DENR vs. Daraman

The DENR secretary or authorized representative has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the confiscation of conveyances used in the commission of offenses under the Revised Forestry Code, irrespective of the owner's criminal liability or acquittal in court under Section 68.

On November 30, 1993, Gregorio Daraman, driving a vehicle owned by Narciso Lucenecio (Holy Cross Funeral Services), was intercepted by a forest ranger in Brgy. Bulao, San Jorge, Samar, while transporting lumber owned by a certain Asan. Daraman claimed he was merely doing Asan a favor in exchange for wood shavings. The vehicle and lumber were seized.

• The Seizure: On November 30, 1993, Forest Ranger Pablo Opinion intercepted a vehicle ("St. Jude", Plate No. HAJ-848) owned by Holy Cross Funeral Services (Narciso Lucenecio) and driven by Gregorio Daraman. The vehicle contained lumber owned by Asan Abing and wood shavings for the funeral parlor. Daraman lacked a permit for the lumber. Opinion seized the vehicle and lumber, issuing a Seizure Receipt.
• Administrative Confiscation: DENR-CENRO conducted administrative confiscation proceedings. Respondents failed to present documents authorizing the possession and transportation of the lumber. RED Augustus L. Momongan approved the recommendation to forfeit the lumber and conveyance on January 26, 1994.
• Criminal Trial: Accused Daraman and Lucenecio were charged with violating Section 68 of PD 705. Daraman testified he merely transported the lumber as a favor to Asan, who claimed to have papers at his shop. The RTC acquitted both accused for insufficiency of evidence and ordered the vehicle returned to Lucenecio, reasoning that neither the owner nor the driver violated PD 705. The prosecution did not appeal the acquittal.

• Jurisdiction: Petitioner maintained that the RTC lacked jurisdiction or authority to order the return of property already owned by the government by virtue of the DENR's administrative forfeiture order.
• Misinterpretation of PD 705: Petitioner argued that the RTC misinterpreted Section 68-A of PD 705 by requiring the vehicle owner to be a violator or conspirator; under Department Order No. 54, series of 1993, lack of knowledge of the illegal use does not bar forfeiture of the conveyance.
• Estoppel: Petitioner contended that the government is not estopped from protecting its interest by reason of mistake, error, or failure of its officers to perform their duties.

• Validity of Forfeiture Order: Respondents countered that the DENR Order of Forfeiture was a "false, falsified and perjurious document" because it bore a date of January 26, 1994, while the OIC of the DENR Legal Division signed the memorandum recommending approval only on January 31, 1994.
• Lack of Violation by Owner: Respondents argued that Section 68-A of PD 705 contemplates a situation where the vehicle owner is the violator, conspires with violators, or consents to the illegal use; since both respondents were acquitted and the owner did not violate the law, the vehicle cannot be forfeited.

• Jurisdiction: Whether the RTC had jurisdiction to order the release of the confiscated vehicle.
• Statutory Construction: Whether the RTC misconstrued PD 705, as amended, by making the confiscation of conveyances contingent on the criminal liability of the vehicle owner.
• Estoppel: Whether the DENR is estopped from confiscating the vehicle administratively due to the filing of the criminal action and the prosecutor's disapproval of the motion for reconsideration.

• Jurisdiction: The RTC lacked jurisdiction to order the return of the vehicle. Original and exclusive jurisdiction over the confiscation of conveyances used in forestry offenses is vested in the DENR secretary or authorized representative under Section 68-A of PD 705. The RTC's jurisdiction under Section 68 is limited to the confiscation of timber/forest products and machinery, equipment, implements, and tools illegally used in the area where found; "conveyances" are specifically excluded from the court's confiscatory power and placed under the DENR's administrative authority.
• Statutory Construction: The RTC misinterpreted the law. The guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case is immaterial to the administrative confiscation of the conveyance under Section 68-A, because what is punished is the transportation, movement, or conveyance of forest products without legal documents. The DENR cannot be expected to rule on criminal liability before impounding vehicles, and lack of knowledge or consent by the owner does not bar forfeiture. Releasing the vehicle would defeat the paramount public policy of conserving forest resources.
• Estoppel: This issue was rendered moot and academic by the resolution of the first two issues. The public prosecutor's disapproval of the motion for reconsideration did not vest the RTC with jurisdiction to release the vehicle.

• Exclusive Administrative Jurisdiction over Conveyances in Forestry Law — Under Section 68-A of PD 705, as amended by EO 277, the DENR secretary or authorized representative has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the confiscation of conveyances used in the commission of forestry offenses. This jurisdiction is distinct from the RTC's jurisdiction under Section 68, which covers only forest products and machinery/equipment/implements used in the area where found.
• Guilt of Owner Immaterial in Administrative Confiscation — The criminal acquittal of the vehicle owner or driver does not preclude the administrative forfeiture of the conveyance used in violating forestry laws. Section 68-A targets the unauthorized act of transportation or movement of forest products, not the criminal intent or liability of the owner.

• "The guilt or the innocence of the accused in the criminal case is immaterial, because what is punished under Section 68 is the transportation, movement or conveyance of forest products without legal documents."
• "Hence, the original and exclusive jurisdiction over the confiscation of 'all conveyances used either by land, water or air in the commission of the offense and to dispose of the same' is vested in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) secretary or a duly authorized representative."
• "Strong paramount public policy should not be degraded by narrow constructions of the law that frustrate its clear intent or unreasonably restrict its scope."

• Globe-Mackay Cable & Radio Corp. v. NLRC, 206 SCRA 701 (1992) — Followed for the rule that if a statute is clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be applied according to its express terms without resort to interpretation.
• Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 240 SCRA 376 (1995) — Followed for the principle that strong paramount public policy should not be degraded by narrow constructions that frustrate clear legislative intent.

• Section 68, Presidential Decree No. 705 (Cutting, Gathering and/or Collecting Timber, or Other Forest Products Without License) — Applied to define the RTC's limited jurisdiction. The provision grants courts the power to order confiscation of timber/forest products and the machinery, equipment, implements, and tools illegally used in the area where found, but does not include conveyances.
• Section 68-A, Presidential Decree No. 705 (Administrative Authority of the Department Head or His Duly Authorized Representative to Order Confiscation) — Applied as the controlling law. It grants the DENR secretary or representative the authority to confiscate forest products and all conveyances used in the commission of the offense, explicitly removing conveyances from the RTC's confiscation jurisdiction.
• DENR Administrative Order No. 54-93 — Applied to clarify the guidelines for confiscation and forfeiture, which provide that proceedings shall be directed against the owner and that lack of knowledge of illegal use does not bar forfeiture. It defines "conveyance" to include any type of vehicle used in the movement of forest products.

Melo, Vitug, Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio.