Ombudsman indicts Baguio congressman

Criminal charges for ‘illegal cutting of trees’ 

BAGUIO CITY -- The Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) has ordered the filing of criminal charges against Rep. Nicasio Aliping, Jr. for the alleged illegal cutting of trees in Sitio  Pongayon, Sto. Tomas, Tuba in Benguet.

Aliping, along with William Go, Bernard Capuyan, and Romeo Aquino, owners of heavy earthmoving equipment, are facing trial before the Sandiganbayan for violation of Sections 77 and 78 of the Revised Forestry Code.

Investigation conducted by the Environmental Ombudsman found that in April 2014, Aliping conducted earthmoving activities using heavy equipment that resulted in the uprooting of 293 pine trees which also damaged 415 Benguet pine tree samplings.

The Department of Environment and Natural Resources estimated the total cost of forest destruction at more than P10 million.

It was also found that the cause of the turbidity of the water supply was due to the massive land development within and around the area.

The DENR, as complainant, added that “Mt. Sto. Tomas was declared forest reserve, thus it cannot be converted into private property.”

Aliping admitted that no permits had been issued for the earth moving activities and no documents were presented showing ownership over the property.

Aliping undertook the activities through the construction corporations owned by Go, Capuyan and Aquino.

According to the Ombudsman, “it is clear as daylight that the cutting of trees and other earthmoving activities were done without authority” as “Aliping’s use of the three backhoes/heavy equipment in his earthmoving activity is undisputed.”

Under the Forestry Code, it is illegal for any person to cut, gather, collect, remove timber or other forest products from forest land, without authority from DENR.

In 2012, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales revitalized the Environmental Ombudsman that handles complaints involving violations of environmental laws committed by public officials and employees.

Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Gerard Mosquera concurrently serves as the Environmental Ombudsman.

This, as Aliping’s lawyer Lauro Gacayan said the Office of the Ombudsman’s resolution ordering that a case be filed against his client and three others before the Sandiganbayan is “contrary to the evidence supplied by the investigators as well as to existing laws.”

According to Gacayan, the Environmental Ombudsman erred in concluding that the cut and uprooted trees were found within the claimed area of Aliping; in finding conspiracy among the respondents and disregarded evidence which proves the lack of liability of the respondents.

In his motion for reconsideration, Gacayan said that the Environmental Ombudsman completely disregarded evidence on record showing that Aliping’s claim is only 2.688 hectares in Sitio Pongayan, Sto. Tomas, Tuba, Benguet and that only 3,000 square meters of the entire property was the subject of leveling and excavation activities by Aliping.

“There were no cut or uprooted trees found in the said portion of his (Aliping) property which was the subject of leveling and excavation,” he said.

He added, “The alleged cut and uprooted trees were found in two roads which are not leading to his property/claim but going away from it... the opening or improvement of the two roads where the allegedly cut and uprooted trees were found have no use to the respondent-movant [Aliping].”

“There is no evidence whatsoever, or even just allegation, that the respondent-movant and his co-respondents were seen at the place of the alleged illegal tree cutting or uprooting of trees took place.”

“In the resolution, it merely concluded that there is ‘conspiracy’ because the equipment of the three co-respondents were found in Mt. Santo Tomas and that ‘direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found because criminals do not write down lawless plans and plots.’ It concluded that conspiracy can be ‘inferred from acts that point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest’,” the lawyer added.

“What are the acts that point to a joint purpose or design? The fact that the three contractors have one of their heavy equipment therein? Without them or their employees operating the same? The respondent Congressman [Aliping] was not also there. Was he just presumed to have given illegal orders to individuals to cut trees while attending his duties as a Member of the House of Representatives?” Gacayan asked.

“In this case, there is even no mention of who actually cut or uprooted the trees in violation of PD No. 705. But the respondents who are not even alleged to be there are the ones being charged because as clearly shown in the Resolution, they, particularly herein respondent-movant, were charged as principal by inducement. But there are no accused as principals by direct participation.

“Unfortunately, the Honorable Environmental Ombudsman completely accepted hook, line and sinker the self-serving claims of the complainant that trees were also cut within the 3,000 square meter portion of his property which was leveled and excavated despite the absence of a single evidence to prove it. No picture or actual tree was taken from the site.”

“But the most important fact that the Honorable Environmental Ombudsman completely overlooked is that no cut or uprooted tree was found within his claim where leveling and excavation were done. The alleged trees were found in the new road openings from Sitio Pongayan to Sitio Amliang and from Sitio Pongayan to Sitio Bekel, Sto. Tomas, Poblacion, Tuba, Benguet. Again, just to re-emphasize this point, these are roads leading away from his property and very far from it. He will enjoy no benefit for the opening or improvement of these roads,” Gacayan explained.

He added, “The herein respondent-movant [Aliping] was just improving his property where he was given Tax Declaration/Assessment of Real Property by the Municipal Assessor of Tuba, Benguet. What he did is exactly what other people in the said area are doing: making it useful to the owner.”

“While the granting of motions for reconsideration are statistically rare,   the respondent-movant  submits that there are occasions when the same are granted and the peculiar factual circumstances prevailing herein merit a second, deeper look by this Honorable  Office  in order  to prevent a miscarriage of justice,” Gacayan said.