Decision 6 G.R. No. 224469 The Court of Appeals' Ruling In its Decision23 dated May 29, 2015, the Court of Appeals affirmed. It focused on the failure of the accused to present any license agreement, lease, or permit authorizing them to log the dita tree. It also faulted the accused for relying on IPRA as the source of their alleged rights to cultural heritage and ancestral domain and lands. For they purportedly failed to substantiate their claim that they are Iraya-Mangyan IPs and the land where the dita tree was situated is part of their ancestral domain and lands. Under Resolution24 dated April 11, 2016, the Court of Appeals denied the accused' motion for reconsideration. The Present Petition Petitioners now seek affirmative relief from the Court, reiterating their plea for acquittal. 25 They maintain that their act of harvesting the dita tree is part and parcel of the Iraya-Mangyans' rights to cultural integrity and ancestral domain and lands. In particular, they profess that: ( 1) pursuant to their cultural practices, they followed the order of their indigenous community leaders to log the dita tree for the constn1ction of their communal toilet; and (2) the land where the dita tree was planted was part of their ancestral domain and lands under the IPRA, thus, the Iraya-Mangyan IPs have communal dominion over the fruits and natural resources found therein. Additionally, as the Court of Appeals rejected their claim of being Iraya-MangyanIPs, petitioners devote substantial space to emphasize what had not been disputed during the trial, that they are in fact Iraya-Mangyan IPs. In the alternative, petitioners stress that: (1) PO3 Rance did not actually witness their supposed act of cutting the dita tree; (2) the prosecution failed to prove they conspired in cutting the tree; and (3) the Court of Appeals misappreciated PO3 Rance's testimony identifying them as the ones who cut the dita tree. 26 The People, through the OSG, seeks to dismiss the petition on the following grounds: (1) whether petitioners logged the dita tree is a question of fact beyond the jurisdiction of the Court via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; (2) the Court of Appeals did not err in upholding the trial court 1 s finding that conspiracy attended the commission of the offense charged; (3) there is no IP justification for cutting the dita tree which is special and distinct from other Filipinos; and (4) even if the logging of a tree is part of the IPs' rights to cultural integrity· and ancestral domain and lands, the Iraya-Mangyan IPs 23 24 25 26 ld. Id. at 39--40. Supra note 1. Id