Separate Concurring Opinion
2
G.R. No. 224469
SECTION 77. Cutting, Gathering and/or Collecting Timber or Other
Forest Products Without License. - Any person who shall cut, gather,
collect, remove timber or other forest products from any forest land, or
timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private land,
without any authority, or possess timber or other forest products without
the legal documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations,
shall be punished with the penalties imposed under Articles 309 and 310 of
the Revised Penal Code: Provided, That in the case of partnerships,
associations, or corporations, the officers who ordered the cutting,
gathering, collection or possession shall be liable, and if such officers are
aliens, they shall, in addition to the penalty, be deported without further
proceedings on the part of the Commission on Immigration and
Deportation.
The court shall further order the confiscation in favor of the government of
the timber or any forest products cut, gathernd, collected, removed, or
possessed, as well as the machinery, equipment, implements and tools
illegally used in the area where the timber or forest products are found.
In praying for their acquittal, petitioners invoke their Indigenous
People (IP) right to harvest dita tree logs, which allegedly constitute a part
of their right to cultural integrity, ancestral domain, and ancestral lands.
They insist that the felled dita tree was planted in their ancestral domain,
over which the Iraya-Mangyans' exercise communal dominion. 4
Settled is the rule that "[o]nly questions of law may be raised in a
petition for review on certiorari." 5 Further, "[t]his Court is not a trier of
facts." 6 It accords great weight and respect to the trial court's findings of
fact, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. 7
However, this rule is not without exception. In Medina v. Asistio, Jr. :8
li,
...,
(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on
speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) When the inference made is
manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a grave
abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension
offacts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court
of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and
the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7)
The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial
court; (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of
specific evidence on which they are based; (9) When the facts set forth in
the petition as well as in the petitioners' main and reply briefs are not
disputed by the respondents; and (10) The finding of fact of the Court of
Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is
4
5
6
7
Id. at 9.
Pascual v. Burgos, 776 Phil. 167, 182 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
Id.
People v. Quintas, 746 Phil. 809, 820 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division]
269 Phil. 225 (1990) [Per J. Bidin, Third Division]
I