Separate Concurring Opinion 5 G.R. No. 224469 Q As such Mr. Witness, you cannot be testifying on the identity of the person who actually operated the said chainsaw, is that correct? A When I arrivell he'was the person holding the chainsaw ma'am. Q Holding the chainsaw Mr. witness but not actually using the chainsaw to cut the tree, is that correct? A He was just holding it ma'am[.] 18 (Emphasis in the original) PO3 Rance's testimony, that they did not personally witness petitioners cut the tree, casts reasonable doubt on petitioners' guilt. That he saw petitioners holding a chainsaw without them using it cannot suffice to hold them liable for the act for which they are being indicted for. Likewise, PO3 Rance's admission that his team's distance from the scene of the crime was approximately 50 meters further, reinforces the conclusion that they did not personally see petitioners commit the crime they are being charged with. 19 The Court of ~Appeals decreed that pet1t10ners failed to prove ownership of the land where the felled dita tree was found. This failure equates to their inability to demonstrate their right to use and enjoy the land in accordance with Republic Act No. 83 71. 20 However, petitioners insist that they own the land and have occupied it since time immemorial. Their ownership is evidenced by Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim (CADC) No. R04-CADC-126, issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 21 The ponencia took judicial notice of the fact that CADC No. R04CADC-126 "covers the municipalities of Baco, San Teodoro and Puerto Galera in Oriental Mindoro with a land area of 33,334 hectares." It was issued to the Iraya-Mangyan tribe on June 5, 1998. As of March 31, 2018, CADC No. R04-CADC-126 is pending conversion to a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title~ (CADT). 22 The CADC's existence casts reasonable doubt on who the real owner of the subject area is, along with the resources found there. In the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt, petitioners' acquittal becomes imperative. As ruled in People v. Ganguso: 23 18 19 20 21 22 23 Id. at 18-19. Id.atl8. Id. at 85-86. Rollo, pp. 162-163. Reply. Ponencia, p. 40 citing <https://www.doe.gov.ph/sites/default/files/pdf/eicc/cadt-region04.pdf>. 320 Phil. 324 (1995) [Per J. Davide, Jr., First Division]. I