Roldan vs Madrona
2
[G.R. No. 152989.September 4, 2002] ROLDAN, JR. vs. HON. MADRONA, et al. Facts: Roldan applied for a Private Land Timber Permit (PLTP) from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources for him to cut some trees for a proposed road and poultry farm in his property. He also paid all the fees required by the various government agencies. He alleged that he was informed by some employees from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) that he could proceed with the cutting of trees even though his application was still awaiting approval. Then, he proceeded with the cutting of the trees. After three weeks, petitioner’s place was raided. A complaint for violation of Section 68 of PD 705 as amended was filed against herein petitioner by CENRO before the City Prosecutor of Ormoc City. Thereafter, the City Prosecutor issued a resolution dated November 16, 2001 finding probable cause to convict petitioner for violation of Section 68 of PD 705 as amended. The petitioner filed with the trial court a motion for judicial determination of probable cause and the recall of his warrant of arrest. However, respondent judge, denied the motion. Issues: (1) Whether the owner of a private land, the petitioner in this case, is criminally liable under Section 68 of PD 705 for cutting trees within his own property. (2) Whether the owner of a private property is administratively liable under Section 14 of DENR Administrative Order No. 2000-21 despite the fact that he did not transport the logs out of his property and used them for his own agricultural purposes. Held: (1)Roldan argued that the provisions of the law regarding qualified theft should not be applied to him since he is the owner of the property. The Supreme Court stated that petitioner is not being charged for qualified theft but for violation of Section 68, PD 705 hence his ownership of the land is immaterial. The said law does not even distinguish whether or not the person who commits the punishable acts under the aforementioned law is the owner of the property, for
-
Upload
jonesjon1057 -
Category
Documents
-
view
55 -
download
1
Transcript of Roldan vs Madrona
[G.R. No. 152989.September 4, 2002]ROLDAN, JR. vs. HON. MADRONA, et al.Facts: Roldan applied for a Private Land Timber Permit (PLTP) from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources for him to cut some trees for a proposed road and poultry farm in his property. He also paid all the fees required by the various government agencies. He alleged that he was informed by some employees from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) that he could proceed with the cutting of trees even though his application was still awaiting approval. Then, he proceeded with the cutting of the trees. After three weeks, petitioner’s place was raided.
A complaint for violation of Section 68 of PD 705 as amended was filed against herein petitioner by CENRO before the City Prosecutor of Ormoc City. Thereafter, the City Prosecutor issued a resolution dated November 16, 2001 finding probable cause to convict petitioner for violation of Section 68 of PD 705 as amended. The petitioner filed with the trial court a motion for judicial determination of probable cause and the recall of his warrant of arrest. However, respondent judge, denied the motion. Issues: (1) Whether the owner of a private land, the petitioner in this case, is criminally liable under Section 68 of PD 705 for cutting trees within his own property.
(2) Whether the owner of a private property is administratively liable under Section 14 of DENR Administrative Order No. 2000-21 despite the fact that he did not transport the logs out of his property and used them for his own agricultural purposes.Held: (1)Roldan argued that the provisions of the law regarding qualified theft should not be applied to him since he is the owner of the property. The Supreme Court stated that petitioner is not being charged for qualified theft but for violation of Section 68, PD 705 hence his ownership of the land is immaterial. The said law does not even distinguish whether or not the person who commits the punishable acts under the aforementioned law is the owner of the property, for what is material in determining the culpability of a person is whether or not the person or entity involved or charged with its violation possesses the required permit, license or authorization from DENR at the time he or it cuts, gathers or collects timber or other forest products.
(2) The administrative order considers the mere act of transporting any wood product or timber without the prescribed documents as an offense which is subject to the penalties provided for by law.
