Decision 7 G.R. No. 224469 failed to prove that as for them, there is indeed that particular IP justification to log a dita tree for building a communal toilet. 27 In their Reply, 28 petitioners continue to claim that the area where the dita tree was located is owned by the Iraya-Mangyan indigenous cultural communities (ICCs) since time immemorial by virtue of their "native title." This "native title" has been formally recognized under IPRA. As a result, the DENR issued Certificate of Ancestral Domain (CADC) No. RO4-CADC-126 covering the ancestral domain and ancestral lands where petitioners cut the dita tree. There is a pending application for conversion of the CADC to a Certificate of Ancestral Domains Title (CADT) before the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). Issues Is there evidence beyond reasonable doubt, first, of petitioners' ethnicity as Iraya-Mangyan IPs, and second, of the elements of violation of Section 77 of PD 705, as amended? As for the latter, i~ there evidence beyond reasonable doubt that: 1. the dita tree which petitioners had cut and collected is a specie of timber?; 2. the dita tree was cut and collected from a forest land, an alienable or disposable public land, or a private land, as contemplated in Section 77 of PD 705, as amended?; and, 3. the cutting of the dita tree was done without any authority granted by the State? Ruling We acquit. Section 2 of Rule 133 of the Rules of Court defines the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt: SECTION 2. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt. - In a criminal case, the defendant is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is requited, or that degree of proof \Vhich produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. 27 28 Supra note 10. Rollo, pp. 158-167.