SEIZURE OF CONVEYANCE AND OTHER ITEMS(Rules of Procedure vs.

Applicable
Laws of Agency Concerned)

-As a general rule, the custody and disposition of seized items shall be in accordance with
applicable laws or rules promulgated by the concerned government agency (RULES OF
PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, Rule 12, 2.).In the absence of rules
promulgated by the agency concerned, the Rules of Procedure provide for the procedure that
must be observed for the custody and disposition of seized items.

PROVISIONAL REMEDIES IN ENVIRONMENTAL CASES

-The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases also allow for the provisional remedy of
attachment (RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, Rule 12, 1). It
must be noted however that the provisional remedy of replevin cannot be used to recover
property which is the subject of an administrative forfeiture proceeding with the DENR
pursuant to the Revised Forestry Code(Paat v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111107, Jan. 10,
1997, 266 SCRA 167, 184-87; See also Mamanteo v. Magumun, A.M. No. P-98-1264, July
28, 1999, 311 SCRA 259; Factoran v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93540, Dec. 13, 1999, 320
SCRA 530; Calub v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115634, April 27, 2000, 331 SCRA 55; Tabao
v. Lilagan, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1651, Sept. 4, 2001, 364 SCRA 322 (2001); Dagudag v.
Paderanga, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2017, June 19, 2008, 555 SCRA 217.

WARRANTLESS ARREST
-In Republic v. Cansino, Jr.,573 the Supreme Court held that possession of illegally-caught
fish is an offense and the mere possession is, in itself, a crime and the possessor may be
arrested without a warrant as he would then be in the act of committing a crime (in
flagrante delicto). This similarly applies to the possession of illegally-cut/illegally-sourced
forestry products (Republic v. Cansino, Jr., G.R. No. L-17923, May 26, 1962, 5 SCRA 103).

It must be noted, however, that PD No. 705 or the Revised Forestry Code provides for a
smaller time frame in the delivery of the person apprehended. Section 89 of the law requires
the arresting officer to deliver the person apprehended and items seized to the judicial
authorities within six (6) hours from the time of arrest and seizure.583 Nevertheless, the law
recognizes the possibility of delay where the seizure was made in the forest or far from
judicial authorities. In that case, the delivery shall be made within a reasonable time.

JUDICIAL CONFISCATION VS ADMINISTRATIVE CONFISCATION OF DENR

Petitioner Secretarys authority to confiscate forest products under Section 68-A of PD
No. 705 is distinct from and independent of the confiscation of forest products in a
criminal action provided for in Section 68 of PD No. 705. Thus, in Paat, we held that:
precisely because of the need to make forestry laws more responsive to present
situations and realities and in view of the urgency to conserve the remaining
resources of the country, that the government opted to add Section 68-A. This
amendatory provision is an administrative remedy totally separate and distinct from
criminal proceedings.-Factoran vs. Court of Appeals
The confiscation proceedings under Administrative Order No. 59 is different and
distinct from the confiscation under the Revised Penal Code, which is an additional
penalty imposed in the event of conviction.
-Momongan vs. Judge Omipon

The DENR Secretary or his duly authorized representatives have the power to
confiscate any illegally obtained or gathered forest products and all conveyances used
in the commission of the offense, based on Section 68-A of PD No. 705 and AO No.
59, this power is in relation to the administrative jurisdiction of the DENR, which is
different and distinct from the confiscatory proceeding of the court.

TIMBER EMBRACES LUMBER

-In Mustang Lumber case, the lumber is merely processed timber and, therefore, the
word timber embraces lumber, was made in answer to the lower courts ruling in that
case that the phrase possess timber or other forest products in Section 68 of PD No.
705 means that only those who possess timber and forest products without the
documents required by law are criminally liable, while those who possess lumber are
not liable.

SECTION 68, PD 705(REVISED FORESTRY CODE)

There are two distinct and separate offenses punished under Section 68 of PD No.
705, to wit:
(1) Cutting, gathering, collecting and removing timber or other forest products from any
forest land, or from alienable or disposable public land, or from private land without
any authority; and
(2) Possession of timber or other forest products without the legal documents required
under existing forest laws and regulations.

In the first offense, one can raise as a defense the legality of the acts of cutting,
gathering, collecting or removing timber or other forest products by presenting the
authorization issued by the DENR. In the second offense, however, it is immaterial
whether the cutting, gathering, collecting and removal of the forest products are legal
or not. Mere possession of forest products without the proper documents
CONSUMMATES THE CRIME.

NON-APPLICABILITY OF REPLEVIN ON ITEMS UNDER CUSTODIA LEGIS

-Forest products, conveyances and effects which were seized by DENR officials
pursuant to PD No. 705 are considered in custodia legis and cannot be the subject of
an action for replevin(Dagudag v. Paderanga).

DENR-SEIZED VEHICLES ARE IN CUSTODIA LEGIS

-Under the Revised Forestry Code, the DENR is authorized to seize all conveyances
used in the commission of an offense in violation of Section 78. Under this provision,
mere possession of forest products without the requisite legal documents is unlawful.
In this case, the motor vehicles loaded with forest products were not accompanied with
the necessary license or permit. Thus, there was a prima facie violation of Section 68
[78] of the Revised Forestry Code.