%uare meters of mangro$e swamps" to the applicant RupertoHillareal.

e alleged that he and his predecessors:in:interests had een in possession of the said parcelof land for more than forty years )46+.

Both parties agreed in one point that the disputed land was a mangro$e swamp. Therespondent argued that mangro$e swamp are agricultural land ut the petitioner contended that

it is a forestall land therefore not disposale.

The Court of the >irst 8nstance of Capi, howe$er grants the application of the respondent. Thedecision of the lower court was later affirmed y the Court of !ppeals. ence the Director of >orestry ele$ated the case to the 0upreme Court for re$iew on certiorari.

I!!UE

2hether or not" mangro$e swamps are agricultural land or forest land.

#EL$

The 0upreme Court held that mangro$e swamps as forest lands is descripti$e of its legal natureor status and does not ha$e to e descripti$e of what the land actually loo9s li9e.

>urthermore the legislati$e definition emodied in section 1'6 of the Re$ised !dministrati$eCode of 1*15 which declares that mangro$e swamps or manglares form part of the pulicforests of the -hilippines hence they are not alienale.

The e$idence presented y the respondent in its claim were not sufficient to pro$e itspossession and ownership of the land" he only presented ta# declaration.

2herefore the decision of the Court of !ppeals was set aside and the application for registrationof title y the respondent is dismissed y the 0upreme Court.

envi case digests 2

Documents