Decision 43 G.R. No. 224469 debunking on reasonable doubt the claim that petitioners intended and voluntarily cut and collected the dita tree without lawful authority. Justice Caguioa expresses the same view which we quote: . . . . the self-limiting and tight window within which the indigenous peoples may cut trees from their own ancestral domain without prior permission is narrow enough as to sidestep any need to reconcile rights granted by IPRA vis-a-vis forestry regulations. This supports the primary aspiration that animates the IPRA, that is to restore ICCs/IPs to their land and affirm their right to cultural integrity and customary ways of life, with socio-cultural and legal space to unfold as they have done since time immemorial .... I submit that perhaps, if not with this case, a tightrope must eventually be walked with respect to the issues of environmental sustainability and indigenous peoples' rights, without having to weaken one to enable the other. For as affirmed by the IPRA, the cultural identity of the indigenous peoples has long been inseparable from the environment that surrounds it. There is, therefore, no knowable benefit in an indigenous custom or cultural belief that truthfully permits plunder of the environment that they hold synonymous with their collective identity. No legally sound argument may be built to support the premise that we ought not affirm the freedom of these indigenous peoples because they might exercise such freedom to bulldoze their own rights. That the experience on the ground shows abuses from unscrupulous non-members of ICCs/IPs of ancestral domains does not merit that the very same indigenous communities that have been taken advantage of be made to pay the highest cost of relinquishing what little control that was restored to them by law. Indeed, there is reasonable doubt as to the existence of petitioners' IP right to log the dita tree for the construction of a communal toilet for the IrayaMangyan ICC. It is engendered by the more expansive definition of authority under the law, the bundle of petitioners' IP rights both under the Constitution and IPRA, and a host of others like the ones mentioned by Justice Leonen in his Opinion, the sundry administrative regulations which seek to reconcile the regalian doctrine and the civilist concept of ownership with the indigenous peoples' sui generis ownership of ancestral domains and lands, the international covenants like the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, of which our country is a signatory, and Philippine and international jurisprudence which identifies the forms and contents of IP rights. In addition, we have the ever growing respect, recognition, protection, and preservation accorded by the State to the IPs, including their rights to cultural heritage and ancestral domains and lands. This finding of reasonable doubt absolves not only petitioners but also accused Demetrio Masanglay y Aceveda of criminal liability for the offense charged. Section 1 l(a), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court ordains: