Dissenting Opinion - 30 - G.R. No. 224469 trees without permit can now be exonerated regardless of the number of trees they cut. I do not think this to have been the intention of the IPRA. It would be well to realize, therefore, that the present case is not a simple, black-and-white quandary of an indigene vis-a-vis his IPRA rights under P.D. No. 705. As can be seen above, the case before Us presents far more interrelated issues for whether We would like to admit it or not, the seemingly innocuous acquittal of petitioners herein would ultimately result in considerable implications the Court may not have intended. The majority acquits petitioners based on their unique characteristics as IPs that set them apart from the rest of the Filipinos. Justice Zalameda adds that due to IPs' limited access to information, challenges in availing learning facilities, and lack of financial resources, they must be treated differently from the Filipino mainstream. But how, then, do We reconcile this with the fact that petitioners actually went to school, even reaching the level of Grade IV primary education?82 Or in the case of the Tagbanuas of Coron, how do We harmonize their supposed aboriginal characteristics to the fact that they are an IP group formally registered as a legal entity who, since receiving their ancestral domain title in 2001, have been requiring tourists to Coron Island to pay a fee prior to their entrance therein? How different, then, are petitioners from a typical, non-IP Filipino? Are we really prepared to cede all regulatory measures of the government to the IPs? As cited in the Dissenting Opinion of Justice Mario V. Lopez, Our ruling in People v. Macatanda 83 is instructive. There, accused, who was charged of cattle rustling under P.D. No. 533, sought the Court's lenient approach in view of his lack of instruction and education as well as his membership in a cultural minority, the two separate circumstances to be joined together to constitute the alternative circumstance of lack of instruction to mitigate his liability. 84 We, however, rejected the appeal in the following wise: Some later cases which categorically held that the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction does not apply to crimes of theft and robbery leave us with no choice but to reject the plea of appellant. Membership in a cultural minority does not per se imply being an uncivilized or semi- uncivilized state of the offender, which is the circumstance that induced the Supreme ,Court in the Maqui case, to apply lack of instruction to the appellant therein who was charged also with theft of large cattle. Incidentally, the Maqui case is the only case where lack of instruction was considered to mitigate liability for theft, for even long 82 Id. at 12. 195 Phil. 604 (1981). 84 Article 15 of the RPC provides: ARTICLE 15. Their Concept. - Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission. They are the relationship, intoxication and the degree of instructio~ 83 and eduoafon of the offendec. V/