CASE DIGEST : DENR-PENRO of Virac, Catanduanes and the People of the Philippines v. Eastern Island Shipping Lines Corporation G.R. No. 252423, January 16, 2023 GAERLAN

 

FACTS

Two individuals were apprehended and charged with violating Section 77 (formerly Section 68) of Presidential Decree No. 705 (Revised Forestry Code) for illegally possessing and transporting 196 pieces of lumber without the permits required by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). They used an Isuzu dump truck, which was registered in the name of Eastern Island Shipping Lines Corporation (EISLC) and allegedly leased to a third party. The accused pleaded guilty, and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted them. Relying on Section 77 of P.D. No. 705, the RTC ordered not only the confiscation of the illegally transported lumber but also the forfeiture of the truck in favor of the government, holding that the law made no distinction as to the ownership of the vehicle used in the offense.

EISLC, claiming to be an innocent owner, filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA), asserting that it was denied due process because it was never given an opportunity to prove its ownership of the truck or its lack of participation in the illegal transport of the lumber. The CA nullified the RTC's order and directed the release of the truck to EISLC. The DENR-PENRO and the People of the Philippines then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the truck was automatically subject to confiscation under P.D. No. 705 regardless of ownership.

ISSUE

Whether the Isuzu dump truck used in transporting illegally cut forest products may be automatically confiscated and forfeited under Section 77 of P.D. No. 705, despite the claim of ownership by a third party who was not charged with the offense and who alleged lack of knowledge or participation in the crime.

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly nullified the RTC's confiscation order and ordered the immediate release of the truck to EISLC without first conducting proceedings to determine the validity of its third-party claim and whether Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code, which protects innocent owners of property used in the commission of a crime, applies suppletorily to offenses punished under P.D. No. 705 pursuant to Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code.

HELD

The Supreme Court partly granted the petition. It held that the RTC gravely erred in ordering the outright confiscation and forfeiture of the truck without first giving EISLC the opportunity to establish that it was the lawful owner and that it neither knew of nor participated in the illegal transport of forest products. The Court explained that Section 77 of P.D. No. 705 authorizes judicial confiscation of timber, forest products, and the machinery, equipment, implements, or tools used in the offense. However, pursuant to Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code, the provisions of the Code apply suppletorily to special laws unless otherwise provided. Thus, Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code, which prohibits the confiscation of property belonging to an innocent third person not liable for the offense, supplements P.D. No. 705 because the latter contains no contrary provision regarding innocent owners. The Court likewise distinguished judicial confiscation under Section 77 of P.D. No. 705 from administrative confiscation under Section 68-A of P.D. No. 705, the latter being within the authority of the DENR Secretary.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals also erred in immediately ordering the release of the truck. The documents attached by EISLC to support its ownership and good-faith claim had not been formally presented or admitted in evidence before the RTC. To satisfy the requirements of due process, both EISLC and the government must be allowed to present and challenge evidence regarding the ownership of the vehicle and EISLC's alleged lack of knowledge or participation in the offense. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the nullification of the RTC's confiscation order but modified the CA's decision by remanding the confiscation aspect of the case to the RTC for reception of evidence and proper determination of the third-party claim before any order of forfeiture or release may be made