TABUK CITY, Kalinga – A former broadcaster was recently found guilty by a local court and was sentenced to suffer a maximum jail term of six years and one day for violation of the pertinent provisions of Presidential Decree (PD) 705 or the Forestry Reform Code of the Philippines.
In a 29-page decision Judge Jerson E. Angog of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 25 found Jerome Tabanganay, a former broadcaster in the province, guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 68 (now Section 77) of the Forestry Reform code as amended or the illegal cutting of trees and for him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of two years and one day of prison correctional as minimum to six years and one day of prison mayor as maximum imprisonment.
Further, the court ordered Tabanganay to pay P42,035 as damages for the said criminal act.
The said decision marks a crucial milestone in the effective and efficient enforcement of forestry regulations and the protection of the country’s natural resources, especially in the Cordillera being the watershed cradle of Northern Luzon.
Records show that Tabanganay allegedly facilitated the cutting of one rain tree and two gmelina trees on parcels of land owned by Jose Gazel Bantiag, Danilo M. Bantiag, Jonnel Bantiag, Dizon Bantiag and Gretchen Bantiag without the requisite permit and authorization from the appropriate government agency, particularly the Community Environment and Natural Resources (CENRO).
Witnesses testified on the alleged involvement of Tabanganay in the illegal cutting of the said trees where one of the complainants affirmed that the accused supervised the illegal tree cutting in his property.
CENRO personnel and community residents corroborated the testimonies of the complainants by presenting vital evidence against the accused.
In his defense, Tabanganay argued that the tree cutting will be beneficial to the community, particularly to be used in a boy scout jamboree and bayanihan efforts for a local school.
He claimed that he sought assistance from the CENRO prior to the tree cutting activity, however, upon receiving a directive from the aid office to proceed to Bagumbayan, he discovered alleged unauthorized tree cutting already underway without the requisite permit or authorization from the concerned government agency.
The court pointed out that Tabanganay’s claims did not justify the unlawful extraction of timber from private lands without proper governmental authorization.
Section 77 of PD 705 provided that land or tree ownership did not absolve individuals of culpability if actions were undertaken without lawful governmental authorization.
Moreover, any person who shall cut, gather, collet, remove timber or other forest products from any forestland or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private land without any authority, or possess timber or other forest products without the legal documents as required under existing forestry laws and regulations, shall be punished with the penalties imposed under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code, provided, that in the case of partnerships, associations, or corporations, the officers who ordered the cutting, gathering, collection or possession shall be liable and if such officers are aliens, they shall, in addition to the penalty, be deported without further proceedings on the part of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID).
The court explained that there is no reasonable doubt that the acacia tree and two paper trees were cut without any authority granted by the concerned government agency in the said case. It emphasized that the commission of the prohibited is the crime itself. It is sufficient that the offender, Tabanganay in the said case, had the intent to perpetrate the prohibited act by the special law and that it is done knowingly and consciously.
The court underscored the importance of upholding environmental regulations and safeguarding natural resources for future generations. It reaffirmed the principle that individuals, regardless of their professional or societal standing, are responsible for actions detrimental to the environment.
According to the decision, no other than the admission of the complainants proved that the accused was involved in the cutting of the trees that are the subject of the case. One of the complainants testified that the cutting of the trees in July 2016 was made pursuant to Tabanganay’s instruction and that the latter allegedly owned the said trees for having allegedly planted them on the lot that they previously owned but later sold it to the Tabuk city government.
CENRO personnel testified that no such permit to cut trees, pending or complete, was issued to Tabanganay.
Indisputably, the court stated that jurisprudence has consistently declared the offenses under Section 77 of PD 705 to be prohibited acts, thus, the people through the Office of the Solicitor-General in the case of Crescencio versus People is correct in arguing that criminal liability attaches once the prohibited acts are committed and criminal intent is relevant for purposes of conviction.
In a twist of fate, Tabanganay, who is also known for being a radio commentator, had previously been involved in a legal clash with Kalinga Governor Jocel Baac in 2011. However, in 2015, the two reconciled politically, with Tabanganay aligning himself with Governor Baac’s re-election bid under the Liberal Party. This unexpected alliance highlights the complex dynamics of human relationships and the pragmatic choices made in pursuit of political goals. By Jesse Maguiya and Dexter A. See
