Decision 5 G.R. No. 224469 The trial court also faulted petitioners for not testifying and opting, instead, to present as their lone witness, Barangay Captain Aceveda, who allegedly had no, personal and first-hand knowledge of the events which transpired before, during,· and after the prohibited act. Under Order 19 dated October 13, 2010, the trial court denied the accused's motion for reconsideration. 20 Only petitioners Diosdado Samay Hinupas, Bandy Masanglay y Aceveda appealed from the trial court's ruling. Proceedings before the Court of Appeals Petitioners assei"ted 'anew their IP right to harvest the dita tree logs as part and parcel of the Iraya-Mangyan IPs' rights to cultural integrity and ancestral domain and lands. In particular, they claimed that: (1) pursuant to their cultural practices, they followed the order of their indigenous community leaders to log the dita tree to be used for the construction of their communal toilet; and (2) the land where the dita tree was planted was part of their ancestral domain and lands under RA 83 71 or the Indigenous People's Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA), and thus, the Iraya-Mangyan IPs have communal dominion over the fruits and natural resources found therein; (3) PO3 Rance did not actually witness their act of cutting the dita tree; and (4) the prosecution failed to prove they had conspired in cutting the tree. 21 The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) countered that: (I) there is no justification for IPs who cut a dita tree or any other tree without a permit that is special and distinct from any justification available to our compatriots; (2) even if the logging of trees is deemed part of the IPs' rights to cultural integrity or their ancestral domain or lands, the Iraya-Mangyan IPs failed to prove that as for thvm, the l~gging of a dita tree for building a communal toilet was justified by. these rights; (3) PO3 Rance positively testified that the accused were the ones Tesponsible in cutting down the dita tree; (4) it was not necessary for PO3 Rance to actually witness the accused fell the tree as the chain of events before, during, and after the incident led to the conclusion beyond a shadow of doubt that they had committed the offense charged; ( 5) the accused already admitted they had logged the dita tree intending to use the logs for the construction of a communal toilet for the Iraya-J'vfangyan indigenous community; and (6) defense witness Barangay Captain Aceveda corroborated this admission. 22 . ---····--' 19 Record, p . 363 20 Appellants' Brief before the Court of Appeals, CA rcllo, p. 34. 21 Rollo, pp. 79-89. 22 Jd.