IN RE: APPREHENSION OF ONE (1) UNIT

GALVANIZED ISUZU JITNEY WITH

PLATE NO. VCY-524 WITH TEN (10)
SACKS OF WOOD CHARCOAL AT BRGY. ACP NO. 14-68
STA. ELENA, BARAS, NABUA,
CAMARINES SUR.
x-------------------------------------------------------x

ORDER
For resolution is the April 29, 2015 Motion for Reconsideration filed by Maria Ana
Corporal Sain and Romeo C. Balang seeking a reversal of the Order dated March 23,
2015, the dispositive portion of which is hereunder quoted, to wit:

“WHEREFORE, based from the foregoing, the apprehended

one (1) unit galvanized Isuzu jitney with Plate No. VCY-524 and the
ten (10) sacks of wood charcoal are hereby confiscated in favor of
the government.
The CENR Officer thru the Hearing Officer is hereby
instructed to file criminal action against the respondents Romeo
Balang and Maria Ana Sain for violation of Section 77 and 77-A of
PD 705 as amended and renumbered.

SO ORDERED.”

The respondents, in their motion, sought for reconsideration of the Order issued
by this Office on the ground that:

They never intended to violate any forestry law and only meant
to save and utilize the trees by typhoon Yolanda.

We cannot agree with their contention. The law which respondents violated is a
special law --- P.D. No. 705 or the Revised Forestry Code. Lack of intent to violate the
law or even good faith is not a defense for such violations. As aptly discussed by J.B.C
Reyes:
“Malum prohibitum is punished by a special law, in which case
good faith and absence of criminal intent are not valid
defenses. When the crime is punished by a special law, as a
rule, intent to commit the crime is not necessary. It is
sufficient that the offender has the intent to perpetrate
the act prohibited by the special law. Intent to commit the
crime and intent to perpetrate the act must be distinguished. A
person may not have consciously intended to commit a crime;
but he did intend to commit an act, and that act is, by the very
nature of things, the crime itself. In the first (intent to commit
the crime), there must be criminal intent; in the second (intent
to perpetrate the act) it is enough that the prohibited act is
done freely and consciously.”(RPC, Reyes, Book One, 1987,
12th edition

1
 The movants’ assertion that they lack the intention to violate any forestry law is
not a valid defense for in special laws, mere commission of the prohibited act
constitutes a violation thereof.

In respondents’ case, their act of cutting trees felled by a typhoon without the
requisite DENR legal documents is already a violation.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration dated April

29, 2015 is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Legazpi City, Philippines,

GILBERT C. GONZALES
Regional Director
APR/RCS/ZDU/DBB/mags

Copy furnished: