PD 705 - "Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines.

" manner destroys such forest land or part thereof, or causes any
damage to the timber stand and other products and forest growths
CHAPTER IV found therein, or who assists, aids or abets any other person to do
so, or sets a fire, or negligently permits a fire to be set in any forest
CRIMINAL OFFENSES AND PENALTIES
land shall, upon conviction, be fined in an amount of not less than
five hundred pesos (P500.00) nor more than twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000.00) and imprisoned for not less than six (6) months nor
Section 68. Cutting, gathering and/or collecting timber or other more than two (2) years for each such offense, and be liable to the
products without license. Any person who shall cut, gather, collect, or payment of ten (10) times the rental fees and other charges which
remove timber or other forest products from any forest land, or would have been accrued had the occupation and use of the land
timber from alienable and disposable public lands, or from private been authorized under a license agreement, lease, license or permit:
lands, without any authority under a license agreement, lease, Provided, That in the case of an offender found guilty of making
license or permit, shall be guilty of qualified theft as defined and kaingin, the penalty shall be imprisoned for not less than two (2) nor
punished under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code; more than (4) years and a fine equal to eight (8) times the regular
Provided, That in the case of partnership, association or corporation, forest charges due on the forest products destroyed, without
the officers who ordered the cutting, gathering or collecting shall be prejudice to the payment of the full cost of restoration of the
liable, and if such officers are aliens, they shall, in addition to the occupied area as determined by the Bureau.
penalty, be deported without further proceedings on the part of the
Commission on Immigration and Deportation. The Court shall further order the eviction of the offender from the
land and the forfeiture to the Government of all improvements made
The Court shall further order the confiscation in favor of the and all vehicles, domestic animals and equipment of any kind used
government of the timber or forest products to cut, gathered, in the commission of the offense. If not suitable for use by the
collected or removed, and the machinery, equipment, implements Bureau, said vehicles shall be sold at public auction, the proceeds of
and tools used therein, and the forfeiture of his improvements in the which shall accrue to the Development Fund of the Bureau.
area.
In case the offender is a government official or employee, he shall, in
The same penalty plus cancellation of his license agreement, lease, addition to the above penalties, be deemed automatically dismissed
license or permit and perpetual disqualification from acquiring any from office and permanently disqualified from holding any elective or
such privilege shall be imposed upon any licensee, lessee, or appointive position.
permittee who cuts timber from the licensed or leased area of
another, without prejudice to whatever civil action the latter may Section 70. Pasturing Livestock. Imprisonment for not less than six
bring against the offender. (6) months nor more than two (2) years and a fine equal to ten (10)
times the regular rentals due, in addition to the confiscation of such
Section 69. Unlawful occupation or destruction of forest lands. Any livestock and all improvement introduced in the area in favor of the
person who enters and occupies or possesses, or makes kaingin for government, shall be imposed upon any person, who shall, without
his own private use or for others any forest land without authority authority under a lease or permit, graze or cause to graze livestock
under a license agreement, lease, license or permit, or in any in forest lands, grazing lands and alienable and disposable lands

1
which have not as yet been disposed of in accordance with the promulgated thereunder, shall be fined not less than one hundred
Public Land Act; Provided, That in case the offender is a corporation, (P100.00) pesos for each such violation and in addition shall be
partnership or association, the officers and directors thereof shall be denied a permit for a period of three (3) years from the date of the
liable. violation.

Section 71. Illegal occupation of national parks system and Section 73. Survey by unauthorized person. Imprisonment for not
recreation areas and vandalism therein. Any person who shall, less than two (2) nor more than four (4) years, in addition to the
without permit, occupy for any length of time any portion of the confiscation of the implements used in the violation of this section
national parks system or shall, in any manner, cut, destroy, damage including the cancellation of the license, if any, shall be imposed
or remove timber or any species of vegetation or forest cover and upon any person who shall, without permit to survey from the
other natural resources found therein, or shall mutilate, deface or Director, enter any forest lands, whether covered by a license
destroy objects of natural beauty or of scenic value within areas in agreement, lease, license, or permit, or not, and conduct or
the national parks system, shall be fined not less than two hundred undertake a survey for whatever purpose.
(P200.00) pesos or more than five hundred (P500.00) pesos
exclusive of the value of the thing damaged; Provided, That if the Section 74. Misclassification and survey by government official or
area requires rehabilitation or restoration as determined by the employee. Any public officer or employee who knowingly surveys,
Director, the offender shall also be required to restore or classifies, or recommends the release of forest lands as alienable
compensate for the restoration of the damage; Provided, Further, and disposable lands contrary to the criteria and standards
That any person who, without proper permit shall hunt, capture or kill established in this Code, or the rules and regulations promulgated
any kind of bird, fish or wild animal life within any area in the national hereunder, shall, after an appropriate administrative proceeding, be
parks system shall be subject to the same penalty; Provided, Finally, dismissed from the service with prejudice to re-employment, and
That the Court shall order eviction of the offender from the land and upon conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction, suffer an
the forfeiture in favor of the Government of all timber or any species imprisonment of not less than one (1) year and a fine of not less than
of vegetation and other natural resources collected or removed, and one thousand, (P1,000.00) pesos. The survey, classification or
any construction or improvement made thereon by the offender. If release of forest lands shall be null and void.
the offender is an association or corporation, the president or Section 75. Tax declaration on real property. Imprisonment for a
manager shall be directly responsible and liable for the act of his period of not less than two (2) nor more than four (4) years and
employees or laborers. perpetual disqualification from holding an elective or appointive
In the event that an official of a city or municipal government is office, shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who
primarily responsible for detecting and convicting the violator of the shall issue a tax declaration on real property without a certification
provisions of this Section, fifty per centum (50%) of the fine collected from the Director of Forest Development and the Director of Lands
shall accrue to such municipality or city for the development of local or their duly designated representatives that the area declared for
parks. taxation is alienable and disposable lands, unless the property is
titled or has been occupied and possessed by members of the
Section 72. Destruction of wildlife resources. Any person violating national cultural minorities prior to July 4, 1955.
the provisions of Section 55 of this Code, or the regulations

2
Section 76. Coercion and influence. Any person who coerces, payment of a surcharge of twenty-five per centum (25%) of the
influences, abets or persuades the public officer or employee amount due and payable.
referred to in the two preceding sections to commit any of the acts
mentioned therein shall suffer imprisonment of not less than one (1) Any person who fails or refuses to remit to the proper authorities
year and pay a fine of five hundred (P500.00) pesos for every said forest charges collectible pursuant to the provisions of this Code
hectare or a fraction thereof so improperly surveyed, classified or or the National Internal Revenue Code, or who delays, obstructs or
released. prevents the same, or who orders, causes or effects the transfer or
diversion of the funds for purposes other than those specified in this
Section 77. Unlawful possession of implements and devices used by Code, for each such offense shall, upon conviction, be punished by
forest officers. Imprisonment for a period of not less than (2) nor a fine of not exceeding one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00)
more than four (4) years and a fine of not less than one thousand and/or imprisonment for a period of not exceeding six (6) years in
pesos (P1,000.00), nor more than ten thousand (P10,000.00) pesos the discretion of the Court. If the offender is a government official or
in addition to the confiscation of such implements and devices, and employee, he shall, in addition, be dismissed from the service with
the automatic cancellation of the license agreement, lease, license prejudice to reinstatement and with disqualification from holding any
or permit, if the offender is a holder thereof, shall be imposed upon elective or appointive office.
any person who shall, without authority from the Director or his
authorized representative, make, manufacture, or has in his If the offender is a corporation, partnership or association, the
possession any government marking, hatchet or other marking officers and directors thereof shall be liable.
implement, or any marker, poster, or other devices officially used by Section 79. Sale of wood products. No person shall sell or offer for
officers of the Bureau for the marking or identification of timber or sale any log, lumber, plywood or other manufactured wood products
other products, or any duplicate, counterfeit, or imitation thereof, or in the international or domestic market unless he complies with
make or apply a government mark on timber or any other forest grading rules and established or to be established by the
products by means of any authentic or counterfeit device, or alter, Government.
deface, or remove government marks or signs, from trees, logs,
stumps, firewoods or other forest products, or destroy, deface, Failure to adhere to the established grading rules and standards, or
remove or disfigure any such mark, sign, poster or warning notices any act of falsification of the volume of logs, lumber, or other forest
set by the Bureau to designate the boundaries of cutting areas, products shall be a sufficient cause for the suspension of the export,
municipal or city forest or pasture, classified timber land, forest sawmill, or other license or permit authorizing the manufacture or
reserve, and areas under the national park system or to make any sale of such products for a period of not less than two (2) years.
false mark or imitation of any mark or sign herein indicated;
Provided, That if the offender is a corporation, partnership or A duly accredited representative of the Bureau shall certify to the
association, the officers and directors thereof shall be liable. compliance by the licensees with grading rules.

Section 78. Payment, collection and remittance of forest charges. Every dealer in lumber and other building material covered by this
Any person who fails to pay the amount due and payable under the Code shall issue an invoice for each sale of such material and such
provisions of this Code, the National Internal Revenue Code, or the invoice shall state that the kind, standard and size of material sold to
rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, shall be liable to the each purchaser in exactly the same as described in the invoice. Any
3
violation of this Section shall be sufficient ground for the suspension assigned in the area where the offense was allegedly committed,
of the dealer's license for a period of not less than two (2) years and, who shall thereupon receive the evidence supporting the report or
in addition thereto, the dealer shall be punished for each such complaint.
offense by a fine of not less than two hundred pesos (P200.00) or
the total value of the invoice, whichever is greater. If there is prima facie evidence to support the complaint or report,
the investigating forest officer shall file the necessary complaint with
Section 80. Arrest; Institution of criminal actions. A forest officer or the appropriate official authorized by law to conduct a preliminary
employee of the Bureau shall arrest even without warrant any investigation of criminal cases and file an information in Court.
person who has committed or is committing in his presence any of
the offenses defined in this Chapter. He shall also seize and
confiscate, in favor of the Government, the tools and equipment
used in committing the offense, and the forest products cut, gathered
or taken by the offender in the process of committing the offense. RA 9147 - "Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection
The arresting forest officer or employee shall thereafter deliver within Act."
six (6) hours from the time of arrest and seizure, the offender and
the confiscated forest products, tools and equipment to, and file the CHAPTER IV
proper complaint with, the appropriate official designated by law to ILLEGAL ACTS
conduct preliminary investigations and file informations in court.
Section 27. Illegal Acts. - Unless otherwise allowed in accordance
If the arrest and seizure are made in the forests, far from the with this Act, it shall be unlawful for any person to willfully and
authorities designated by law to conduct preliminary investigations, knowingly exploit wildlife resources and their habitats, or undertake
the delivery to, and filing of the complaint with, the latter shall be the following acts;
done within a reasonable time sufficient for ordinary travel from the
(a) killing and destroying wildlife species, except in the following
place of arrest to the place of delivery. The seized products,
instances;
materials and equipment shall be immediately disposed of in
accordance with forestry administrative orders promulgated by the (i) when it is done as part of the religious rituals of established tribal
Department Head. groups or indigenous cultural communities;

The Department Head may deputize any member or unit of the (ii) when the wildlife is afflicted with an incurable communicable
Philippine Constabulary, police agency, barangay or barrio official, or disease;
any qualified person to protect the forest and exercise the power or
authority provided for in the preceding paragraph. (iii) when it is deemed necessary to put an end to the misery suffered
by the wildlife;
Reports and complaints regarding the commission of any of the
offenses defined in this Chapter, not committed in the presence of (iv) when it is done to prevent an imminent danger to the life or limb
any forest officer or employee, or any of the deputized officers or of a human being; and
officials, shall immediately be investigated by the forest officer

4
(v) when the wildlife is killed or destroyed after it has been used in Section 28. Penalties for Violations of this Act. For any person who
authorized research or experiments. undertakes illegal acts under paragraph (a) of the immediately
preceding section to any species as may be categorized pursuant to
(b) inflicting injury which cripples and/or impairs the reproductive this Act, the following penalties and/or fines shall be imposed;
system of wildlife species;
(a) imprisonment of a minimum of six (6) years and one (1) day to
(c) effecting any of the following acts in critical habitat(s) twelve (12) years and/or a fine of One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) to One million pesos (P1,000,000.00), if inflicted or
(i) dumping of waste products detrimental to wildlife;
undertaken against species listed as critical;
(ii) squatting or otherwise occupying any portion of the critical
(b) imprisonment of four (4) and one (1) day to six (6) years and/or a
habitat;
fine of Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Five hundred thousand
(iii) mineral exploration and/or extraction; pesos (P500,000.00) if inflicted or undertaken against endangered
species;
(iv) burning;
(c) imprisonment of two (2) years and one (1) day to four (4) years
(v) logging; and and/or a fine of Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) to Three
hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00), if inflicted or undertaken
(vi) quarrying
against vulnerable species;
(d) introduction, reintroduction or restocking of wildlife resources;
(d) imprisonment of one (1) year and one (1) day to two (2) years
(e) trading of wildlife; and/or a fine of Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) to Two
hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) if inflicted or undertaken
(f) collecting, hunting or possessing wildlife, their by-products and against other threatened species; and
derivatives;
(e) imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year
(g) gathering or destroying of active nests, nest trees, host plants and/or a fine of Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to One hundred
and the like; thousand pesos (P100,000.00), if inflicted or undertaken against
other wildlife species.
(h) maltreating and/or inflicting other injuries not covered by the
preceding paragraph; and For illegal acts under paragraph (b) of the immediately preceding
section, the following penalties and/or fines shall be imposed;
(i) transporting of wildlife.
(a) imprisonment of minimum of four (4) years and one (1) day to six
CHAPTER V
(6) years and/or a fine of Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Five
FINES AND PENALTIES hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if inflicted or undertaken
against species listed as critical;

5
(b) imprisonment of two (2) years and one (1) day to four (4) years thousand pesos (P100,000.00), if inflicted or undertaken against
and/or a fine of Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) to Two hundred vulnerable species;
thousand pesos (P200,000.00), if inflicted or undertaken against
endangered species; (d) imprisonment of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months
and/or a fine of Five hundred pesos (P500.00) to Fifty thousand
(c) imprisonment of one (1) year and one (1) day to two (2) years pesos (P50,000.00), if inflicted or undertaken against species listed
and/or a fine of Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) to Two as threatened species; and
hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00), if inflicted or undertaken
against vulnerable species; (e) imprisonment of ten (10) days to one (1) month and/or a fine of
Two hundred pesos (P200.00) to Twenty thousand pesos
(d) imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year (P20,000.00), if inflicted or undertaken against other wildlife species.
and/or fine of Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000.00), if inflicted or undertaken against other For illegal acts under paragraphs (f) and (g) of the immediately
threatened species; and preceding section, the following penalties and/or fines shall be
imposed:
(e) imprisonment of one (1) month to six (6) months and/or a fine of
Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) to Twenty thousand pesos (a) imprisonment of two (2) years and one (1) day to four (4) years
(P20,000.00), if inflicted or undertaken against other wildlife species. and a fine of Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) to Three hundred
thousand pesos (P300,000.00), if inflicted or undertaken against
For illegal acts under paragraphs (c) and (d) of the immediately species listed as critical;
preceding section, an imprisonment of one (1) month to eight (8)
years and/or a fine of Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) to Five (b) imprisonment of one (1) year and one (1) day to two (2) years
million pesos (P5,000,000.00) shall be imposed. and a fine of Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) to Two hundred
thousand pesos (P200,000.00), if inflicted or undertaken against
For illegal acts under paragraph (e), the following penalties and/or endangered species;
fines shall be imposed:
(c) imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year
(a) imprisonment of two (2) years and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine of Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to One hundred
and/or a fine of Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) to Three hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00), if inflicted or undertaken against
thousand pesos (P300,000.00), if inflicted or undertaken against vulnerable species;
species listed as critical;
(d) imprisonment of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months
(b) imprisonment of one (1) year and one (1) day to two (2) years and a fine of Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) to Fifty thousand
and/or a fine of Two thousand pesos (P2,000.00) to Two hundred pesos (P50,000.00), if inflicted or undertaken against species as
thousand pesos (P200,000.00), if inflicted or undertaken against other threatened species; and
endangered species;
(e) imprisonment of ten (10) days to one (1) month and a fine of One
(c) imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year thousand pesos (P1,000.00) to Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00), if
and/or a fine of One thousand pesos (P1,000.00) to One hundred inflicted or undertaken against other wildlife species: Provided, That
6
in case of paragraph (f), where the acts were perpetuated through shall immediately cause the transfer of all wildlife that have been
the means of inappropriate techniques and devices, the maximum seized or recovered to the nearest Wildlife Rescue Center of the
penalty herein provided shall be imposed. Department in the area.

For illegal acts under paragraph (h) and (i) of the immediately If the offender is an alien, he shall be deported after service and
preceding section, the following penalties and/or fines shall be payment of fines, without any further proceedings.
imposed:
The fines herein prescribed shall be increased by at least ten
(a) imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year percent (10%) every three (3) years to compensate for inflation and
and a fine of Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to One hundred to maintain the deterrent function of such fines.
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) if inflicted or undertaken against
species listed as critical species;

(b) imprisonment of three (3) months and one (1) day to six (6) RA 9175 -"Chain Saw Act of 2002".
months and a fine of Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) to Fifty Section 7. Penal Provisions. -
thousand pesos (P50,000.00), if inflicted or undertaken against
endangered species; (a) Selling, Purchasing, Re-selling, Transferring, Distributing or
Possessing a Chain Saw Without a Proper Permit. - Any person who
(c) imprisonment of one (1) month and one (1) day to three (3) sells, purchases, transfer the ownership, distributes or otherwise
months and a fine of Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) to Twenty disposes or possesses a chain saw without first securing the
thousand pesos (P20,000.00), if inflicted or undertaken against necessary permit from the Department shall be punished with
vulnerable species; imprisonment of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day to six
(d) imprisonment of ten (10) days to one (1) month and a fine of One (6) years or a fine of not less than Fifteen thousand pesos
thousand pesos (P1,000.00) to Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00), if (P15,000.00) but not more Thirty thousand pesos (30,000.00) or
inflicted or undertaken against species listed as other threatened both at the discretion of the court, and the chain saw/s confiscated in
species; favor of the government.

(e) imprisonment of five (5) days to ten (10) days and a fine of Two (2) Unlawful Importation or Manufacturing of Chain Saw. - Any
hundred pesos (P200.00) to One thousand pesos (P1,000.00), if person who imports or manufactures a chain saw without obtaining
inflicted or undertaken against other wildlife species. prior authorization from the Department shall be punished by
imprisonment of not less than one (1) month nor more than six (6)
All wildlife, its derivatives or by-products, and all paraphernalia, tools months and a fine of not less than One thousand pesos (P1,000.00)
and conveyances used in connection with violations of this Act, shall for more than Four thousand pesos (P4,000.00).
be ipso facto forfeited in favor of the government; Provided, That
where the ownership of the aforesaid conveyances belong to third (3) Tampering of Engine Serial Number. - Any person who is found to
persons who has no participation in or knowledge of the illegal acts, have defaced or tampered with the original registered engine serial
the same may be released to said owner. The apprehending agency number of any chain saw unit shall be punished by imprisonment of
not less than one (1) month nor more than six (6) months and a fine
7
of not less than One thousand pesos (P1,000.00) nor more than Act. He shall likewise organize an office within the Department to
Four thousand pesos (P4,000.00). ensure that requirements imposed by this Act may be complied with
by qualified persons, within the shortest possible time, at the least
(4) Actual Unlawful Use of Chain Saw. - Any person who is found to possible expense.
be in possession of a chain saw and uses the same to cut trees and
timber in forest land or elsewhere except as authorized by the In the Province of Palawan, the provisions of this Act shall be
Department shall be penalized with imprisonment of six (6) years implemented by the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development
and one (1) day to eight (8) years or a fine of not less that Thirty pursuant to Republic Act No. 7611 or the Strategic Environmental
thousand pesos (P30,000.00) but not more than Fifty thousand Plan for Palawan.
pesos (P50,000.00) or both at the discretion of the court without
prejudice to being prosecuted for a separate offense that may have Section 10. Revocation of Registration and Permit. - The Secretary
been simultaneously committed. The chain saw unlawfully used shall may revoke any Certificate of Registration or permit previously
be likewise confiscated in favor of the government. issued to a person found violating the provisions of this Act, or the
rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto.
If the violation under this Section is committed by or through the
command or order of another person, partnership or corporation, the
penalties herein provided shall likewise be imposed on such other
person, or the responsible officer(s) in such partnership or
corporation.

If the offender is a public official or employee, in addition to the

above penalties, he shall be removed from office and perpetually
disqualified from holding any public office. RA 7586 - "National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of
1992.
The chain saws confiscated under this Section shall be sold at public
auction to qualified buyers and the proceeds thereof shall go to the
Department. Section 20. Prohibited Acts. Except as may be allowed by the
nature of their categories and pursuant to rules and regulations
Section 8. Reward. - Any person who voluntarily gives information governing the same, the following acts are prohibited within
leading to the recovery or confiscation of an unregistered chain saw protected areas:
and the conviction of persons charged thereof shall be entitled to a
reward equivalent to twenty person (20%) of the value of the chain a. Hunting, destroying, disturbing, or mere possession of any plants
saw unit(s). The Department is authorized to include in its budget the or animals or products derived therefrom without a permit from the
amount necessary to carry out the purpose of this Section. Management Board;

Section 9. Authority of the Secretary. - To effectively implement the b. Dumping of any waste products detrimental to the protected area,
provisions of this Act, the Secretary shall issue the implementing or to the plants and animals or inhabitants therein;
rules and regulations within ninety (90) days upon approval of this
8
c. Use of any motorized equipment without a permit from the RA 9072 - "National Caves and Cave Resources Management
Management Board; and Protection Act."

d. Mutilating, defacing or destroying objects of natural beauty, or Section 7. Prohibited Acts - The following shall be considered
objects of interest to cultural communities (of scenic value); Prohibited Acts.
(a) Knowingly destroying, disturbing, defacing, marring, altering,
e. Damaging and leaving roads and trails in a damaged condition; removing, or harming the speleogem or speleothem of any cave or
altering the free movement of any animal or plant life into or out of
f. Squatting, mineral locating, or otherwise occupying any land; any cave:
(b) Gathering, collecting, possessing, consuming, selling, bartering
g. Constructing or maintaining any kind of structure, fence or or exchanging or offering for sale without authority any, cave
enclosures, conducting any business enterprise without a permit; resource; and
(c) Counselling, procuring, soliciting or employing any other person
h. Leaving in exposed or unsanitary conditions refuse or debris, or to violate any provisions of this Section.
depositing in ground or in bodies of water; and
Section 8. Penalties - Any person found guilty of any of the offenses
i. Altering, removing destroying or defacing boundary marks or signs. enumerated under Section 7 hereof shall be punished by
imprisonment from two (2) years to six (6) years or a fine ranging
from Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000) to five hundred thousand
Section 21. Penalties. Whoever violates this Act or any rules and
pesos (P500,000.00) or both at the discretion of the Court: Provided
regulations issued by the Department pursuant to this Act or
That the person furnishing the capital to accomplish the acts
whoever is found guilty by a competent court of justice of any of the
punishable herein shall be punished by imprisonment from six (6) yrs
offenses in the preceding section shall be fined in the amount of not
and one (1) day to eight (8) years or by a fine ranging from Five
less than Five thousand pesos (P5,000) nor more than Five hundred
hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to One million pesos
thousand pesos (P500,000), exclusive of the value of the thing
(P1,000,000.00) or both at the Discretion of the Court. Provided
damaged or imprisonment for not less than one (1) year but not
further that if the area requires rehabilitation or restoration as
more than six (6) years, or both, as determined by the court:
determined by the Court, the offender shall also be required to
Provided, that, if the area requires rehabilitation or restoration as
restore the same, whenever practicable or compensate for the
determined by the court, the offender shall be required to restore or
damage: Provided finally that if the offender is a government
compensate for the restoration to the damages: Provided, further,
employee, he or she shall likewise be removed from office.
that court shall order the eviction of the offender from the land and
the forfeiture in favor of the Government of all minerals, timber or Section 9. Administrative Confiscation and Conveyance - The
any species collected or removed including all equipment, devices Secretary shall order the confiscation, in favor of the Government of
and firearms used in connection therewith, and any construction or the cave resources gathered, collected, removed, possessed or sold
improvement made thereon by the offender. If the offender is an including the conveyance and equipment used in violation of Section
association or corporation, the president or manager shall be directly 7 hereof.
responsible for the act of his employees and laborers: Provided,
finally, that the DENR may impose administrative fines and penalties Section 10. Fees - Any money collected by the DENR as permit
consistent with this Act. fees for collection and removal of cave resources, as a result of the
9
forfeiture of a bond or other security by a permittee who does not
comply with the requirements of such permit issued under this Act or
by way of fines for violations of this Act shall be remitted to the
National Treasury Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 165448 July 27, 2009

ERNESTO AQUINO, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

DECISION

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

Before the Court is a petition for review 1 assailing the 5 June 1997
Decision2 and 24 September 2004 Resolution3 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 17534.

The Antecedent Facts

10
On behalf of Teachers Camp, Sergio Guzman filed with the This PERMIT is non-transferable and shall expire ten (10) days from
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) an issuance hereof or as soon as the herein authorized volume is
application to cut down 14 dead Benguet pine trees within the exhausted whichever comes first.4
Teachers Camp in Baguio City. The trees, which had a total volume
of 13.37 cubic meters, were to be used for the repairs of Teachers On 23 July 1993, Forest Rangers Ramil Windo, Moises Sobrepea,
Camp. Daniel Salamo, Pablo Guinawan, Antonio Abellera, and Forester
Paul Apilis received information that pine trees were being cut at
On 19 May 1993, before the issuance of the permit, a team Teachers Camp without proper authority. They proceeded to the site
composed of members from the Community Environment and where they found Ernesto Aquino (petitioner), a forest ranger from
Natural Resources Office (CENRO) and Michael Cuteng (Cuteng), a CENRO, and Cuteng supervising the cutting of the trees. They also
forest ranger of the Forest Section of the Office of the City Architect found sawyers Benedicto Santiago (Santiago) and Mike Masing
and Parks Superintendent of Baguio City, conducted an inspection of (Masing) on the site, together with Clemente Salinas (Salinas) and
the trees to be cut. Andrew Nacatab (Nacatab), who were also supervising the cutting of
the trees. The forest rangers found 23 tree stumps, out of which only
Thereafter, Sabado T. Batcagan, Executive Director of the DENR, 12 were covered by the permit. The volume of the trees cut with
issued a permit allowing the cutting of 14 trees under the following permit was 13.58 cubic meters while the volume of the trees cut
terms and conditions: without permit was 16.55 cubic meters. The market value of the
trees cut without permit was P182,447.20, and the forest charges
2. That the cut timber shall be utilized as lumber and fuel-wood by
were P11,833.25.
the permittee;
An Information for violation of Section 68 of Presidential Decree No.
3. As replacement, the permittee shall plant one hundred forty (140)
7055 (PD 705) was filed against petitioner, Cuteng, Nacatab, Masing,
pine seedlings in an appropriate place within the area. In the
and Santiago, as follows:
absence of plantable area in the property, the same is required to
plant within forest area duly designated by CENRO concerned which That on or about the 23rd day of July, 1993, and subsequent thereto,
shall be properly maintained and protected to ensure/enhance in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
growth and development of the planted seedlings; Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating and mutually aiding one another, and without any
4. Violation of any of the conditions set hereof is punishable under
authority, license or permit, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
Section 68 of PD 705 as amended by E.O. No. 277, Series of 1987;
and feloniously cut nine (9) pine trees with a total volume and market
and
price as P182,447.20 (Volume 16.55 M3 424 bd. ft./M3 and unit price
5. That non-compliance with any of the above conditions or P26.00 bd. ft.) and with a total forest charge of P11,833.25 or
violations of forestry laws and regulations shall render this permit having a total sum of P194,280.45 at Teachers Camp, Baguio City,
null and void without prejudice to the imposition of penalties in without the legal documents as required under existing forest laws
accordance with existing laws and regulations. and regulations, particularly the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources Circular No. 05, Series of 1989, in violation of the
aforecited law.6lawphil

11
Masing alleged that he was not aware of the limitations on the permit WHEREFORE, the Court finds and declares the accused ERNESTO
as he was not given a copy of the permit. Masing stated that he cut AQUINO y ESTIPULAR, MICHAEL CUTENG y LESCAO and
10 pine trees under the supervision of petitioner who claimed to be BENEDICTO SANTIAGO y DOCLES guilty beyond reasonable
in possession of the necessary permit. He stated that three of the doubt of the crime charged and hereby sentences EACH of them to
trees were stumps about four or five feet high and were not fit for suffer an indeterminate penalty of SIX (6) YEARS of prision
lumber. He stated that while he was cutting trees, petitioner and correccional, as minimum, to TWENTY (20) YEARS of reclusion
Salinas were present. temporal, as maximum; to indemnify, jointly and severally, the
Government in the amounts of P182,477.20 and P11,833.25,
Santiago testified that he cut trees under petitioners supervision. He representing the market value of and forest charges on the Benguet
stated that petitioner was in possession of the permit. He stated that pine trees cut without permit; and to pay their proportionate shares in
he cut 10 trees, six of which were cut into lumber while two were the costs.
stumps and two were rotten.
The chainsaw confiscated from the accused Santiago is hereby
Salinas testified that Masing and Santiago were merely hired as declared forfeited in favor of the Government.
sawyers and they merely followed petitioners instructions.
On the other hand, the accused ANDREW NACATAB y DODOY and
Cuteng testified that he was part of the team that inspected the trees MIKE MASING y GANAS are acquitted on reasonable doubt, with
to be cut before the permit was issued. He stated that the trees cut costs de oficio, and the cash bonds they deposited for their
by Santiago were covered by the permit. provisional liberty in the amount of P7,500.00 each under O.R. Nos.
139605 and 139646, dated February 4, 1996 and February 23,
Nacatab testified that he only went to Teachers Camp on 13 July
1994, respectively, are ordered released to them upon proper receipt
1993 and he saw Santiago and Masing cutting down the trees in
therefor.
petitioners presence.
SO ORDERED.8
Petitioner alleged that he was sent to supervise the cutting of trees
at Teachers Camp. He allegedly informed his superior, Paul Apilis, The trial court ruled that the trees cut exceeded the allowed number
that he was not aware of the trees covered by the permit. However, of the trees authorized to be cut. The trial court further ruled that the
he still supervised the cutting of trees without procuring a copy of the cutting of trees went beyond the period stated in the permit.
vicinity map used in the inspection of the trees to be cut. He claimed
that he could not prevent the overcutting of trees because he was Petitioner, Cuteng and Santiago appealed from the trial courts
just alone while Cuteng and Santiago were accompanied by three Decision.
other men.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals
The Decision of the Trial Court
In its 5 June 1997 Decision, the Court of Appeals modified the trial
7
In its 26 May 1994 Decision, the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, courts Decision as follows:
Branch 5 (trial court), ruled as follows:
WHEREFORE, the decision of the court a quo is MODIFIED. The
accused-appellants Benedicto Santiago and Michael Cuteng are
12
hereby acquitted on reasonable doubt. The appellant Ernesto Aquino The only issue in this case is whether petitioner is guilty beyond
is found guilty, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate reasonable doubt of violation of Section 68 of PD 705.
penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as
minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day The Ruling of this Court
of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The award of damages is The petition has merit.
deleted. No costs.
The Solicitor General alleges that the petition should be denied
SO ORDERED.9 because petitioner only raises questions of facts and not questions
The Court of Appeals ruled that as a forest guard or ranger of the of law. We do not agree.
CENRO, DENR, petitioner had the duty to supervise the cutting of A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on
trees and to ensure that the sawyers complied with the terms of the a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the
permit which only he possessed. The Court of Appeals ruled that doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. 10 For
while it was Teachers Camp which hired the sawyers, petitioner had questions to be one of law, the same must not involve an
control over their acts. The Court of Appeals rejected petitioners examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the
claim that he was restrained from taking a bolder action by his fear litigants.11 The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the
of Santiago because petitioner could have informed his superiors but law provides on the given set of circumstances.12
he did not do so. The Court of Appeals further rejected petitioners
contention that the law contemplated cutting of trees without permit, In this case, petitioner challenges his conviction under Section 68 of
while in this case there was a permit for cutting down the trees. The PD 705.
Court of Appeals ruled that the trees which were cut by the sawyers
were not covered by the permit. Section 68 of PD 705 provides:

The Court of Appeals ruled that conspiracy was not sufficiently Section 68. Cutting, Gathering and/or Collecting Timber or Other
proven. As such, the Court of Appeals found that the prosecution Forest Products Without License.-Any person who shall cut, gather,
failed to prove Cutengs guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court of collect, remove timber or other forest products from any forest land,
Appeals likewise acquitted Santiago because he was only following or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private
orders as to which trees to cut and he did not have a copy of the land, without any authority, or possess timber or other forest
permit. products without the legal documents as required under existing
forest laws and regulations, shall be punished with the penalties
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. In its 24 September imposed under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code:
2004 Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for lack of Provided, that in the case of partnerships, associations, or
merit. corporations, the officers who ordered the cutting, gathering,
collection or possession shall be liable, and if such officers are
Hence, the petition before this Court. aliens, they shall, in addition to the penalty, be deported without
The Issue further proceedings on the part of the Commission on Immigration
and Deportation.

13
There are two distinct and separate offenses punished under ACQUITTED of the charge of violation of Section 68 of Presidential
Section 68 of PD 705, to wit: Decree No. 705. Costs de officio.

(1) Cutting, gathering, collecting and removing timber or other forest SO ORDERED.
products from any forest land, or timber from alienable or
disposable public land, or from private land without any authority; Republic of the Philippines
and SUPREME COURT
Manila
(2) Possession of timber or other forest products without the legal
documents required under existing forest laws and regulations.13 FIRST DIVISION

The provision clearly punishes anyone who shall cut, gather, G.R. No. 158182 June 12, 2008
collect or remove timber or other forest products from any forest
SESINANDO MERIDA, petitioner,
land, or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from
vs.
private land, without any authority. In this case, petitioner was
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
charged by CENRO to supervise the implementation of the permit.
He was not the one who cut, gathered, collected or removed the DECISION
pine trees within the contemplation of Section 68 of PD 705. He was
not in possession of the cut trees because the lumber was used by CARPIO, J.:
Teachers Camp for repairs. Petitioner could not likewise be
The Case
convicted of conspiracy to commit the offense because all his co-
accused were acquitted of the charges against them. This is a petition for review1 of the Decision2 dated 28 June 2002 and
the Resolution dated 14 May 2003 of the Court of Appeals. The 28
Petitioner may have been remiss in his duties when he failed to
June 2002 Decision affirmed the conviction of petitioner Sesinando
restrain the sawyers from cutting trees more than what was covered
Merida (petitioner) for violation of Section 68,3 Presidential Decree
by the permit. As the Court of Appeals ruled, petitioner could have
No. 705 (PD 705),4 as amended by Executive Order No. 277. The
informed his superiors if he was really intimidated by Santiago. If at
Resolution dated 14 May 2003 denied admission of petitioner's
all, this could only make petitioner administratively liable for his acts.
motion for reconsideration.5
It is not enough to convict him under Section 68 of PD 705.
The Facts
Neither could petitioner be liable under the last paragraph of Section
68 of PD 705 as he is not an officer of a partnership, association, or Petitioner was charged in the Regional Trial Court of Romblon,
corporation who ordered the cutting, gathering, or collection, or is in Romblon, Branch 81 (trial court) with violation of Section 68 of PD
possession of the pine trees. 705, as amended, for "cut[ting], gather[ing], collect[ing] and
remov[ing]" a lone narra tree inside a private land in Mayod, Ipil,
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the 5 June
Magdiwang, Romblon (Mayod Property) over which private
1997 Decision and 24 September 2004 Resolution of the Court of
complainant Oscar M. Tansiongco (Tansiongco) claims ownership.6
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 17534. Petitioner Ernesto Aquino is

14
The prosecution evidence showed that on 23 December 1998, and filed the Information with the trial court (docketed as Criminal
Tansiongco learned that petitioner cut a narra tree in the Mayod Case No. 2207).
Property. Tansiongco reported the matter to Florencio Royo (Royo),
the punong barangay of Ipil. On 24 December 1998, 7 Royo During the trial, the prosecution presented six witnesses including
summoned petitioner to a meeting with Tansiongco. When Tansiongco, Royo, and Hernandez who testified on the events
confronted during the meeting about the felled narra tree, petitioner leading to the discovery of and investigation on the tree-cutting.
admitted cutting the tree but claimed that he did so with the Petitioner testified as the lone defense witness and claimed, for the
permission of one Vicar Calix (Calix) who, according to petitioner, first time, that he had no part in the tree-cutting.
bought the Mayod Property from Tansiongco in October 1987 under The Ruling of the Trial Court
a pacto de retro sale. Petitioner showed to Royo Calix's written
authorization signed by Calix's wife.8 In its Decision dated 24 November 2000, the trial court found
petitioner guilty as charged, sentenced him to fourteen (14) years,
On 11 January 1999, Tansiongco reported the tree-cutting to the eight (8) months and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of reclusion
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) forester temporal and ordered the seized lumber forfeited in Tansiongco's
Thelmo S. Hernandez (Hernandez) in Sibuyan, Romblon. When favor.12 The trial court dismissed petitioner's defense of denial in view
Hernandez confronted petitioner about the felled tree, petitioner of his repeated extrajudicial admissions that he cut the narra tree in
reiterated his earlier claim to Royo that he cut the tree with Calix's the Mayod Property with Calix's permission. With this finding and
permission. Hernandez ordered petitioner not to convert the felled petitioner's lack of DENR permit to cut the tree, the trial court held
tree trunk into lumber. petitioner liable for violation of Section 68 of PD 705, as amended.
On 26 January 1999, Tansiongco informed Hernandez that petitioner Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals reiterating his defense of
had converted the narra trunk into lumber. Hernandez, with other denial. Petitioner also contended that (1) the trial court did not
DENR employees and enforcement officers, went to the Mayod acquire jurisdiction over the case because it was based on a
Property and saw that the narra tree had been cut into six smaller complaint filed by Tansiongco and not by a forest officer as provided
pieces of lumber. Hernandez took custody of the lumber, 9 deposited under Section 80 of PD 705 and (2) the penalty imposed by the trial
them for safekeeping with Royo, and issued an apprehension receipt court is excessive.
to petitioner. A larger portion of the felled tree remained at the Mayod
Property. The DENR subsequently conducted an investigation on the The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
matter.10
In its Decision dated 28 June 2002, the Court of Appeals affirmed
Tansiongco filed a complaint with the Office of the Provincial the trial court's ruling but ordered the seized lumber confiscated in
Prosecutor of Romblon (Provincial Prosecutor) charging petitioner the government's favor.13 The Court of Appeals sustained the trial
with violation of Section 68 of PD 705, as amended. During the court's finding that petitioner is bound by his extrajudicial admissions
preliminary investigation, petitioner submitted a counter-affidavit of cutting the narra tree in the Mayod Property without any DENR
reiterating his claim that he cut the narra tree with Calix's permission. permit. The Court of Appeals also found nothing irregular in the filing
The Provincial Prosecutor11 found probable cause to indict petitioner of the complaint by Tansiongco instead of a DENR forest officer

15
considering that the case underwent preliminary investigation by the In its Comment to the petition, the Office of the Solicitor General
proper officer who filed the Information with the trial court. (OSG) countered that (1) the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the
case even though Tansiongco, and not a DENR forest officer, filed
On the imposable penalty, the Court of Appeals, in the dispositive the complaint against petitioner and (2) petitioner is liable for
portion of its ruling, sentenced petitioner to 14 years, 8 months and 1 violation of Section 68 of PD 705, as amended.
day to 17 years of reclusion temporal. However, in the body of its
ruling, the Court of Appeals held that "the penalty to be imposed on The Issues
[petitioner] should be (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to
twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal,"14 the same penalty the trial The petition raises the following issues:17
court imposed. 1) Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over Criminal Case
Petitioner sought reconsideration but the Court of Appeals, in its No. 2207 even though it was based on a complaint filed by
Resolution dated 14 May 2003, did not admit his motion for having Tansiongco and not by a DENR forest officer; and
been filed late.15 2) Whether petitioner is liable for violation of Section 68 of PD 705,
Hence, this petition. Petitioner raises the following issues: as amended.

I. WHETHER x x x SECTION 68 OF P.D. 705 AS AMENDED The Ruling of the Court

PROHIBITING THE CUTTING, GATHERING, COLLECTING AND The petition has no merit.
REMOVING TIMBER OR OTHER FOREST PRODUCTS FROM
ANY FOREST LAND APPLIES TO PETITIONER. The Trial Court Acquired Jurisdiction Over
Criminal Case No. 2207
II. WHETHER x x x POSSESSION OF THE NARRA TREE CUT IN
PRIVATE LAND CONTESTED BY VICAR CALIX AND PRIVATE- We sustain the OSG's claim that the trial court acquired jurisdiction
COMPLAINANT OSCAR TANSIONGCO IS COVERED BY over Criminal Case No. 2207. The Revised Rules of Criminal
SECTION 80 OF P.D. 705 AS AMENDED. Procedure (Revised Rules) list the cases which must be initiated by
a complaint filed by specified individuals, 18 non-compliance of which
III. WHETHER PRIVATE-COMPLAINANT CAN INITIATE THE ousts the trial court of jurisdiction from trying such cases. 19 However,
CHARGE EVEN WITHOUT THE STANDING AUTHORITY COMING these cases concern only defamation and other crimes against
FROM THE INVESTIGATING FOREST OFFICER OF THE chastity20 and not to cases concerning Section 68 of PD 705, as
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES amended. Further, Section 80 of PD 705 does not prohibit an
AS MANDATED BY SECTION 80 OF P.D. 705 AS AMENDED. interested person from filing a complaint before any qualified officer
[IV.] WHETHER x x x THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN TAKING for violation of Section 68 of PD 705, as amended. Section 80 of PD
COGNIZANCE OF THE CASE FILED BY PRIVATE-COMPLAINANT 705 provides in relevant parts:
BECAUSE IT WAS NOT THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER AS SECTION 80. Arrest; Institution of criminal actions. - x x x x
REQUIRED BY SECTION 80 OF P.D. 705 AS AMENDED WHO
MUST BE THE ONE TO INSTITUTE THE FILING OF THE SAME.16

16
Reports and complaints regarding the commission of any of the Section 68, as amended, one of the 12 acts25 penalized under PD
offenses defined in this Chapter, not committed in the presence of 705, provides:
any forest officer or employee, or any of the deputized officers or
officials, shall immediately be investigated by the forest officer SECTION 68. Cutting, Gathering and/or Collecting Timber, or Other
assigned in the area where the offense was allegedly committed, Forest Products Without License. - Any person who shall cut, gather,
who shall thereupon receive the evidence supporting the report or collect, remove timber or other forest products from any forest land,
complaint. or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private
land, without any authority, or possess timber or other forest
If there is prima facie evidence to support the complaint or products without the legal documents as required under existing
report, the investigating forest officer shall file the necessary forest laws and regulations, shall be punished with the penalties
complaint with the appropriate official authorized by law to imposed under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code:
conduct a preliminary investigation of criminal cases and file an Provided, That in the case of partnerships, associations, or
information in Court. (Emphasis supplied) corporations, the officers who ordered the cutting, gathering,
collection or possession shall be liable, and if such officers are
We held in People v. CFI of Quezon21 that the phrase "reports and aliens, they shall, in addition to the penalty, be deported without
complaints" in Section 80 refers to "reports and complaints as might further proceedings on the part of the Commission on Immigration
be brought to the forest officer assigned to the area by other forest and Deportation.
officers or employees of the Bureau of Forest Development or
any of the deputized officers or officials, for violations of forest The court shall further order the confiscation in favor of the
laws not committed in their presence."22 government of the timber or any forest products cut, gathered,
collected, removed, or possessed as well as the machinery,
Here, it was not "forest officers or employees of the Bureau of Forest equipment, implements and tools illegally used in the area where the
Development or any of the deputized officers or officials" who timber or forest products are found. (Emphasis supplied)
reported to Hernandez the tree-cutting in the Mayod Property but
Tansiongco, a private citizen who claims ownership over the Mayod Section 68 penalizes three categories of acts: (1) the cutting,
Property. Thus, Hernandez cannot be faulted for not conducting an gathering, collecting, or removing of timber or other forest products
investigation to determine "if there is prima facie evidence to support from any forest land without any authority; (2) the cutting, gathering,
the complaint or report."23 At any rate, Tansiongco was not collecting, or removing of timber from alienable or disposable public
precluded, either under Section 80 of PD 705 or the Revised Rules, land, or from private land without any authority;26 and (3) the
from filing a complaint before the Provincial Prosecutor for possession of timber or other forest products without the legal
petitioner's alleged violation of Section 68 of PD 705, as amended. documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations. 27
For its part, the trial court correctly took cognizance of Criminal Case Petitioner stands charged of having "cut, gathered, collected and
No. 2207 as the case falls within its exclusive original jurisdiction.24 removed timber or other forest products from a private land 28 without
x x x the necessary permit x x x " thus his liablity, if ever, should be
Petitioner is Liable for Cutting Timber in Private limited only for "cut[ting], gather[ing], collect[ing] and remov[ing]
Property Without Permit timber," under the second category. Further, the prosecution
evidence showed that petitioner did not perform any acts of

17
"gathering, collecting, or removing" but only the act of "cutting" a taken in its ordinary or common usage meaning to refer to
lone narra tree. Hence, this case hinges on the question of whether "processed log or timber," thus:
petitioner "cut x x x timber" in the Mayod Property without a
DENR permit.29 The Revised Forestry Code contains no definition of either timber or
lumber. While the former is included in forest products as defined in
We answer in the affirmative and thus affirm the lower courts' rulings. paragraph (q) of Section 3, the latter is found in paragraph (aa) of
the same section in the definition of "Processing plant," which reads:
On the question of whether petitioner cut a narra tree in the Mayod
Property without a DENR permit, petitioner adopted conflicting (aa) Processing plant is any mechanical set-up, machine or
positions. Before his trial, petitioner consistently represented to the combination of machine used for the processing of logs and other
authorities that he cut a narra tree in the Mayod Property and that he forest raw materials into lumber, veneer, plywood, wallboard,
did so only with Calix's permission. However, when he testified, blackboard, paper board, pulp, paper or other finished wood
petitioner denied cutting the tree in question. We sustain the lower products.
courts' rulings that petitioner's extrajudicial admissions bind him. 30
Petitioner does not explain why Royo and Hernandez, public officials This simply means that lumber is a processed log or processed
who testified under oath in their official capacities, would lie on the forest raw material. Clearly, the Code uses the term lumber in its
stand to implicate petitioner in a serious criminal offense, not to ordinary or common usage. In the 1993 copyright edition of
mention that the acts of these public officers enjoy the presumption Webster's Third New International Dictionary, lumber is defined, inter
of regularity. Further, petitioner does not deny presenting Calix's alia, as "timber or logs after being prepared for the market." Simply
authorization to Royo and Hernandez as his basis for cutting the put, lumber is a processed log or timber.
narra tree in the Mayod Property. Petitioner has no use of Calix's It is settled that in the absence of legislative intent to the
authorization if, as he claimed during the trial, he did not cut any tree contrary, words and phrases used in a statute should be given
in the Mayod Property. their plain, ordinary, and common usage meaning. And in so far
We further hold that the lone narre tree petitioner cut from the Mayod as possession of timber without the required legal documents is
Property constitutes "timber" under Section 68 of PD 705, as concerned, Section 68 of PD No. 705, as amended, makes no
amended. PD 705 does not define "timber," only "forest product" distinction between raw and procesed timber. Neither should we. 36 x
(which circuitously includes "timber.")31 Does the narra tree in x x x (Italicization in the original; boldfacing supplied)
question constitute "timber" under Section 68? The closest this Court We see no reason why, as in Mustang, the term "timber" under
came to defining the term "timber" in Section 68 was to provide that Section 68 cannot be taken in its common acceptation as referring to
"timber," includes "lumber" or "processed log."32 In other "wood used for or suitable for building or for carpentry or joinery." 37
jurisdictions, timber is determined by compliance with specified Indeed, tree saplings or tiny tree stems that are too small for use as
dimensions33 or certain "stand age" or "rotation age." 34 In Mustang posts, panelling, beams, tables, or chairs cannot be considered
Lumber, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,35 this Court was faced with a similar timber.38
task of having to define a term in Section 68 of PD 705 - "lumber" -
to determine whether possession of lumber is punishable under that Here, petitioner was charged with having felled a narra tree and
provision. In ruling in the affirmative, we held that "lumber" should be converted the same into "several pieces of sawn lumber, about three
18
(3) pcs. 2x16x6 and three (3) pcs. 2x18x7 x x x consisting of 111 3. The penalty of prisin correccional in its minimum and medium
board feet x x x." These measurements were indicated in the periods, if the value of the property stolen is more than 200 pesos
apprehension receipt Hernandez issued to petitioner on 26 January but does not exceed 6,000 pesos.
1999 which the prosecution introduced in evidence. 39 Further,
Hernandez testified that the larger portion of the felled log left in the 4. Arresto mayor in its medium period to prisin correccional in its
Mayod Property "measured 76 something centimeters [at the big minimum period, if the value of the property stolen is over 50 pesos
end] while the smaller end measured 65 centimeters and the length but does not exceed 200 pesos.
was 2.8 meters."40 Undoubtedly, the narra tree petitioner felled and 5. Arresto mayor to its full extent, if such value is over 5 pesos but
converted to lumber was "timber" fit "for building or for carpentry or does not exceed 50 pesos.
joinery" and thus falls under the ambit of Section 68 of PD 705, as
amended. 6. Arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if such value
does not exceed 5 pesos.
The Penalty Imposable on Petitioner
7. Arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, if the theft is
Violation of Section 68 of PD 705, as amended, is punishable as committed under the circumstances enumerated in paragraph 3 of
Qualified Theft under Article 310 in relation to Article 309 of the the next preceding article and the value of the thing stolen does not
Revised Penal Code (RPC), thus: exceed 5 pesos. If such value exceeds said amount, the provisions
Art. 310. Qualified theft. - The crime of qualified theft shall be of any of the five preceding subdivisions shall be made applicable.
punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than those .
respectively specified in the next preceding article x x x.
8. Arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 50
Art. 309. Penalties. - Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by: pesos, when the value of the thing stolen is not over 5 pesos, and
1. The penalty of prisin mayor in its minimum and medium periods, the offender shall have acted under the impulse of hunger, poverty,
if the value of the thing stolen is more than 12,000 pesos but does or the difficulty of earning a livelihood for the support of himself or his
not exceed 22,000 pesos; but if the value of the thing stolen exceeds family.
the latter amount, the penalty shall be the maximum period of the The Information filed against petitioner alleged that the six pieces of
one prescribed in this paragraph, and one year for each additional lumber measuring 111 board feet were valued at P3,330. However, if
ten thousand pesos, but the total of the penalty which may be the value of the log left at the Mayod Property is included, the
imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in amount increases to P20,930.40. To prove this allegation, the
connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and prosecution relied on Hernandez's testimony that these amounts, as
for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall stated in the apprehension receipt he issued, are his "estimates"
be termed prisin mayor or reclusin temporal, as the case may be. based on "prevailing local price."41
2. The penalty of prisin correccional in its medium and maximum This evidence does not suffice. To prove the amount of the property
periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more than 6,000 pesos but taken for fixing the penalty imposable against the accused under
does not exceed 12,000 pesos. Article 309 of the RPC, the prosecution must present more than a
19
mere uncorroborated "estimate" of such fact.42 In the absence of PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
independent and reliable corroboration of such estimate, courts may
either apply the minimum penalty under Article 309 or fix the value of RESOLUTION
the property taken based on the attendant circumstances of the CORONA, J.:
case.43 In People v. Dator44 where, as here, the accused was
charged with violation of Section 68 of PD 705, as amended, for
possession of lumber without permit, the prosecution's evidence for
the lumber's value consisted of an estimate made by the On April 2, 1996, the Community Environment and Natural
apprehending authorities whose apparent lack of corroboration was Resources Office of Virac, Catanduanes seized a truck loaded with
compounded by the fact that the transmittal letter for the estimate illegally-cut lumber and arrested its driver, Placido Cuison. The
was not presented in evidence. Accordingly, we imposed on the lumber was covered with bundles of abaca fiber to prevent detection.
accused the minimum penalty under Article 309(6)45 of the RPC.46 On investigation, Cuison pointed to petitioner Amado Taopa and a
certain Rufino Ogalesco as the owners of the seized lumber.
Applying Dator in relation to Article 310 of the RPC and taking into
account the Indeterminate Sentence Law, we find it proper to impose Taopa, Ogalesco and Cuison were thereafter charged with violating
on petitioner, under the circumstances obtaining here, the penalty of Section 68 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 705,1 as amended, in
four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Virac, Catanduanes. The
three (3) years, four (4) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision information against them read:
correcional, as maximum.
That on or about the 2nd day of April 1996 at around 9:00 o'clock in
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the Decision dated 28 June 2002 and the morning at Barangay Capilihan, Municipality of Virac, Province of
the Resolution dated 14 May 2003 of the Court of Appeals with the Catanduanes, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
modification that petitioner Sesinando Merida is sentenced to four Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to possess,
(4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to three conspiring, confederating and helping one another, did then and
(3) years, four (4) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision there, willfully, unlawfully, criminally possess, transport in a truck
correcional, as maximum. bearing Plate No. EAS 839 and have in their control forest products,
particularly one hundred thirteen (113) pieces of lumber of Philippine
SO ORDERED. Mahogany Group and Apitong species with an aggregate net volume
of One Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Four (1,684) board feet with
an approximate value of Ninety-Nine Thousand One Hundred
G.R. No. 184098 November 25, 2008 Twenty (Php99,120.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency, without any
authority and/or legal documents as required under existing forest
laws and regulations, prejudicial to the public interest.

AMADO TAOPA, petitioner, ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.2

vs.

20
Taopa, Ogalesco and Cuison pleaded not guilty on arraignment. sight of the police was likewise largely indicative of guilt. We are thus
After trial on the merits, the RTC found them guilty as charged convinced that Taopa and Ogalesco were owners of the seized
beyond reasonable doubt.3 lumber.

Only Taopa and Cuison appealed the RTC decision to the Court of However, we disagree with both the RTC and CA as to the penalty
Appeals (CA). Cuison was acquitted but Taopa's conviction was imposed on Taopa.
affirmed.4 The dispositive portion of the CA decision read:
Section 68 of PD 705, as amended,7 refers to Articles 309 and 310
WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is REVERSED with of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) for the penalties to be imposed on
respect to accused-appellant Placido Cuison, who is ACQUITTED of violators. Violation of Section 68 of PD 705, as amended, is
the crime charged on reasonable doubt, and MODIFIED with respect punished as qualified theft.8 The law treats cutting, gathering,
to accused-appellants Amado Taopa and Rufino Ogalesco by collecting and possessing timber or other forest products without
reducing the penalty imposed on them to four (4) years, nine (9) license as an offense as grave as and equivalent to the felony of
months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional, as minimum, to qualified theft.
ten (10) years of prision mayor, as maximum.
Articles 309 and 310 read:
SO ORDERED.5
Art. 309. Penalties. - Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by:

1. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods,

In this petition,6 Taopa seeks his acquittal from the charges against if the value of the thing stolen is more 12,000 pesos but does not
him. He alleges that the prosecution failed to prove that he was one exceed 22,000 pesos; but if the value of the thing stolen exceeds the
of the owners of the seized lumber as he was not in the truck when latter amount, the penalty shall be the maximum period of the one
the lumber was seized. prescribed in this paragraph, and one year for each additional ten
thousand pesos, but the total of the penalty which may be imposed
We deny the petition. shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with
the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose
Both the RTC and the CA gave scant consideration to Taopa's alibi
of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed
because Cuison's testimony proved Taopa's active participation in
prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be. (emphasis
the transport of the seized lumber. In particular, the RTC and the CA
supplied)
found that the truck was loaded with the cargo in front of Taopa's
house and that Taopa and Ogalesco were accompanying the truck 2. xxx
driven by Cuison up to where the truck and lumber were seized.
These facts proved Taopa's (and Ogalesco's) exercise of dominion Art. 310. Qualified theft. - The crime of theft shall be punished by the
and control over the lumber loaded in the truck. The acts of Taopa penalties next higher by two degrees than those respectively
(and of his co-accused Ogalesco) constituted possession of timber specified in the next preceding articles xxx (emphasis supplied).
or other forest products without the required legal documents.
Moreover, the fact that Taopa and Ogalesco ran away at the mere The actual market value of the 113 pieces of seized lumber was
P67,630.9 Following Article 310 in relation to Article 309, the
21
imposable penalty should be reclusion temporal in its medium and DECISION
maximum periods or a period ranging from 14 years, eight months
and one day to 20 years plus an additional period of four years for QUISUMBING, J.:
the excess of P47,630.

The minimum term of the indeterminate sentence10 imposable on For review is the decision.[1] dated May 27, 1994, of the Court of
Taopa shall be the penalty next lower to that prescribed in the RPC. Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 29191, denying the petition filed by
In this case, the minimum term shall be anywhere between 10 years herein petitioners for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, in order
and one day to 14 years and eight months or prision mayor in its to annul the Order dated May 27, 1992, by the Regional Trial Court
maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period. of Catbalogan, Samar. Said Order had denied petitioners (a) Motion
The maximum term shall be the sum of the additional four years and to Dismiss the replevin case filed by herein private respondents, as
the medium period11 of reclusion temporal in its medium and well as (b) petitioners Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of
maximum periods or 16 years, five months and 11 days to 18 years, said trial court dated April 24, 1992, granting an application for a Writ
two months and 21 days of reclusion temporal. The maximum term of replevin..[2] h Y
therefore may be anywhere between 16 years, five months and 11
days of reclusion temporal to 22 years, two months and 21 days of
reclusion perpetua. The pertinent facts of the case, borne by the records, are as follows:

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The January 31,

2008 decision and July 28, 2008 resolution of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR No. 30380 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. On January 28, 1992, the Forest Protection and Law Enforcement
Petitioner Amado Taopa is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable Team of the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office
doubt for violation of Section 68 of PD No. 705, as amended, and (CENRO) of the DENR apprehended two (2) motor vehicles,
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from described as follows:
10 years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 20 years of
reclusion temporal as maximum, with the accessory penalties
provided for by law. "1. Motor Vehicle with Plate No. HAK-733 loaded with one thousand
and twenty six (1,026) board feet of illegally sourced lumber valued
[G.R. No. 115634. April 27, 2000]
at P8,544.75, being driven by one Pio Gabon and owned by [a
certain] Jose Vargas.

FELIPE CALUB and RICARDO VALENCIA, DEPARTMENT of

ENVIRONMENT and NATURAL RESOURCES (DENR),
2. Motor Vehicle with Plate No. FCN-143 loaded with one thousand
CATBALOGAN, SAMAR, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS,
two hundred twenty four and ninety seven (1,224.97) board feet of
MANUELA T. BABALCON, and CONSTANCIO ABUGANDA,
illegally-sourced lumber valued at P9,187.27, being driven by one
respondents.
22
Constancio Abuganda and owned by [a certain] Manuela Babalcon.
".[3]
In Criminal Cases Nos. 3795 and 3625, however, Abegonia and
Abuganda were acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt. But
note the trial court ordered that a copy of the decision be furnished
Constancio Abuganda and Pio Gabon, the drivers of the vehicles, the Secretary of Justice, in order that the necessary criminal action
failed to present proper documents and/or licenses. Thus, the may be filed against Noe Pagarao and all other persons responsible
apprehending team seized and impounded the vehicles and its load for violation of the Revised Forestry Code. For it appeared that it
of lumber at the DENR-PENR (Department of Environment and was Pagarao who chartered the subject vehicle and ordered that cut
Natural Resources-Provincial Environment and Natural Resources) timber be loaded on it..[9]
Office in Catbalogan..[4] Seizure receipts were issued but the drivers
refused to accept the receipts..[5] Felipe Calub, Provincial
Environment and Natural Resources Officer, then filed before the
Provincial Prosecutors Office in Samar, a criminal complaint against Subsequently, herein private respondents Manuela Babalcon, the
Abuganda, in Criminal Case No. 3795, for violation of Section 68 vehicle owner, and Constancio Abuganda, the driver, filed a
[78), Presidential Decree 705 as amended by Executive Order 277, complaint for the recovery of possession of the two (2) impounded
otherwise known as the Revised Forestry Code.[6] Mis sc vehicles with an application for replevin against herein petitioners
before the RTC of Catbalogan. The trial court granted the application
for replevin and issued the corresponding writ in an Order dated April
24, 1992..[10] Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss which was denied
On January 31, 1992, the impounded vehicles were forcibly taken by by the trial court.[11]
Gabon and Abuganda from the custody of the DENR, prompting
DENR Officer Calub this time to file a criminal complaint for grave
coercion against Gabon and Abuganda. The complaint was,
however, dismissed by the Public Prosecutor..[7] Thus, on June 15, 1992, petitioners filed with the Supreme Court the
present Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus with
application for Preliminary Injunction and/or a Temporary Restraining
Order. The Court issued a TRO, enjoining respondent RTC judge
On February 11, 1992, one of the two vehicles, with plate number from conducting further proceedings in the civil case for replevin;
FCN 143, was again apprehended by a composite team of DENR- and enjoining private respondents from taking or attempting to take
CENR in Catbalogan and Philippine Army elements of the 802nd the motor vehicles and forest products seized from the custody of
Infantry Brigade at Barangay Buray, Paranas, Samar. It was again the petitioners. The Court further instructed the petitioners to see to
loaded with forest products with an equivalent volume of 1,005.47 it that the motor vehicles and other forest products seized are kept in
board feet, valued at P10,054.70. Calub duly filed a criminal a secured place and protected from deterioration, said property
complaint against Constancio Abuganda, a certain Abegonia, and being in custodia legis and subject to the direct order of the Supreme
several John Does, in Criminal Case No. 3625, for violation of Court..[12] In a Resolution issued on September 28, 1992, the Court
Section 68 [78], Presidential Decree 705 as amended by Executive referred said petition to respondent appellate court for appropriate
Order 277, otherwise known as the Revised Forestry Code..[8] disposition..[13]
23
 State. Accordingly, petitioners could not shield themselves under the
principle of state immunity as the property sought to be recovered in
On May 27, 1994, the Court of Appeals denied said petition for lack the instant suit had not yet been lawfully adjudged forfeited in favor
of merit. It ruled that the mere seizure of a motor vehicle pursuant to of the government. Moreover, according to respondent appellate
the authority granted by Section 68 [78] of P.D. No. 705 as amended court, there could be no pecuniary liability nor loss of property that
by E.O. No. 277 does not automatically place said conveyance in could ensue against the government. It reasoned that a suit against
custodia legis. According to the appellate court, such authority of the a public officer who acted illegally or beyond the scope of his
Department Head of the DENR or his duly authorized representative authority could not be considered a suit against the State; and that a
to order the confiscation and disposition of illegally obtained forest public officer might be sued for illegally seizing or withholding the
products and the conveyance used for that purpose is not absolute possession of the property of another..[16]
and unqualified. It is subject to pertinent laws, regulations, or policies
on that matter, added the appellate court. The DENR Administrative
Order No. 59, series of 1990, is one such regulation, the appellate
court said. For it prescribes the guidelines in the confiscation, Respondent court brushed aside other grounds raised by petitioners
forfeiture and disposition of conveyances used in the commission of based on the claim that the subject vehicles were validly seized and
offenses penalized under Section 68 [78] of P.D. No. 705 as held in custody because they were contradicted by its own findings..
amended by E.O. No. 277..[14] [17] Their petition was found without merit.[18] Rtc spped

Additionally, respondent Court of Appeals noted that the petitioners Now, before us, the petitioners assign the following errors:.[19]
failed to observe the procedure outlined in DENR Administrative
Order No. 59, series of 1990. They were unable to submit a report of
the seizure to the DENR Secretary, to give a written notice to the (1) THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT MERE
owner of the vehicle, and to render a report of their findings and SEIZURE OF A CONVEYANCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 68-A [78-
recommendations to the Secretary. Moreover, petitioners failure to A] OF P.D. NO. 705 AS AMENDED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 277
comply with the procedure laid down by DENR Administrative Order DOES NOT PLACE SAID CONVEYANCE IN CUSTODIA LEGIS;
No. 59, series of 1990, was confirmed by the admission of
petitioners counsel that no confiscation order has been issued prior
to the seizure of the vehicle and the filing of the replevin suit.
(2) THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT
Therefore, in failing to follow such procedure, according to the
THE OPERATIVE ACT GIVING RISE FOR THE SUBJECT
appellate court, the subject vehicles could not be considered in
CONVEYANCE TO BE IN CUSTODIA LEGIS IS ITS LAWFUL
custodia legis..[15]
SEIZURE BY THE DENR PURSUANT TO SECTION 68-A [78-A] OF
P.D. NO. 705, AS AMENDED BY E.O. NO. 277; AND

Respondent Court of Appeals also found no merit in petitioners claim

that private respondents complaint for replevin is a suit against the
24
(3) THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE
COMPLAINT FOR REPLEVIN AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IS
NOT A SUIT AGAINST THE STATE. The Court shall further order the confiscation in favor of the
government of the timber or any forest products cut, gathered,
collected, removed, or possessed, as well as the machinery,
equipment, implements and tools illegally used in the area where the
In brief, the pertinent issues for our consideration are: timber or forest products are found.

(1) Whether or not the DENR-seized motor vehicle, with plate This provision makes mere possession of timber or other forest
number FCN 143, is in custodia legis. products without the accompanying legal documents unlawful and
punishable with the penalties imposed for the crime of theft, as
prescribed in Articles 309-310 of the Revised Penal Code. In the
(2) Whether or not the complaint for the recovery of possession of present case, the subject vehicles were loaded with forest products
impounded vehicles, with an application for replevin, is a suit against at the time of the seizure. But admittedly no permit evidencing
the State. authority to possess and transport said load of forest products was
duly presented. These products, in turn, were deemed illegally
sourced. Thus there was a prima facie violation of Section 68 [78] of
the Revised Forestry Code, although as found by the trial court, the
We will now resolve both issues.
persons responsible for said violation were not the ones charged by
the public prosecutor.

The Revised Forestry Code authorizes the DENR to seize all

conveyances used in the commission of an offense in violation of
The corresponding authority of the DENR to seize all conveyances
Section 78. Section 78 states:
used in the commission of an offense in violation of Section 78 of the
Revised Forestry Code is pursuant to Sections 78-A and 89 of the
same Code. They read as follows: Sc
Sec. 78. Cutting, Gathering, and or Collecting Timber, or Other
Forest Products without License. Any person who shall cut, gather,
collect, remove timber or other forest products from any forestland,
Sec. 78-A. Administrative Authority of the Department Head or His
or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private
Duly Authorized Representative to Order Confiscation. -- In all cases
land, without any authority, or possess timber or other forest
of violation of this Code or other forest laws, rules and regulations,
products without the legal documents as required under existing
the Department Head or his duly authorized representative, may
forest laws and regulations, shall be punished with the penalties
order the confiscation of any forest products illegally cut, gathered,
imposed under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Codeslx
removed, or possessed or abandoned, and all conveyances used
mis
25
either by land, water or air in the commission of the offense and to proper action and disposition. In case where the apprehension is
dispose of the same in accordance with pertinent laws, regulations made by DENR field officer, the conveyance shall be deposited with
or policies on the matter. the nearest CENRO/PENRO/RED Office as the case may be, for
safekeeping wherever it is most convenient and secured. [Emphasis
supplied.]
Sec. 89. Arrest; Institution of criminal actions. -- A forest officer or
employee of the Bureau [Department] or any personnel of the
Philippine Constabulary/Philippine National Police shall arrest even Upon apprehension of the illegally-cut timber while being transported
without warrant any person who has committed or is committing in without pertinent documents that could evidence title to or right to
his presence any of the offenses defined in this Chapter. He shall possession of said timber, a warrantless seizure of the involved
also seize and confiscate, in favor of the Government, the tools and vehicles and their load was allowed under Section 78 and 89 of the
equipment used in committing the offense... [Emphasis supplied.] Revised Forestry Code. Slxs c

Note that DENR Administrative Order No. 59, series of 1990, Note further that petitioners failure to observe the procedure outlined
implements Sections 78-A and 89 of the Forestry Code, as follows: in DENR Administrative Order No. 59, series of 1990 was justifiably
explained. Petitioners did not submit a report of the seizure to the
Secretary nor give a written notice to the owner of the vehicle
because on the 3rd day following the seizure, Gabon and Abuganda,
Sec. 2. Conveyances Subject to Confiscation and Forfeiture. -- All
drivers of the seized vehicles, forcibly took the impounded vehicles
conveyances used in the transport of any forest product obtained or
from the custody of the DENR. Then again, when one of the motor
gathered illegally whether or not covered with transport documents,
vehicles was apprehended and impounded for the second time, the
found spurious or irregular in accordance with Sec. 68-A [78-A] of
petitioners, again were not able to report the seizure to the DENR
P.D. No. 705, shall be confiscated in favor of the government or
Secretary nor give a written notice to the owner of the vehicle
disposed of in accordance with pertinent laws, regulations or policies
because private respondents immediately went to court and applied
on the matter.
for a writ of replevin. The seizure of the vehicles and their load was
done upon their apprehension for a violation of the Revised Forestry
Code. It would be absurd to require a confiscation order or notice
Sec. 4. Who are Authorized to Seize Conveyance. -- The Secretary and hearing before said seizure could be effected under the
or his duly authorized representative such as the forest officers circumstances.
and/or natural resources officers, or deputized officers of the DENR
are authorized to seize said conveyances subject to policies and
guidelines pertinent thereto. Deputized military personnel and
Since there was a violation of the Revised Forestry Code and the
officials of other agencies apprehending illegal logs and other forest
seizure was in accordance with law, in our view the subject vehicles
products and their conveyances shall notify the nearest DENR field
were validly deemed in custodia legis. It could not be subject to an
offices, and turn over said forest products and conveyances for
26
action for replevin. For it is property lawfully taken by virtue of legal
process and considered in the custody of the law, and not
otherwise..[20] Well established is the doctrine that the State may not be sued
without its consent..[22] And a suit against a public officer for his
official acts is, in effect, a suit against the State if its purpose is to
hold the State ultimately liable..[23] However, the protection afforded
In Mamanteo, et. al. v. Deputy Sheriff Magumun, A.M. No. P-98- to public officers by this doctrine generally applies only to activities
1264, promulgated on July 28, 1999, the case involves property to within the scope of their authority in good faith and without
be seized by a Deputy Sheriff in a replevin suit. But said property willfulness, malice or corruption.[24] In the present case, the acts for
were already impounded by the DENR due to violation of forestry which the petitioners are being called to account were performed by
laws and, in fact, already forfeited in favor of the government by them in the discharge of their official duties. The acts in question are
order of the DENR. We said that such property was deemed in clearly official in nature.[25] In implementing and enforcing Sections
custodia legis. The sheriff could not insist on seizing the property 78-A and 89 of the Forestry Code through the seizure carried out,
already subject of a prior warrant of seizure. The appropriate action petitioners were performing their duties and functions as officers of
should be for the sheriff to inform the trial court of the situation by the DENR, and did so within the limits of their authority. There was
way of partial Sheriffs Return, and wait for the judges instructions on no malice nor bad faith on their part. Hence, a suit against the
the proper procedure to be observed. petitioners who represent the DENR is a suit against the State. It
cannot prosper without the States consent.

Note that property that is validly deposited in custodia legis cannot

be the subject of a replevin suit. In Mamanteo v. Deputy Sheriff Given the circumstances in this case, we need not pursue the Office
Magumun, we elucidated further: of the Solicitor Generals line for the defense of petitioners
concerning exhaustion of administrative remedies. We ought only to
recall that exhaustion must be raised at the earliest time possible,
". . . the writ of replevin has been repeatedly used by unscrupulous even before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting
plaintiffs to retrieve their chattel earlier taken for violation of the Tariff a claim, by a motion to dismiss..[26] If not invoked at the proper time,
and Customs Code, tax assessment, attachment or execution. this ground for dismissal could be deemed waived and the court
Officers of the court, from the presiding judge to the sheriff, are could take cognizance of the case and try it.[27] Mesm
implored to be vigilant in their execution of the law otherwise, as in
this case, valid seizure and forfeiture proceedings could easily be
undermined by the simple devise of a writ of replevin...".[21] Scslx ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is GRANTED, and the assailed
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 29191 is SET
ASIDE. Consequently, the Order issued by the Regional Trial Court
On the second issue, is the complaint for the recovery of possession of Catbalogan, dated May 27, 1992, and the Writ of replevin issued
of the two impounded vehicles, with an application for replevin, a suit in the Order dated April 24, 1992, are ANNULLED. The Sheriff of the
against the State? Regional Trial Court of Catbalogan, Branch 29, is directed to take
27
possession of the subject motor vehicle, with plate number FCN 143, Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the
for delivery to the custody of and appropriate disposition by Rules of Court, assailing the December 6, 1995 Decision[1] and the
petitioners. Let a copy of this decision be provided the Honorable June 3, 1996 Order[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calbayog
Secretary of Justice for his appropriate action, against any and all City (Branch 32) in Criminal Case No. 1958. The assailed Decision
persons responsible for the abovecited violation of the Revised disposed as follows:
Forestry Code.
WHEREFORE, for insufficiency of evidence, the Court hereby
Costs against private respondents. declares accused GREGORIO DARAMAN and NARCISO
LUCENECIO acquitted of the crime charged, with costs de [o]ficio.
SO ORDERED.
The bond of the accused is hereby cancelled.
[G.R. No. 125797. February 15, 2002]
The court hereby orders the CENR Officer of Samar, or any DENR
employee who is taking custody of the Holy Cross Funeral Services
vehicle St. Jude, with Plate No. HAJ-848, to return the said vehicle
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT and NATURAL RESOURCES
to the owner thereof.[3]
(DENR), Region VIII, Tacloban City, Represented by Regional
Executive Director Israel C. Gaddi, petitioner, vs. GREGORIO The assailed Order denied the Motion for Reconsideration
DARAMAN, NARCISO LUCENECIO and Hon. CLEMENTE C. challenging the last paragraph of the Decision regarding the return of
ROSALES, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, the subject vehicle to herein respondents.
Calbayog City, respondents.
The Facts
DECISION

PANGANIBAN, J.:
In the assailed Decision, the trial court summarized the facts of this
case as follows:
Under the Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines, particularly The accused herein Gregorio Daraman and Narciso Lucenecio are
Section 68-A, the Department of Environment and Natural charged [with] violation of Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705
Resources secretary or a duly authorized representative may order as amended by Executive Order No. 277 in an information which is
the confiscation in favor of the government of, among others, the quoted herein below:
vehicles used in the commission of offenses punishable by the said
Code. That on or about the 30th day of November, 1993, at about 1:00
oclock in the afternoon, at Barangay Bulao, Municipality of San
The Case Jorge, Province of Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating together and mutually helping one another, did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously gather, collect and
28
possess seventy two (72) pieces of assorted sizes of lumber, with a to Brgy. Blanca Aurora to secure some wood shavings from the
total volume of 72.93 board feet valued at SEVEN HUNDRED furniture shop owned by Asan and Asan merely asked him a favor of
TWENTY NINE PESOS (P729.30) and THIRTY CENTAVOS, without loading his assorted lumbers in the vehicle of the Holy Cross Funeral
first securing and obtaining any permit or license therefor from the Services to be brought to his (Asans) house in Barangay Abrero,
proper authorities, thus Violating Section 68 of Presidential Decree Calbayog City.
No. 705, as amended and further Amended by Executive Order No.
277, series of 1989. The prosecution has still another witness in the person of Oligario
Mabansag, but both the prosecution and the defense agreed to
CONTRARY TO LAW. dispense with his testimony considering that the case would be
merely corroborative [of] those already offered by Pablo Opinion.
Assisted by their counsels, the accused were arraigned and they The prosecution rested its case with the admission of Exhs. A and B
entered the plea of not guilty. and their series. Its Exhs. C and series were rejected because the
photographer who took them did not testify to identify [them].
Thereafter trial was conducted.
For the defense, only accused Gregorio Daraman testified because
The prosecution presented Pablo Opinion who testified as follows:
his co-accused would merely offer corroborative testimony. From his
That he is an employee of the Department of Environment and testimony, the following facts have been established:
Natural Resources as a Forest Ranger. On November 30, 1993 at
That on November 30, 1993 in the afternoon his employer Baby
about 1:00 oclock in the afternoon, while he was in his house in
Lucenecio instructed him to procure some wood shavings (sinapyo)
Brgy. Bulao, San Jorge, Samar, a vehicle named St. Jude with Plate
in San Jorge, Samar. He used the service vehicle of the Holy Cross
No. HAJ-848 coming from barangay Blanca Aurora passed by. He
Funeral Services. His companion[s] were Melio Bedoya, Fanny Fiel
stopped the said vehicle and found some lumber of assorted sizes
and Ragi Mabutol. They went to barangay Blanca Aurora, San Jorge,
[and] wood shavings inside. The lumber consisted of 62 pieces of 1
Samar and thereat, they got some wood shavings from the furniture
x 2 x 4, 16 pieces of 1 x 24 x 2.3 and 1 piece of 1 x 2 x 4. In his
shop owned by a certain Asan Abing. They loaded 20 sacks of wood
estimate at the price of P10.00 per board foot the total value of the
shavings, each sack measuring 22 inches in height by 32 1/2 inches
lumber would be P729.30. He asked the driver for [the] owner of the
in circumference as he demonstrated in court. The wood shavings
lumber and he was informed that it was a certain Asan of Brgy.
[were] being used by the Holy Cross Funeral Services as cushions in
Blanca Aurora. The driver also informed him that the vehicle was
the coffin. After the 20 sacks of wood shavings were loaded, Asan
owned by his employer, Narciso Lucenecio of the Holy Cross
Abing asked him a favor to bring his (Asan) assorted lumber to his
Funeral Services in Calbayog City. He then took hold of the vehicle
house in Brgy. Obrero, Calbayog City where the Holy Cross Funeral
and the assorted lumber and, thereafter, he issued a Seizure
Services [was] also located. Asan himself personally loaded his
Receipt marked as Exhs. B and series. He also took photographs of
assorted lumber into the vehicle. The subject assorted lumber were
the lumber which are now marked as Exhs. C and series. Besides,
already in the furniture shop where they got the wood shavings. On
he signed a Joint Affidavit with Oligario Mabansag, also a Forest
their way home as they passed by Brgy. Bulao, Pablo Opinion
Ranger. When he asked the driver Gregorio Daraman for some
stopped him and took the wood shavings. Opinion also inquired
papers for the assorted lumber, the latter replied that he had none
about the assorted lumber and he told him that they were owned by
because they were not his. Daraman further told him that [they] went
29
Asan, owner of the furniture shop in Brgy. Blanca Aurora, who that the DENR had exclusive jurisdiction over the conveyance, which
loaded them in his vehicle to be brought to his (Asans) house in had been used in violation of the Revised Forestry Code pursuant to
Barangay Obrero, Calbayog City. He told Opinion also that Asan Section 68-A of PD 705, as amended by EO 277.
advised him that if somebody would [ask] about his lumber, just to
tell the person that Asan had the papers for the lumber with him in The trial court denied the Motion via the assailed Order.
his furniture shop at Brgy. Blanca Aurora, San Jorge, Samar. Pablo Ruling of the Trial Court
Opinion, however, did not take his word and he instead impounded
the vehicle together with the assorted lumber. At about 5:00 oclock in
the afternoon, the vehicle was still not returned to him and so
Gregorio Daraman left and returned to his employer at Brgy. Obrero, The trial court acquitted private respondents for insufficiency of
Calbayog City and told the latter about what happened.[4] evidence. The unrebutted testimony of Respondent Daraman was
that, in exchange for the wood shavings from Asan, the former
After trial, the RTC acquitted both accused and ordered the return of agreed to take the lumber to the latters house in Calbayog City,
the disputed vehicle to Lucenecio. where the Holy Cross Funeral Services office was also located. Asan
advised Daraman to reply, when asked, that the papers showing the
Prior to these court proceedings, the Department of Environment authorization for the lumber were in the formers shop in Barangay
and Natural Resources-Community and Environment and Natural Blanca Aurora. Finding the evidence against Respondent Lucenecio
Resources Office (DENR-CENRO) of Catbalogan, Samar conducted to be likewise insufficient, the RTC considered the vehicle as an
administrative confiscation proceedings on the seized lumber and effect of the crime and ordered its delivery to him.
vehicle in the presence of private respondents.[5] The two failed to
present documents to show the legality of their possession and In the challenged Order, the trial court ruled that the Motion for
transportation of the lumber seized. Hence, CENRO Officer Reconsideration was untenable on procedural and substantive
Marciano T. Talavera recommended to the Regional Executive grounds. Since Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Feliciano Aguilar did
Director (RED) the final confiscation of the seized lumber and not sign the Motion, the RTC deemed his silence a sign of his
conveyance.[6] Atty. Pastor C. Salazar filed a Memorandum dated disapproval of the Motion.
January 26, 1994, concurring with the recommendation to forfeit the
lumber and the vehicle seized from private respondents. The Substantively, the trial court ruled:
Memorandum was approved by RED Augustus L. Momongan and
x x x [T]he Court finds the motion still wanting in merits considering
Arty. Fiel I. Marmita, chief of the Legal Division of the DENR, Region
that as found by the Court the owner of the vehicle in question, St.
VIII, Tacloban City.[7]
Jude, which is the Holy Cross Funeral Parlor owned by accused
Atty. Rogelio G. Bato Jr. of DENR, Region 8, Tacloban City, moved Narciso Lucenecio, did not commit any violation of P.D. 705.
for the reconsideration of the assailed Decision, only insofar as it Likewise, the prosecution failed to sufficiently establish that accused
ordered the return of the said vehicle to the owner thereof.[8] He Gregorio Daraman had taken or kept control of the lumber subject of
contended that the vehicle had already been administratively the motion which would thereby demonstrate that he had x x x
confiscated by the DENR on December 2, 1993, and that the RED possession of the subject forest products. Instead, as established by
approved its forfeiture on January 26, 1994.[9] He further claimed

30
the evidence it was a certain Asan who owned the subject lumber. (B) Respondent judge utterly disregarded and/or misinterpreted the
xxx. provisions of Presidential Decree No. 705, as amended by Executive
Order No. 277, otherwise known as the Revised Forestry Code of
xxx xxx xxx the Philippines.
The decision of the Court has never been brought on appeal, (C) The government is not estopped from protecting its interest by
thereby the same has long become final and executory. reason of mistake, error or failure of its officers to perform their
duties.[12]
Again, as shown by the evidence in the alleged confiscation
proceedings conducted by the OIC DENR Officer Marciano Talavera Stated simply, the issues are: (1) whether the RTC had jurisdiction to
of Samar on December 2, 1992, the lumber in question [was] found release the confiscated vehicle; (2) whether the trial court
to be owned by Asan Abing. But notwithstanding this fact, for misconstrued PD 705, as amended; and (3) whether, as a result of
reasons not known to the Court, the said Asan Abing was never its filing of the criminal action, petitioner is estopped from
made an accused in the present case. confiscating the vehicle administratively.
Sec. 68-1 of P.D. 705 contemplates a situation where the owner of The Courts Ruling
the vehicle is himself a violator of P.D. 705 or has been found to
have conspired with any other persons who committed the violation
of Sec. 68 of P.D. 705 or consented to the use of his vehicle in
violating the said law. In the present case as shown by the evidence, The Petition is meritorious.
neither the Holy Cross Funeral Parlor or its owner accused Narciso First Issue:
Lucenecio has committed a violation of P.D. 705 as already declared
by the Court in its decision of December 6, 1995 nor the driver, Jurisdiction to Order Return of Vehicle
accused Gregorio Daraman. In fact both were declared acquitted of
the violation charged, and the decision has not been appealed.[10]

Hence, this Petition.[11] Petitioner contends that the RTC overstepped its jurisdiction when it
ordered the return of the disputed vehicle, because the vehicle had
Issues already become government property by virtue of the forfeiture
Order issued by DENR on January 26, 1994. The DENR secretary or
his duly authorized representative, under Section 68-A of PD 705 as
In its Memorandum, petitioner raises the following issues for the amended by EO 277, may order the confiscation and disposition of
Courts consideration: all conveyances -- by land, water or air -- used in illegally cutting,
gathering, removing, possessing or abandoning forest products.
(A) Regional Trial Courts have no jurisdiction and/or authority to
order x x x the return of property already owned by the government. We agree. Jurisdiction is conferred by substantive law.[13] A
comparison of the provisions of the two relevant sections of PD 705,
as amended, shows that the jurisdiction of the RTC covers the

31
confiscation of the timber or forest products as well as the expresses its intent or will. The courts may not construe it differently.
machinery, equipment, implements and tools illegally used in the [16]
area where the timber or forest products are found; it is the DENR
that has jurisdiction over the confiscation of forest products and, to Machinery is a collective term for machines and appliances used in
stress, all conveyances used in the commission of the offense. the industrial arts;[17] equipment covers physical facilities available
Section 68 reads: for production, including buildings, machineries and tools;[18] and
implements pertains to whatever may supply a want, especially an
Section 68. Cutting, Gathering and/or Collecting Timber, or Other instrument, tool or utensil.[19] These terms do not include
Forest Products Without License. -- Any person who shall cut, conveyances that are specifically covered by Section 68-A. The
gather, collect, remove timber or other forest products from any implementing guidelines of Section 68-A define conveyance in a
forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or manner that includes any type or class of vehicle, craft, whether
from private land, without any authority, or possess timber or other motorized or not, used either in land, water or air, or a combination
forest products without the legal documents as required under thereof or any mode of transport used in the movement of any forest
existing forest laws and regulations, shall be punished with the product.[20]
penalties imposed under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal
Code: x x x. Hence, the original and exclusive jurisdiction over the confiscation of
all conveyances used either by land, water or air in the commission
The Court shall further order the confiscation in favor of the of the offense and to dispose of the same is vested in the
government of the timber or any forest products cut, gathered, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
collected, removed, or possessed, as well as the machinery, secretary or a duly authorized representative. The DENR secretary
equipment, implements and tools illegally used in the area where the has supervision and control over the enforcement of forestry,
timber or forest products are found.[14] reforestation, parks, game and wildlife laws, rules and regulations.
[21]
Section 68-A, in contrast, provides:
To implement Section 68-A, DENR promulgated Administrative
SEC. 68-A. Administrative Authority of the Department Head or His Order (AO) No. 54-93, amending Department Administrative Order
Duly Authorized Representative to Order Confiscation. -- In all cases (DAO) No. 59-90. AO 54-93 provides the guidelines for the
of violations of this Code or other forest laws rules and regulations, confiscation, forfeiture and disposition of conveyances used in
the Department Head or his duly authorized representative, may violation of forestry laws, rules and regulations.
order the confiscation of any forest products illegally cut, gathered,
removed, or possessed or abandoned, and all conveyances used Even the Information filed in Criminal Case No. 1958 limited the acts
either by land, water or air in the commission of the offense and to attributed to private respondents to willfully, unlawfully and
dispose of the same in accordance with pertinent laws, regulations feloniously gather, collect and possess seventy two (72) pieces of
or policies on the matter.[15] assorted sizes of lumber, x x x without first securing and obtaining
any permit or license therefor from the proper authorities, x x x. The
If a statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be Information did not contain any allegation pertaining to the
understood in its literal meaning and applied without resort to transportation or conveyance of illegally cut, gathered, possessed or
interpretation, on the presumption that its wording correctly
32
abandoned lumber in violation of Section 68-A of PD 705, as factual issues that will not be dwelt upon by this Court, which is not a
amended. trier of facts.[25]

Confiscation Without Due Process The jurisdiction of this Court, under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of
Court, is in the main limited to reviewing legal errors committed by a
lower court.[26] Under PD 705, the actions and the decisions of the
DENR are reviewable by the courts only through special civil actions
Private respondents main defense is that the Order of Forfeiture
for certiorari or prohibition.[27]
(Annex C) is a false, falsified and perjurious document. The Order
was attached to and made part of the record only when petitioner Second Issue:
filed its Motion for Reconsideration dated February 6, 1996, or only
after the trial court rendered the assailed Decision. Petitioner made it Construing PD 705, as Amended
appear, according to the private respondents, that RED Momongan
had approved the Memorandum on January 26, 1994. This does not
appear to be true because Atty. Marmita, officer-in-charge (OIC) of Petitioner alleges that the RTC misinterpreted the law when it held
the DENR Legal Division of Tacloban City, signed the Memorandum that Section 68-A, PD 705 contemplated a situation in which the very
recommending approval only on January 31, 1994. owner of the vehicle was the violator or was a conspirator with other
Further, on April 6, 1995, Judge Rosales of the RTC of Calbayog violators of that law. Department Order No. 54, Series of 1993,
City (Branch 32) ordered the provincial environment and natural provides that the proceedings for the confiscation and the forfeiture
resources officer to transfer the confiscated vehicle and pieces of of the conveyance shall be directed against its owner, and that lack
lumber in connection with the prosecution of Criminal Case 1958. of knowledge of its illegal use shall not bar its forfeiture.
[22] Reynaldo R. Villafuerte, OIC of the Provincial Environment and In the present Petition, the trial court ruled in the assailed Order that
Natural Resources Office (PENRO), replied that his office could not Section 68-A of PD 705 contemplated a situation in which the very
deliver the vehicle because it was not in running condition.[23] owner of the vehicle violated this law or conspired with other persons
We are not persuaded. The validity and legality of the Order of who violated it or consented to the use of his or her vehicle in
Forfeiture falls outside the ambit of the review of the assailed violating it. Respondents Lucenecio and Daraman were not shown to
Decision and Order. The basis for the assailed Order to release the have violated PD 705, and their acquittals were not appealed.
vehicle was private respondents acquittal of the charge of violating We side with petitioner. The guilt or the innocence of the accused in
Section 68. On the other hand, the forfeiture Order issued by the the criminal case is immaterial, because what is punished under
DENR was based on Section 68-A, which involved a distinct and Section 68 is the transportation, movement or conveyance of forest
separate matter cognizable by it. Petitioner is questioning only the products without legal documents. The DENR secretary or the
RTCs jurisdiction over the assailed Order to release the confiscated authorized representatives do not possess criminal jurisdiction; thus,
vehicle. Private respondents have not appealed the DENRs Order of they are not capable of making such a ruling, which is properly a
Forfeiture, the validity of which can thus be presumed.[24] The function of the courts. Even Section 68-A of PD 705, as amended,
genuineness of the Order and its proper service upon them are does not clothe petitioner with that authority.

33
Conversely, the same law takes out of the general jurisdiction of the SO ORDERED.
regional trial courts the confiscation of conveyances used in violation
of forestry laws. Hence, we cannot expect the DENR to rule on the
criminal liability of the accused before it impounds such vehicles.
Section 68-A covers only the movement of lumber or forest products
without proper documents. Where the language of a statute is clear
and unambiguous, the law is applied according to its express terms,
and interpretation is resorted to only where a literal interpretation
would lead to either an absurdity or an injustice.[28]

We also uphold petitioners argument that the release of the vehicle

to private respondents would defeat the purpose and undermine the
implementation of forestry laws. The preamble of the amendment in
EO 277 underscores the urgency to conserve the remaining forest
resources of the country for the benefit of the present and future
generations. Our forest resources may be effectively conserved and
protected only through the vigilant enforcement and implementation
of our forestry laws.[29] Strong paramount public policy should not
be degraded by narrow constructions of the law that frustrate its
clear intent or unreasonably restrict its scope.[30]

Third Issue:

Estoppel

In view of the foregoing, it becomes unnecessary for this Court to

resolve petitioners third issue. It is no longer material to rule on
whether it was erroneous for the RTC to hold that the assistant
provincial prosecutors failure to comment on petitioners Motion for
Reconsideration was an implied disapproval thereof. The public
prosecutors disapproval does not vest in the trial court the
jurisdiction or authority to release the vehicle to private respondents.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED and the assailed Decision

and Order are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. No costs.

34
Republic of the Philippines (Sudaria) of Tagpangi, Cagayan de Oro City, Marlon Baillo (Baillo)
SUPREME COURT and Cipriano Boyatac (Boyatac), were charged with violation of
Manila Section 68, P.D. No. 705 as amended by Executive Order No. 277.7

FIRST DIVISION Subsequently, however, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Cagayan
de Oro City issued a Resolution8 dated March 13, 1996
G.R. No. 175289 August 31, 2011 recommending the filing of an Information for the aforesaid charge
not only against Latayada, Baillo and Boyatac but also against
CRISOSTOMO VILLARIN and ANIANO LATAYADA, Petitioners,
petitioner Crisostomo Villarin (Villarin), then Barangay Captain of
vs.
Pagalungan, Cagayan de Oro City. The dismissal of the complaint
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
against Sudaria was likewise recommended. Said Resolution was
DECISION then approved by the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao through a
Resolution9 dated May 9, 1996 ordering the filing of the Information
DEL CASTILLO, J.: in the RTC of Cagayan de Oro City.
Mere possession of timber without the legal documents required Thus, on October 29, 1996, an Information10 was filed against
under forest laws and regulations makes one automatically liable of petitioners Villarin and Latayada and their co-accused Baillo and
violation of Section 68, Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 705, 1 as Boyatac, for violation of Section 68, P.D. No. 705 as follows:
amended. Lack of criminal intent is not a valid defense.
That on or about January 13, 1996, in Pagalungan, Cagayan de Oro
This petition for review on certiorari seeks to reverse the June 28, City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
2005 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. pursuant to RA 7975, the accused, Crisostomo Villarin, a public
26720 which affirmed in all respects the Judgment3 of the Regional officer being the Barangay Captain of Pagalungan, this City, with
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 38, Cagayan De Oro City, finding salary grade below 27, taking advantage of his official position and
petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 68, committing the offense in relation to his office, and the other above-
P.D. No. 705, as amended. Likewise assailed in this petition is the named accused, all private individuals, namely: Marlon Baillo,
September 22, 2006 Resolution4 denying petitioners Motion for Cipriano Boyatac, and Aniano Latayada, confederating and mutually
helping one another did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
Reconsideration.5
feloniously gather and possess sixty-three (63) pieces flitches of
Factual Antecedents varying sizes belonging to the Apitong specie with a total volume of
Four Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Six (4,326) board feet valued
In a Criminal Complaint 6 filed before the Municipal Trial Court in at P108,150.00, without any authority and supporting documents as
Cities, Branch 4, Cagayan de Oro City by Marcelino B. Pioquinto required under existing forest laws and regulation to the damage and
(Pioquinto), Chief of the Forest Protection and Law Enforcement Unit prejudice of the government.
under the TL Strike Force Team of Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR), petitioner Aniano Latayada (Latayada) CONTRARY TO LAW.11
and three others namely, Barangay Captain Camilo Sudaria

35
On January 14, 1997, Villarin, Boyatac and Baillo, filed a Motion for to 15 meters away from the Batinay bridge at Barangay Pagalungan,
Reinvestigation.12 They alleged that the Joint Affidavit13 of the Cagayan De Oro City. Another prosecution witness, Pastor
personnel of the DENR which became one of the bases in filing the Pansacala (Pansacala), also noticed the jeep with plate number
Information never mentioned Villarin as one of the perpetrators of MBB 226 and owned by Sudaria, loaded with timber. 19 Being then
the crime while the accusations against Baillo and Boyatac were not the president of a community-based organization which serves as a
based on the personal knowledge of the affiants. They also asserted watchdog of illegal cutting of trees,20 Pansacala even ordered a
that their indictment was based on polluted sources, consisting of certain Mario Bael to count the timber.21
the sworn statements of witnesses like Latayada and Sudaria, who
both appeared to have participated in the commission of the crime At six oclock in the evening of the same day, Barangay Captain
charged. Angeles Alarcon (Alarcon)22 noticed that the pile of timber was
already placed near the bridge. Since she had no knowledge of any
Instead of resolving the Motion for Reinvestigation, the RTC, in its scheduled repair of the Batinay bridge she was surprised to discover
Order14 dated January 27, 1997, directed Villarin, Boyatac, and Baillo that the timber would be used for the repair. After inquiring from the
to file their Motion for Reinvestigation with the Office of the people living near the bridge, she learned that Latayada and
Ombudsman-Mindanao, it being the entity which filed the Information Boyatac delivered the timber.23
in Court. On March 31, 1997, only Villarin filed a Petition for
Reinvestigation15 but same was, however, denied by the Office of the Another prosecution witness, Ariel Palanga (Palanga), testified that
Ombudsman-Mindanao in an Order16 dated May 15, 1997 because at seven oclock in the morning of January 1, 1996, Boyatac bought
the grounds relied upon were not based on newly discovered a stick of cigarette from his store and requested him to cover the pile
evidence or errors of fact, law or irregularities that are prejudicial to of timber near the bridge for a fee. Palanga acceded and covered
the interest of the movants, pursuant to Administrative Order No. 07 the pile with coconut leaves.24
or the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman in On January 13, 1996, at around ten oclock in the morning,
Criminal Cases. The Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao likewise prosecution witness Juan Casenas (Casenas), a radio and TV
opined that Villarin was directly implicated by Latayada, his co- personality of RMN-TV8, took footages of the timber25 hidden and
accused. covered by coconut leaves. Casenas also took footages of more
The RTC thus proceeded with the arraignment of the accused who logs inside a bodega at the other side of the bridge. In the following
entered separate pleas of not guilty.17 Thereafter, trial ensued. evening, the footages were shown in a news program on television.

The Version of the Prosecution On the same day, members of the DENR Region 10 Strike Force
Team measured the timber which consisted of 63 pieces of Apitong
On December 31, 1995, at around five oclock in the afternoon, flitches and determined that it totaled 4,326 board feet26 and
prosecution witness Roland Granada (Granada) noticed that a public subsequently entrusted the same to Alarcon for safekeeping.
utility jeep loaded with timber stopped near his house. The driver,
petitioner Latayada, was accompanied by four to five other persons, Upon further investigation, it was learned that the timber was
one of whom was Boyatac while the rest could not be identified by requisitioned by Villarin, who was then Barangay Captain of
Granada.18 They alighted from the jeep and unloaded the timber 10 Pagulangan, Cagayan de Oro City. Villarin gave Sudaria the
specifications for the requisitioned timber. Thereafter, Boyatac
36
informed Villarin that the timber was already delivered on December and Aniano Latayada guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating
31, 1995.27 Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705 as amended, and hereby
sentences each of them to suffer an indeterminate sentence of
On January 18, 1996, Felix Vera Cruz (Vera Cruz), a security guard twelve (12) years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17)
at the DENR Region 10 Office, received and signed for the years of reclusion temporal as maximum.
confiscated timber since the property custodian at that time was not
around. Accused Marlon Baillo is hereby acquitted for lack of evidence.

The filing of the aforestated Information followed. SO ORDERED.29

The Version of the Defense In reaching said conclusions, the RTC noted that:

In response to the clamor of the residents of Barangays Tampangan, Without an iota of doubt, accused Crisostomo Villarin, being then a
Pigsag-an, Tuburan and Taglinao, all in Cagayan De Oro City, Barangay Captain of Pagalungan, Cagayan de Oro City, was the one
Villarin, decided to repair the impassable Batinay bridge. The project who procured the subject flitches, while accused Aniano Latayada
was allegedly with the concurrence of the Barangay Council. and Cipriano Boyatac mutually helped him and each other by
transporting the flitches from Sitio Batinay to the Pagalungan Bridge.
Pressured to immediately commence the needed repairs, Villarin The accused would like to impress upon the Court that the subject
commissioned Boyatac to inquire from Sudaria about the availability fltiches were intended for the repair of the Pagalungan Bridge and
of timber without first informing the City Engineer. Sudaria asked for were acquired by virtue of Barangay Resolution No. 110 of Barangay
the specifications which Villarin gave. Villarin then asked Baillo and Pagalungan. The Court is not impressed by this lame excuse. There
Boyatac to attend to the same. When the timber was already is no dispute that the flitches were intended for the repair of the
available, it was transported from Tagpangi to Batinay. However, the bridge. The Court finds it a laudable motive. The fact remains though
timber flitches were seized by the DENR Strike Force Team and that the said forest products were obtained without the necessary
taken to its office where they were received by Vera Cruz, the authority and legal documents required under existing forest laws
security guard on duty. and regulations.30
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration31 which was denied by
the
In its Memorandum filed before the trial court, the defense notified
the court of Boyatacs demise.28 However, the trial court did not act RTC in its Order32 dated August 20, 2002.
on such notice. Instead, it proceeded to rule on the culpability of
Boyatac. Thus, in its Judgment, the trial court found herein Ruling of the Court of Appeals
petitioners and the deceased Boyatac guilty as charged. On the
other hand, it found the evidence against Baillo insufficient. The Petitioners filed an appeal which was denied by the CA in its
dispositive portion of the Judgment reads: Decision dated June 28, 2005. The dispositive portion of which
reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing findings, judgment is hereby
rendered finding the accused Crisostomo Villarin, Cipriano Boyatac
37
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the judgment of the court Force Team of the DENR, they claim that he was not afforded a
a quo finding [d]efendant-[a]ppellants Crisostomo Villarin, Cipriano preliminary investigation. They also bewail the fact that persons who
Boyatac and Aniano Latayada GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for appear to be equally guilty, such as Sudaria, have not been included
violating Sec. 68 of Presidential Decree 705 is hereby AFFIRMED in in the Information. Hence, they argue that the Ombudsman acted
toto. No pronouncement as to cost.1avvphi1 with grave abuse of discretion in denying their petition for
reinvestigation because it deprived Villarin of his right to preliminary
SO ORDERED.33 investigation and in refusing and to equally prosecute the guilty.
They contend that the Ombudsman should not have relied on the
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration 34 which the appellate
prosecutors Certification37 contained in the Information to the effect
court denied for lack of merit in its Resolution 35 promulgated on
that a preliminary investigation was conducted in the case.
September 22, 2006.
Moreover, petitioners contend that the evidence was insufficient to
Issues
prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt since they had no
Undeterred, petitioners filed the instant petition raising the following intention to possess the timber and dispose of it for personal gain.
issues: They likewise claim that there was failure on the part of the
prosecution to present the timber, which were the object of the
1. WHETHER X X X THE COURT OF APPEALS[,] ON [THE] offense.
MATTER OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION[,] DECIDED NOT IN
ACCORD WITH JURISPRUDENCE OF THE SUPREME COURT; Our Ruling

2. WHETHER X X X THE COURT OF APPEALS DEPARTED FROM The petition is unmeritorious.

WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS ALWAYS BEEN SAYING,
Villarin was properly afforded his right to due process.
THAT, TO CONVICT AN ACCUSED ALL ELEMENTS OF THE
CRIME MUST BE PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT and; Records show that the investigating prosecutor received a criminal
complaint charging Sudaria, Latayada, Baillo and Boyatac with
3. WHETHER X X X THE COURT OF APPEALS[,] IN AFFIRMING
violation of Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended.38 The said
THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE COURT A QUO[,] DEPARTED
complaint did not state the known addresses of the accused. Neither
FROM JURISPRUDENCE THAT EVEN IN CRIMES [INVOLVING]
was the notarized joint-affidavit of the complainants attached thereto.
VIOLATION OF SPECIAL LAWS[,] SPECIAL CONSIDERATION
The subpoena issued to the accused and the copy of their counter-
SHOULD BE GIVEN TO CIRCUMSTANCES THAT [CAN BE
affidavits were also not part of the record. Moreover, the complaint
CONSIDERED AS MITIGATING HAD THE VIOLATION BEEN
did not include Villarin as a respondent. However, said infirmities do
PENALIZED UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE, IN ORDER TO
not constitute denial of due process particularly on the part of
REDUCE PENALTY].36
Villarin.
Petitioners argue that the refusal of the Ombudsman to conduct a
It is evidently clear from the Resolution dated March 13, 1996 of the
reinvestigation is tantamount to a denial of the right to due process.
Office of the City Prosecutor that Villarin and all the accused
As Villarin was indicted in the Information despite his not being
participated in the scheduled preliminary investigation that was
included in the criminal complaint filed by Pioquinto of the TL Strike
38
conducted prior to the filing of the criminal case.39 They knew about assailed the conduct of the preliminary investigation in the Motion for
the filing of the complaint and even denied any involvement in the Reconsideration.43 Whatever argument Villarin may have regarding
illegal cutting of timber. They were also given the opportunity to the alleged absence of a preliminary investigation has therefore
submit countervailing evidence to convince the investigating been mooted. By entering his plea, and actively participating in the
prosecutor of their innocence. trial, he is deemed to have waived his right to preliminary
investigation.
Foregoing findings considered, there is no factual basis to the
assertion that Villarin was not afforded a preliminary investigation. Petitioners also contend that Sudaria should also have been
Accordingly, we find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the included as a principal in the commission of the offense. However,
Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao in denying Villarins motion for whether Sudaria should or should not be included as co-accused
reconsideration. It validly relied on the certification contained in the can no longer be raised on appeal. Any right that the petitioners may
Information that a preliminary investigation was properly conducted have in questioning the non-inclusion of Sudaria in the Information
in this case. The certification was made under oath by no less than should have been raised in a motion for reconsideration of the March
the public prosecutor, a public officer who is presumed to have 13, 1996 Resolution of the Office of the City Prosecutor which
regularly performed his official duty.40 Besides, it aptly noted that recommended the dismissal of the complaint against Sudaria. 44
"Villarin was implicated by x x x Latayada in his affidavit dated Having failed to avail of the proper
January 22, 1996 before Marcelino B. Pioquinto, Chief, Forest
Protection and Law Enforcement Unit. The denial of Villarin cannot procedural remedy, they are now estopped from assailing his non-
prevail over the declaration of witnesses."41 inclusion.

Moreover, the absence of a proper preliminary investigation must be Two Offenses Penalized Under Sec. 68 of Presidential Decree No.
timely raised and must not have been waived. This is to allow the 705.
trial court to hold the case in abeyance and conduct its own Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended, provides:
investigation or require the prosecutor to hold a reinvestigation,
which, necessarily "involves a re-examination and re-evaluation of Section 68. Cutting, Gathering and/or Collecting Timber or Other
the evidence already submitted by the complainant and the accused, Forest Products Without License. Any person who shall cut,
as well as the initial finding of probable cause which led to the filing gather, collect, remove timber or other forest products from any
of the Informations after the requisite preliminary investigation."42 forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or
from private land, without any authority, or possess timber or other
Here, it is conceded that Villarin raised the issue of lack of a forest products without legal documents as required under existing
preliminary investigation in his Motion for Reinvestigation. However, forest laws and regulations, shall be punished with the penalties
when the Ombudsman denied the motion, he never raised this issue imposed under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code:
again. He accepted the Ombudsman's verdict, entered a plea of not Provided, that in the case of partnerships, associations, or
guilty during his arraignment and actively participated in the trial on corporations, the officers who ordered the cutting, gathering,
the merits by attending the scheduled hearings, conducting cross- collection or possession shall be liable, and if such officers are
examinations and testifying on his own behalf. It was only after the aliens, they shall, in addition to the penalty, be deported without
trial court rendered judgment against him that he once again

39
further proceedings on the part of the Commission on Immigration The prosecution likewise presented in evidence the testimonies of
and Deportation. eyewitnesses Granada and Pansacala who testified that Latayada
and Boyatac were the ones who delivered the timber.50
"There are two distinct and separate offenses punished under
Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, to wit: More significantly, Villarin admitted that he was the one who
commissioned the procurement of the timber 51 for the repair of the
(1) Cutting, gathering, collecting and removing timber or other forest Batinay bridge. He even deputized Boyatac to negotiate with Sudaria
products from any forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable and gave Latayada P2,000.00 to transport the logs. Boyatac later
public land, or from private land without any authorization; and informed him of the delivery of timber. However, he could not present
any document to show that his possession thereof was legal and
(2) Possession of timber or other forest products without the legal
pursuant to existing forest laws and regulations.
documents required under existing forest laws and regulations."45
Relevant portions of the testimony of Villarin are as follows:
The Information charged petitioners with the second offense which is
consummated by the mere possession of forest products without the Q As Barangay Captain of Pagalungan, of course, you heard reports
proper documents. prior to the incident on December 31, 1995 that Barangay Captain
Camilo Sudaria was also engaged in supplying forest products like
We reviewed the records and hold that the prosecution had
forest lumber?
discharged the
A Yes, because I always go to Cagayan de Oro and I can always
burden of proving all the elements of the offense charged. The
ride on his jeepney.
evidence of the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that
petitioners were in custody of timber without the necessary legal Q And you were sure that information of yours was received by you
documents. Incidentally, we note that several transcripts of and not only by one but several persons from Barangay Tagpangi
stenographic notes (TSNs) were not submitted by the trial court. No even up to Barangay Pagalungan?
explanation was provided for these missing TSNs. Notwithstanding
the incomplete TSNs, we still find that the prosecution was able to A Thats true because he even has a record with the police.
prove beyond reasonable doubt petitioners culpability.
Q And you learned [this] prior to January 1995?
The prosecution adduced several documents to prove that timber
was confiscated from petitioners. It presented a Tally Sheet 46 to A Yes, Sir.
prove that the DENR Strike Force Team examined the seized timber Q And your information was even to the effect that Sudaria was
on January 13, 1996. The number, volume and appraised value of supplying illegally cut lumber regularly?
said timber were also noted in the Tally Sheet. Seizure receipts were
also presented to prove that the confiscated timber were placed in A What I have noticed because I always ride on his jeep wherein
the custody of Alarcon47 and eventually taken to the DENR Office. 48 lumber was being loaded, the lumber will be taken when it arrived in
There was a photograph of the timber taken by the television crew Lumbia, kilometer 5.
led by Casenas.49

40
Q Even if there were already raids being conducted to the person of A When the specifications were given, we were informed that the
Camilo Sudaria, still he continued to load illegally cut lumber? lumber were already there. So, it was delivered.

A He slowed down after several arrest because maybe he was Q Who informed you that the lumber were already delivered?
ashamed because he was the Barangay Captain of Tagpangi.
A Boyatac.
Q And his arrest and the slackening of his activities of illegally cut
lumber occurred prior to June 1995? Q And he is referring to those lumber placed alongside the Batinay
Bridge.
A Yes, sir.
A Yes, Sir.
Q [In spite] of your knowledge that he is engaged [in] illegally
cut[ting] forest products, you as Barangay Captain of Pagalungan Q And even without personally inspecting it, you immediately paid
transacted with him for the purpose of acquiring lumber [for] the Latayada the compensation for the delivery of those lumber?
bridge at Pagalungan? A There was already an advance payment for his delivery.
A As we rode together in his jeep, he informed me that he has some Q To whom did you give the advance?
lumber to be used to build his house and he told me he will sell it for
the repair of the bridge in Pagalungan. A To Latayada.

Q And because of that, in addition, you sent him the specifications of Q You have not given the amount to Camilo Sudaria?
materials for the repair of the bridge in Pagalungan?
A No, Sir.
A I let Boyatac go to him and [inquire] from him if he has those
specifications. Q In fact, the money that you paid to Latayada was specifically for
the transportation of the lumber from Tagpangi to Batinay bridge?
Q And he communicated to you that he has available lumber of
those specification? A Yes, Sir.

A Yes, because he sent to Boyatac some requirements of the PROS. GALARRITA:

specifications and he let me sign it.
Q And at that time, you paid Latayada P2,000 as payment of the
Q And after that, you closed the [deal] with Sudaria? lumber?

A Yes, because I sent somebody to him and we did not talk A Yes, Sir.
anymore.
COURT:
Q And thereafter on December 31, 1995, according to your
Q Did you pay Latayada?
testimony before, Aniano Latayada delivered the lumber flitches you
ordered on board the passenger jeep of Camilo Sudaria? A Yes, Sir.
41
Q How much? cut timber was not for personal gain but for the repair of said bridge
is, therefore, inconsequential.
A P2,000.
Corpus Delicti is the Fact of the Commission of the Crime
Q And you gave this to the conductor?
Petitioners argue that their convictions were improper because the
A Yes, Sir. corpus delicti had not been established. They assert that the failure
to present the confiscated timber in court was fatal to the cause of
Q You told the conductor to pay the money to Latayada?
the prosecution.
A Yes, sir.
We disagree. "[C]orpus delicti refers to the fact of the commission of
Q What did the conductor say? the crime charged or to the body or substance of the crime. In its
legal sense, it does not refer to the ransom money in the crime of
A The conductor said that the money was for the payment for the kidnapping for ransom or to the body of the person murdered" 55 or, in
transporting of lumber from Tagpangi.52 (Underscoring ours.) this case, to the seized timber. "Since the corpus delicti is the fact of
the commission of the crime, this Court has ruled that even a single
Violation of Sec. 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705, as amended, is
witness uncorroborated testimony, if credible, may suffice to prove it
malum prohibitum. and warrant a conviction therefor. Corpus delicti may even be
established by circumstantial evidence."56
As a special law, the nature of the offense is malum prohibitum and
as such, criminal intent is not an essential element. "However, the Here, the trial court and the CA held that the corpus delicti was
prosecution must prove that petitioners had the intent to possess established by the documentary and testimonial evidence on record.
(animus possidendi)" the timber.53 "Possession, under the law, The Tally Sheet, Seizure Receipts issued by the DENR and
includes not only actual possession, but also constructive photograph proved the existence of the timber and its confiscation.
possession. Actual possession exists when the [object of the crime] The testimonies of the petitioners themselves stating in no uncertain
is in the immediate physical control of the accused. On the other terms the manner in which they consummated the offense they were
hand, constructive possession exists when the [object of the crime] charged with were likewise crucial to their conviction.
is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the
We find no reason to deviate from these findings since it has been
right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is
established that factual findings of a trial court are binding on us,
found."54
absent any showing that it overlooked or misinterpreted facts or
There is no dispute that petitioners were in constructive possession circumstances of weight and substance.57 The legal precept applies
of the timber without the requisite legal documents. Villarin and to this case in which the trial courts findings were affirmed by the
Latayada were personally involved in its procurement, delivery and appellate court.58
storage without any license or permit issued by any competent
The Proper Penalty
authority. Given these and considering that the offense is malum
prohibitum, petitioners contention that the possession of the illegally

42
Violation of Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended, is penalized as range of which is eight (8) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to
qualified theft under Article 310 in relation to Article 309 of the ten (10) years. Since none of the qualifying circumstances in Article
Revised Penal Code (RPC). The pertinent portions of these 310 of the RPC was alleged in the Information, the penalty cannot
provisions read: be increased two degrees higher.

Art. 310. Qualified Theft The crime of theft shall be punished by the In determining the additional years of imprisonment, P22,000.00 is to
penalties next higher by two degrees than those respectively be deducted from P108,150.00, which results to P86,150.00. This
specified in the next preceding articles, if committed by a domestic remainder must be divided by P10,000.00, disregarding any amount
servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen less than P10,000.00. Consequently, eight (8) years must be added
is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts to the basic penalty. Thus the maximum imposable penalty ranges
taken from the premises of the plantation or fish taken from a from sixteen (16) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to
fishpond or fishery, or if property is taken on the occasion of fire, eighteen (18) years of reclusion temporal.
earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any calamity, vehicular
accident or civil disturbance. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum imposable
penalty should be taken anywhere within the range of the penalty
Art. 309. Penalties. Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by: next lower in degree, without considering the modifying
circumstances. The penalty one degree lower from prision mayor in
1. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, its minimum and medium periods is prision correccional in its
if the value of the thing stolen is more than 12,000 pesos but does medium and maximum periods, the range of which is from two (2)
not exceed 22,000 pesos; but if the value of the thing stolen exceeds years, four (4) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. Thus, the
the latter amount, the penalty shall be the maximum period of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, erroneously fixed the minimum period
one prescribed in this paragraph, and one year for each additional of the penalty at twelve (12) years of prision mayor.
ten thousand pesos, but the total of the penalty which may be
imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in Finally, the case against Boyatac must be dismissed considering his
connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and demise even before the RTC rendered its Judgment.
for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall
be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated
xxx June 28, 2005 and the Resolution dated September 22, 2006 in CA-
G.R. CR No. 26720 are AFFIRMED with the modificationS that
The Information filed against the petitioners alleged that the 63 petitioners Crisostomo Villarin and Aniano Latayada are each
pieces of timber without the requisite legal documents measuring sentenced to suffer imprisonment of two (2) years, four (4) months,
4,326 board feet were valued at P108,150.00. To prove this and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to sixteen (16)
allegation, the prosecution presented Pioquinto to testify, among years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as
others, on this amount. Tally Sheets and Seizure Receipts were also maximum. The complaint against Cipriano Boyatac is hereby
presented to corroborate said amount. With the value of the timber DISMISSED.
exceeding P22,000.00, the basic penalty is prision mayor in its
minimum and medium periods to be imposed in its maximum, the SO ORDERED.

43
44