G.R. No. 104988
Mustang Lumber vs. CA
June 18, 1996
Petitioner lumber corporation assailed the nature of the
seizure of its lumber products by respondents.
RULING:
The court held that the term ‘lumber’ as used in the
information against petitioners, although not mentioned in express terms as
among the prohibited articles under Section 68 of P.D. No. 705(Revised Forestry
Code) must be understood in its ordinary and common usage. Lumber is to be
understood as a processed log or timber. The court said that since the law
makes no distinction between raw or processed timber, neither should we. Ubi
lex non distinguere debemus. The court held that the petitioners were then
correctly charged with the offense of violating Sec68 of PD No 705 as alleged
by the facts in the information.
The court also held that the seizure of items
and the truck carrying the same was done lawfully as it falls under lawful
warrantless searches. Search of moving vehicles is one of the exceptions to the
general rule that searches must be done with a warrant. Furthermore, such
search and seizure was a valid exercise of the power vested upon the forest
officer or employee by Section 80 of P.D. No. 705, as amended by P.D. No. 1775.
Finally, the court stressed petitioner’s
violation of Section 68-A of P.D. No. 705. The court held that Secretary
Factoran or his authorized representative indeed had the authority to seize the
Lumber since petitioner’s license, at the time of seizure, was still suspended.
Thus, petitioner was in illegal possession of the seized articles.
The Court ruled against petitioner in all
three consolidated cases.
