Separate Concurring Opinion .. 12 G.R. No. 224469 It is for · the same reason that petitioners' case should be viewed differently from People v. Macatanda 41 and US v. Maqui, 42 -where the accused, a member of an ICC, was charged with cattle rustling. It is easy to understand that membership in an indigenous community, or one's lack of education, is irrelevant for purposes of determining their guilt because such acts are obviously illicit. As already discussed,· Mangyans _perceive all the resources found in their ancestral domain to be communal. They are accustomed to using and enjoying these resources without asking permission, even from other tribes, much less from government functionaries with whom they do not normally interact. Moreover, by the location of their settlements, links to local government units or information sources are different from those residing in the lowlands. 43 As such, the Court may reasonably infer that petitioners are unaware of the prohibition set forth in Sec. 77 of P.D. 705. Along with the Supreme Court of Canada's discussion in R v. Sappier; R v. Gray, 44 the fact that petitioners used a chainsaw in logging a single dita tree should not diminish the connection of the act to the Mangyans' way of life, nor should it be considered as a decisive fact supporting petitioners' conviction for the offense charged. The use of a chainsaw should simply be viewed as a practical means of fulfilling their community's needs using modem and available tools . It should not detract from the fact that it was carried out in obedience to their elders' directives, and consistent with their customs. Acts done within the context of an indigenous cultural community's belief system and way of life should be interpreted flexibly as to allow for modem means of expression. The acquittal of petitioners do not aim to exempt their specific group not expressly excluded under P.D. 705. To clarify, I do not propose a blanket exemption of all members of ICCs from criminal liability. Certainly, such proposition would unduly impede criminal prosecution to the detriment of the State and the rest of the Filipino people. In voting for acquittal, I simply aim to recognize that the distinct circumstances of the case at bar call for its examination within a broader legal environment extraneous from the letter of the law. Similarly, I do not seek to nullify nor undermine the provision and policy behind P.D. 705. My opinion merely intends to make a determination on the limited issue presented in this petition, viz: whether under the circumstances, petitioners who are IPs, should be held criminally 41 42 43 44 G.R. No. L-51368, 06November 1981, 195 Phil. 604-612. 27 Phil. 97. Walpole, Peter W., and Dallay Annawi. Where Are Indigenous Peoples Going?: Review of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act 1997 Philippines, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, 2011, pp. 83-117, Critical Review Of Selected Forest-Related Regulatory Initiatives: Applying A Rights Perspective, <www.jstor.org/stable/resrep00846. l0> (visited l3 September 2020). Supra at note 36.