The Trial Court's Ruling

By Decision^[16] dated August 24, 2010, the trial court convicted the accused, as charged, thus:

ACCORDINGLY, this Court finds accused DIOSDADO SAMA y HINUPAS, DEMETRIO MASANGLAY y ACEVEDA, and BANDY MASANGLAY y ACEVEDA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as (principals) of the crime charged in the aforequoted Information and in default of any modifying circumstance attendant, the Court hereby sentences said accused to an indeterminate penalty ranging from four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to three (3) years, four (4) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional, as maximum, and to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.^[17]

The trial court ruled that a dita tree with an aggregate volume of 500 board feet can be classified as "timber" within the purview of Section 68, now Section 77^[18] of PD 705, as amended. Thus, cutting the dita tree without a corresponding permit from the DENR or any competent authority violated the law.

The trial court further held that a violation of Section 77 of PD 705 constituted malum prohibitum, and for this reason, the commission of the prohibited act is a crime in itself and criminal intent does not have to be established. The trial court dismissed the defense of the accused that they had an IP right to log the dita tree which they intended to use for the construction of a communal toilet for the Iraya-Mangyan IPs.

The trial court also faulted petitioners for not testifying and opting, instead, to present as their lone witness, Barangay Captain Aceveda, who allegedly had no personal and first-hand knowledge of the events which transpired before, during, and after the prohibited act.

Under Order^[19] dated October 13, 2010, the trial court denied the accused's motion for reconsideration.^[20] Only petitioners Diosdado Sama y Hinupas, Bandy Masanglay y Aceveda appealed from the trial court's ruling.