Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 27 views

    Mrida vs. PP

    Uploaded by

    Tin Caddauan
    (1) Tansiongco discovered Merida cutting down a narra tree on Tansiongco's private land. Merida admitted to cutting the tree with alleged approval from someone who Merida claimed purchased the land. (2) Tansiongco filed a formal complaint with the Provincial Prosecutor, accusing Merida of violating Section 68 of PD No. 705. The trial court convicted Merida. The Court of Appeals upheld this decision. (3) The Supreme Court ruled that (a) the trial court had proper authority to try the case, as Section 68 cases can be filed by private citizens, and (b) Merida was in violation of Section 68 of PD No.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Mrida vs. PP

    Uploaded by

    Tin Caddauan
    27 views1 page
    (1) Tansiongco discovered Merida cutting down a narra tree on Tansiongco's private land. Merida admitted to cutting the tree with alleged approval from someone who Merida claimed purchased the land. (2) Tansiongco filed a formal complaint with the Provincial Prosecutor, accusing Merida of violating Section 68 of PD No. 705. The trial court convicted Merida. The Court of Appeals upheld this decision. (3) The Supreme Court ruled that (a) the trial court had proper authority to try the case, as Section 68 cases can be filed by private citizens, and (b) Merida was in violation of Section 68 of PD No.

    Original Title

    1. Mrida vs. PP

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    (1) Tansiongco discovered Merida cutting down a narra tree on Tansiongco's private land. Merida admitted to cutting the tree with alleged approval from someone who Merida claimed purchased the land. (2) Tansiongco filed a formal complaint with the Provincial Prosecutor, accusing Merida of violating Section 68 of PD No. 705. The trial court convicted Merida. The Court of Appeals upheld this decision. (3) The Supreme Court ruled that (a) the trial court had proper authority to try the case, as Section 68 cases can be filed by private citizens, and (b) Merida was in violation of Section 68 of PD No.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    27 views1 page

    Mrida vs. PP

    Uploaded by

    Tin Caddauan
    (1) Tansiongco discovered Merida cutting down a narra tree on Tansiongco's private land. Merida admitted to cutting the tree with alleged approval from someone who Merida claimed purchased the land. (2) Tansiongco filed a formal complaint with the Provincial Prosecutor, accusing Merida of violating Section 68 of PD No. 705. The trial court convicted Merida. The Court of Appeals upheld this decision. (3) The Supreme Court ruled that (a) the trial court had proper authority to try the case, as Section 68 cases can be filed by private citizens, and (b) Merida was in violation of Section 68 of PD No.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Merida v.

    People of the Philippines


    G.R. No. 158182, June 12, 2008, 554 SCRA 366

    Syllabus: The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (Revised Rules) list the cases which must be
    initiated by a complaint filed by specified individuals the non-compliance of which ousts the trial
    court of jurisdiction from trying such cases.However, these cases concern only defamation and
    other crimes against chastity and not to cases concerning Section 68 of PD No. 705, as
    amended. Further, Section 80 of PD No. 705 does not 179 ACCESS TO ENVIRONMENTAL
    JUSTICE: A SOURCEBOOK ON ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS AND LEGAL REMEDIES
    prohibit an interested person from filing a complaint before any qualified officer for violation of
    Section 68 of PD No. 705, as amended.

    FACTS
    Tansiongco discovered Sesinando Merida cutting down a narra tree on his private land, the
    Mayod Property. Tansiongco made a report to the punong barangay, who called a discussion
    with the petitioner. Throughout that discussion, Merida revealed extrajudicial confessions
    admitting he did cut the tree, only with the approval of one Vicar Calix, whom he claims
    purchased the Mayod Property from Tansiongco. Tansiongco made a report once more, this time
    to the DENR. Merida made the same unjustified statements.
    Tansiongco filed a formal complaint with the Provincial Prosecutor, accusing Merida of
    violating Section 68 of PD No. 705 of the Penal Code. The Prosecutor determined that there was
    sufficient evidence and submitted the evidence with the trial court. Merida was convicted as
    accused by the trial court. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision.
    ISSUE
    (1) If the trial court had power of judicial review as it was brought by a private citizen
    rather than a DENR forest officer.
    (2) That Merida is in violation of PD No. 705 Section 68.
    RULING
    (1) Yes. The court's decision was given authority.
    The list of cases which must be launched by complainant, according the Revised
    Rules of Criminal Procedure, doesn't include the situations involving Section 68 of PD
    No. 705. Furthermore, "Section 80 of PD No. 705 somehow doesn't restrict an affected
    individual for submitting a charge before such a qualifying authority for such a violation
    of Section 68 of PD No. 705, as modified."
    (2) Yes. Merida is in violation of Section 68 of PD No. 705.
    Merida insisted towards the investigators how he had destroyed a narra tree
    somewhat on Mayod premises. As a result, his discretionary statements constrain him.

    You might also like