T!e Ru"#n$ o% &!e T'#(" Cou'&
n its Decision dated 2! +ove&ber 2, the trial court found petitioner 3uilt" as char3ed, sentenced hi& to fourteen (1!) "ears, ei3ht (8) &onths and one (1) da" to twent" (2) "ears of reclusion temporal and ordered thesei
n its Decision dated 28 June 22, the Court of $ppeals a%r&ed the trial courts rulin3 but order ordered ed the sei
owever, in the bod" of its rulin3, the Court of $ppeals held that 5the penalt" to be i&posed on 6petitioner7 should be (1!) "ears, ei3ht (8) &onths and one (1) da" to twent" (2) "ears of reclusion temporal,51! the sa&e penalt" the trial court i&posed. Petitioner sou3ht reconsideration but the Court of $ppeals, in its Resolution dated 1! Ma" 2#, did not ad&it his &otion for havin3 been Aled late. 1>ence, this petition. Petitioner raises the followin3 issues . :>T :>T> >R R / / / 'CT 'CT0 0+ + *8 0 P.D. .D. - $' $M+ $M+D DD D PR0> PR0>4 4T T+ + T> T> CETT+, $T>R+, C0FFCT+ $+D RM0;+ TM4R 0R 0T>R 0R'T PR0DECT' R0M $+G 0R'T F$+D $PPF' T0 PTT0+R. . . :>T :>T> >R R / / / P0'' P0''' '' '0+ 0+ 0 T> T> +$RR +$RR$ $ TR TR CET CET + PR; PR;$ $T F$+D F$+D C0+T'TD 4G ;C$R C$FH $+D PR;$T=C0MPF$+$+T 0'C$R T$+'0+C0 ' C0;RD 4G 'CT0+ 8 0 P.D. - $' $M+DD. . :>T>R PR;$T=C0MPF$+$+T C$+ +T$T T> C>$R ;+ :T>0ET T> 'T$+D+ 'T$+D+ $ET>0RTG C0M+ R0M T> +;'T$T+ +;'T$T+ 0R'T 0CR 0 T> DP$R DP$RTM+T TM+T 0 +;R0+M+T $+D +$TER$F +$TER$F R'0ERC' $' M$+D$TD M$+D$TD 4G 'CT0+ 8 0 P.D. - $' $M+DD. 6;.7 :>T>R / / / T> TR$F C0ERT RRD + T$I+ C0+$+C 0 T> C$' FD 4G PR;$T=C0MPF$+$+T 4C$E' T :$' +0T T> +;'T$T+ 0CR $' RKERD 4G 'CT0+ 8 0 P.D. - $' $M+DD :>0 ME'T 4 T> 0+ T0 +'TTET +'TTET T> F+ 0 T> '$M. 1* n its Co&&ent to the petition, the 0%ce of the 'olicitor eneral (0') countered that (1) the trial court ac@uired Burisdiction over the case even thou3h Tansion3co, and not a D+R forest o%cer, Aled the co&plaint a3ainst petitioner and (2) petitioner is liable for violation of 'ection *8 of PD -, as a&ended. T!e I**ue*
The petition raises the followin3 followin3 issues 1 1) :hether the trial court ac@uired ac@uired Burisdicti Burisdiction on over Cri&inal Case +o. 22 even thou3h it was based on a co&plaint Aled b" Tansion3co and not b" a D+R forest
T!e Ru"#n$ o% &!e T'#(" Cou'&
n its Decision dated 2! +ove&ber 2, the trial court found petitioner 3uilt" as char3ed, sentenced hi& to fourteen (1!) "ears, ei3ht (8) &onths and one (1) da" to twent" (2) "ears of reclusion temporal and ordered thesei
n its Decision dated 28 June 22, the Court of $ppeals a%r&ed the trial courts rulin3 but order ordered ed the seiowever, in the bod" of its rulin3, the Court of $ppeals held that 5the penalt" to be i&posed on 6petitioner7 should be (1!) "ears, ei3ht (8) &onths and one (1) da" to twent" (2) "ears of reclusion temporal,51! the sa&e penalt" the trial court i&posed. Petitioner sou3ht reconsideration but the Court of $ppeals, in its Resolution dated 1! Ma" 2#, did not ad&it his &otion for havin3 been Aled late. 1>ence, this petition. Petitioner raises the followin3 issues . :>T :>T> >R R / / / 'CT 'CT0 0+ + *8 0 P.D. .D. - $' $M+ $M+D DD D PR0> PR0>4 4T T+ + T> T> CETT+, $T>R+, C0FFCT+ $+D RM0;+ TM4R 0R 0T>R 0R'T PR0DECT' R0M $+G 0R'T F$+D $PPF' T0 PTT0+R. . . :>T :>T> >R R / / / P0'' P0''' '' '0+ 0+ 0 T> T> +$RR +$RR$ $ TR TR CET CET + PR; PR;$ $T F$+D F$+D C0+T'TD 4G ;C$R C$FH $+D PR;$T=C0MPF$+$+T 0'C$R T$+'0+C0 ' C0;RD 4G 'CT0+ 8 0 P.D. - $' $M+DD. . :>T>R PR;$T=C0MPF$+$+T C$+ +T$T T> C>$R ;+ :T>0ET T> 'T$+D+ 'T$+D+ $ET>0RTG C0M+ R0M T> +;'T$T+ +;'T$T+ 0R'T 0CR 0 T> DP$R DP$RTM+T TM+T 0 +;R0+M+T $+D +$TER$F +$TER$F R'0ERC' $' M$+D$TD M$+D$TD 4G 'CT0+ 8 0 P.D. - $' $M+DD. 6;.7 :>T>R / / / T> TR$F C0ERT RRD + T$I+ C0+$+C 0 T> C$' FD 4G PR;$T=C0MPF$+$+T 4C$E' T :$' +0T T> +;'T$T+ 0CR $' RKERD 4G 'CT0+ 8 0 P.D. - $' $M+DD :>0 ME'T 4 T> 0+ T0 +'TTET +'TTET T> F+ 0 T> '$M. 1* n its Co&&ent to the petition, the 0%ce of the 'olicitor eneral (0') countered that (1) the trial court ac@uired Burisdiction over the case even thou3h Tansion3co, and not a D+R forest o%cer, Aled the co&plaint a3ainst petitioner and (2) petitioner is liable for violation of 'ection *8 of PD -, as a&ended. T!e I**ue*
The petition raises the followin3 followin3 issues 1 1) :hether the trial court ac@uired ac@uired Burisdicti Burisdiction on over Cri&inal Case +o. 22 even thou3h it was based on a co&plaint Aled b" Tansion3co and not b" a D+R forest
o%cerL and 2) :hether petitioner is liable for violation of 'ection *8 of PD -, as a&ended. T!e Ru"#n$ o% &!e Cou'&
The petition has no &erit. The Trial Criminal Case No. 2207
Court
Acquired
Jurisdiction
Over
:e sustain the 0's clai& that the trial court ac@uired Burisdiction over Cri&inal Case +o. 22. The Revised Rules of Cri&inal Procedure (Revised Rules) list the cases which &ust be initiated b" a co&plaint Aled b" speciAed individuals, 18 non=co&pliance of which ousts the trial court of Burisdiction fro& tr"in3 such cases. 19>owever, these cases concern onl" defa&ation and other cri&es a3ainst chastit" 2 and not to cases concernin3 'ection *8 of PD -, as a&ended. urther, 'ection 8 of PD - does not prohibit an interested person fro& Alin3 a co&plaint before an" @ualiAed o%cer for violation of 'ection *8 of PD -, as a&ended. 'ection 8 of PD - provides in relevant parts 'CT0+ 8. $rrestL nstitution of cri&inal actions. = / / / / Re)o'&* (n+ o-)"(#n&* 'e$('+#n$ &!e o--#**#on o% (n o% &!e o/en*e* +ene+ #n &!#* C!()&e' , not co&&itted in the presence of an" forest o%cer or e&plo" e&plo"ee, ee, or an" of the deputi deputi
:e held in People v. CFI of Quezon 21 that the phrase 5reports and co&plaints5 in 'ection 8 refers to 5reports and co&plaints as &i3ht be brou3ht to the forest o%cer assi3ned to the area o&!e' %o'e*& o3e'* o' e-)"oee* o% &!e 6u'e(u o% Fo'e*& Dee"o)-en& o' (n o% &!e +e)u&#e+ +e)u&#e+ o3e'* o' o3#("* , for violations of forest laws not co&&itted in their 22 presence.5 >ere, it was not 5forest o%cers or e&plo"ees of the 4ureau of orest Develop&ent or an" of the deputiernande< the tree=cuttin3 in the Ma"od Propert" but Tansion ansion3co 3co,, a privat private e citiernande< cannot be faulted for not conductin3 an investi3ation to deter&ine 5if there is pri&a facie evidence to support the co&plaint or report.5 2# $t an" rate, Tansion3co Tansion3co was not precluded, either under 'ection 8 of PD - or the Revised Rules, fro& Alin3 a co&plaint before the Provincial Prosecutor for petitioners alle3ed violation of 'ection *8 of PD -, as a&ended. or its part, the trial court correctl" too? co3ni
for
Cuttin
Timber
in
Private
'ection *8, as a&ended, one of the 12 acts 2- penali
addition to the penalt", be deported without further proceedin3s on the part of the Co&&ission on &&i3ration and Deportation. The court shall further order the conAscation in favor of the 3overn&ent of the ti&ber or an" forest products cut, 3athered, collected, re&oved, or possessed as well as the &achiner", e@uip&ent, i&ple&ents and tools ille3all" used in the area where the ti&ber or forest products are found. (&phasis supplied) 'ection *8 penalie >enc nce, e, this this case case hin3 hin3es es on the the @ues @uesti tion on of whet whethe herr peti petiti tion oner er 7u& / / 29 /&#-e'7 #n &!e M(o+ P'o)e'& 4#&!ou& ( DENR )e'-#&. :e answer in the a%r&ative and thus a%r& the lower courts ru lin3s. 0n the @uestion of whether petitioner cut a narra tree in the Ma"od Propert" without a D+R per&it per&it,, petiti petitione onerr adopte adopted d conNic conNictin tin3 3 positi positions ons.. 4efor 4efore e his trial, trial, petiti petitione onerr consist consistent entl" l" represented to the authorities that he cut a narra tree in the Ma"od Propert" and that he did so onl" with Cali/s per&ission. >owever, when he testiAed, petitioner denied cuttin3 the tree in @uestion. :e sustain the lower courts rulin3s that petitioners e/traBudicial ad&issions bind hi&.# Petitioner does not e/plain wh" Ro"o and >ernande<, public o%cials who testiAed under oath oath in their their o%cial o%cial capacit capacities ies,, would would lie on the stand stand to i&plic i&plicate ate petiti petitione onerr in a serious serious cri&inal oense, not to &ention that the acts of these public o%cers enBo" the presu&ption of re3ul re3ulari arit" t".. urther, urther, petiti petitione onerr does does not den" den" prese presenti ntin3 n3 Cali/ Cali/s s authori authoriernande< as his basis for cuttin3 the narra tree in the Ma"od Propert". Petitioner has no use of Cali/s authori
(n+ )!'(*e* u*e+ #n ( *&(&u&e *!ou"+ e $#en &!e#' )"(#n, o'+#n(', (n+ o--on o--on u*($e u*($e -e(n#n$ -e(n#n$. $nd in so far as possession of timber without without the re@uired le3al docu&ents is concerned, 'ection *8 of PD +o. -, as a&ended, &a?es no distinction between raw and procesed ti&ber. +either should we. #* / / / / (talici
:e see no reason wh", as in $ustang, the ter& 5ti&ber5 under 'ection *8 cannot be ta?en in its co&&on co&&on acceptati acceptation on as referrin referrin3 3 to 5wood used for or suitable suitable for buildin3 buildin3 or for carpentr" or # Boiner".5 Boiner".5 ndeed, tree saplin3s or tin" tree ste&s that are too s&all for use as posts, panellin3, bea&s, tables, or chairs cannot be considered ti&ber. ti&ber. #8 >ere, petitioner was char3ed with havin3 felled a narra tree and converted the sa&e into 5several pieces of sawn lu&ber, about three (#) pcs. 2/1*/* and three (#) pcs. 2/18/ / / / consistin3 of 111 board feet / / /.5 These &easure&ents were indicated in the apprehension receipt >ernande< issued to petitioner on 2* Januar" 1999 which the prosecution introduced in evidence.#9 urther, >ernande< testiAed that the lar3er portion of the felled lo3 left in the Ma"od Propert" 5&easured * soðin3 centi&eters 6at the bi3 end7 while the s&aller end &easured *- centi&eters centi&eters and the len3th was 2.8 &eters.5! Endoubtedl", the narra tree petitioner felled and converted to lu&ber was 5ti&ber5 At 5for buildin3 or for carpentr" or Boiner"5 and thus falls under the a&bit of 'ection *8 of PD -, as a&ended. The Penalt" $m!osable on Petitioner
;iolation of 'ection *8 of PD -, as a&ended, is punishable as KualiAed Theft under $rticle #1 in relation to $rticle #9 of the Revised Penal Penal Code (RPC), thus $rt. #1. KualiAed theft. = The cri&e of @ualiAed theft shall be punished b" the penalties ne/t hi3her b" two de3rees than those respectivel" speciAed in the ne/t precedin3 article article / / /. $rt. #9. Penalties. = $n" person 3uilt" of theft shall sh all be punished b" 1. The penalt" of prisin &a"or in its &ini&u& and &ediu& periods, if the value of the thin3 stolen is &ore than 12, pesos but does not e/ceed 22, pesosL but if the value of the thin3 stolen e/ceeds the latter a&ount, the penalt" penalt" shall shall be the &a/i&u& &a/i&u& period period of the one presc prescrib ribed ed in this this para3raph, and one "ear for each additional ten thousand pesos, but the total of the penalt" which &a" be i&posed shall not e/ceed twent" "ears. n such cases, and in connection with the accessor" penalties which &a" be i&posed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalt" shall be ter&ed prisin &a"or or reclusin te&poral, as the case &a" be. 2. The penalt" of prisin correccional correccional in its &ediu& and &a/i&u& periods, if the value of the thin3 stolen is &ore than *, pesos but does not e/ceed 12, pesos. #. The penalt" of prisin correccional in its &ini&u& and &ediu& periods, if the value of the propert" stolen is &ore than 2 pesos but does not e/ceed *, pesos. !. $rresto &a"or in its &ediu& period to prisin correccional in its &ini&u& period, if the value of the propert" stolen is over - pesos but does not e/ceed 2 pesos. -. $rresto &a"or to its full e/tent, if such value is over - pesos but does not e/ceed - pesos. *. $rresto &a"or in its &ini&u& and &ediu& periods, if such value does not e/ceed - pesos. . $rresto &enor or a Ane not e/ceedin3 2 pesos, if the theft is co&&itted under the circu&sta circu&stances nces enu&erated in para3raph para3raph # of the ne/t precedin3 precedin3 article and the value of the thin3 stolen does not e/ceed - pesos. f such value value e/cee e/ceeds ds said said a&ount a&ount,, the provi provisio sions ns of an" of the Ave prece precedin din3 3 subdivisions shall be &ade applicable.
. 8. $rresto &enor in its &ini&u& period or a Ane not e/ceedin3 - pesos, when the value of the thin3 stolen is not over - pesos, and the oender shall have acted under the i&pulse of hun3er, povert", or the di%cult" of earnin3 a livelihood for the support of hi&self or his fa&il". The nfor&ation Aled a3ainst petitioner alle3ed that the si/ pieces of lu&ber &easurin3 111 board feet were valued at P#,##. >owever, if the value of the lo3 left at the Ma"od Propert" is included, the a&ount increases toP2,9#.!. To prove this alle3ation, the prosecution relied on >ernande<s testi&on" that these a&ounts, as stated in the apprehension receipt he issued, are his 5esti&ates5 based on 5prevailin3 local price.5 !1 This evidence does not su%ce. To prove the a&ount of the propert" ta?en for A/in3 the penalt" i&posable a3ainst the accused under $rticle #9 of the RPC, the prosecution &ust present &ore than a &ere uncorroborated 5esti&ate5 of such fact.!2 n the absence of independent and reliable corroboration of such esti&ate, courts &a" either appl" the &ini&u& penalt" under $rticle #9 or A/ the value of the propert" ta?en based on the attendant circu&stances of the case.!# n People v. %ator !! where, as here, the accused was char3ed with violation of 'ection *8 of PD -, as a&ended, for possession of lu&ber without per&it, the prosecutions evidence for the lu&bers value consisted of an esti&ate &ade b" the apprehendin3 authorities whose apparent lac? of corroboration was co£ed b" the fact that the trans&ittal letter for the esti&ate was not presented in evidence. $ccordin3l", we i&posed on the accused the &ini&u& penalt" under $rticle #9(*) !- of the RPC. !* $ppl"in3 %ator in relation to $rticle #1 of the RPC and ta?in3 into account the ndeter&inate 'entence Faw, we And it proper to i&pose on petitioner, under the circu&stances obtainin3 here, the penalt" of four (!) &onths and one (1) da" of arresto mayor , as &ini&u&, to three (#) "ears, four (!) &onths and twent"=one (21) da"s of prision correcional, as &a/i&u&. HEREFORE, we AFFIRM the Decision dated 28 June 22 and the Resolution dated 1! Ma" 2# of the Court of $ppeals with the &odiAcation that petitioner 'esinando Merida is sentenced to four (!) &onths and one (1) da" of arresto mayor , as &ini&u&, to three (#) "ears, four (!) &onths and twent"=one (21) da"s of prision correcional, as &a/i&u&. SO ORDERED. Puno, C.&., Chairperson, Corona, 'zcuna, #eonardo(de Castro, &&., concur.
Foo&no&e* 1
Ender Rule !- of the 199 Rules of Civil Procedure.
2
Penned b" $ssociate Justice lie
Re=nu&bered as 'ection under 'ection , Republic $ct +o. 1*1.
!
The Revised orestr" Code.
-
iled b" petitioners new counsel, $tt". Marcelino P. $rias.
*
The nfor&ation alle3ed (C$ r ollo, p. 1) That on or about the 2# rd da" of Dece&ber 1998, in baran3a" pil, &unicipalit" of Ma3diwan3, province of Ro&blon, Philippines, and within the Burisdiction of this >onorable Court, the said accused, with intent to 3ain, did then and there willfull", unlawfull", feloniousl" cut, 3ather, collect, re&ove andQor caused to be cut, 3athered and re&oved one (1) n arra tree 6fro&7 the private land owned b" 0'C$R M. T$+'0+C0 and converted the sa&e into several pieces of sawn lu&ber, about three (#) pcs. 2/1*/* and three (#) pcs. 2/18/ narra sawn lu&ber were conAscated b" the ele&ents of the D+R personnel consistin3 of 111 board feet, valued in the su& of P#,##., Philippine currenc", includin3 the re&ainin3 felled narra tree
showin3 the total a&ount of P2,9#.! due to the 3overn&ent, without havin3 Arst secured and obtained the necessar" per&it or license andQor le3al supportin3 docu&ents fro& the proper authorities.
0ther parts of the records place this date on 2* Dece&ber 1998.
8
&elda Muros.
9
;alued at P#,##.. f a lar3er part of the narra tree, left at the Ma"od Propert", is included in the valuation, the total a&ount is P2,9#.!. The nfor&ation Aled a3ainst petitioner alle3ed the hi3her a&ount. 1
The records do not contain the results of th e investi3ation.
11
'enior 'tate Prosecutor=0C PP0 rancisco . 4enedicto, Jr.
12
The dispositive portion of the rulin3 provides ( rollo, p. #1) :>R0R, this Court Ands the accused ''+$+D0 MRD$ EFTG be"ond reasonable doubt of the cri&e char3ed in the afore&entioned nfor&ation, dated Januar" 28, 2, and hereb" sentences hi& to an indeter&inate sentence of fro& fourteen (1!) "ears, ei3ht (8) &onths and one (1) da" to twent" (2) "ears of reclusion te&poral, and to pa" the costs.
1#
The dispositive portion of the rulin3 provides (id. at -1) :>R0R, pre&ises considered, the 2! +ove&ber 2 trial court decision is $RMD with M0DC$T0+. Defendant=appellant is sentenced to an indeter&inate penalt" of 1! "ears, 8 &onths and 1 da" of reclusion te&poral as &ini&u& to 1 "ears of reclusion te&poral as &a/i&u&. The forest products derived fro& the narra tree, includin3 the * pieces of lu&ber, are conAscated in favor of the 3overn&ent.
1!
d. at -1.
1-
The Court of $ppeals entered Bud3&ent on 2 $u3ust 22.
1*
)ollo, p. 1!.
1
The 0' does not clai& that this Court is precluded fro& reviewin3 the Court of $ppeals rulin3s for havin3 attained Analit". $t an" rate, the Court resolved to 3ive due course to the petition in the interest of Bustice ta?in3 into account the nature of the case and the issues raised for resolution. 18
'ection -, Rule 11.
19
'ee People v. $andia, * Phil. #2 (19#!)L People v. rinidad , -8 Phil. 1*# (19##).
2
$dulter", Concubina3e, 'eduction, $bduction, and $cts of F asciviousness.
21
.R. +o. !*2, 1# ebruar" 1992, 2* 'CR$ 18.
22
d. at 19!.
2#
t cannot be said, however, that >ernande< failed to act on Tansion3cos report as >ernande< conducted Aeld investi3ation, oversaw the conAscation of the lu&ber, and too? part in the subse@uent D+R investi3ation. 2!
Ender 'ection 2 in relation to 'ection #2(2) of 4atas Pa&bansa 4l3. 129 as a&ended b" Republic $ct +o. *91, Re3ional Trial Courts are vested with e/clusive ori3inal Burisdiction over oenses punishable with i&prison&ent e/ceedin3 si/ "ears. >ere, the oense for which petitioner was char3ed is punishable b" reclusion temporal in its &ediu& and &a/i&u& periods (that is, 1! "ears, 8 &onths and 1 da" to 2 "ears) and thus falls under the RTC Ro&blons e/clusive ori3inal
Burisdiction. 2-
The other acts penali
Thus, there is no &erit in petitioners clai& that 'ection *8 of PD - does not penali
n Mustan3 Fu&ber, nc. v. Court of $ppeals, (.R. +o. 1!988, 18 June 199*, 2- 'CR$ !#), the acts fallin3 under the Arst and second 3roups were lu&ped to3ether. The ele&ents for the cri&inal acts under the Arst and second 3roups are (1) that the accused cut, 3athered, collected, or re&oved ti&ber of other forest productsL (2) that the ti&ber or other forest products cut, 3athered, collected, or re&oved belon3 to the 3overn&ent or to an" private individualL and (#) that the cuttin3, 3atherin3, collectin3, or re&ovin3 was without authorit" under a license a3ree&ent, lease, license, or per&it 3ranted b" the state (People v. C of Kue
t cannot be deter&ined fro& the records if the Ma"od Propert" is re3istered.
29
Ender D+R $d&inistrative 0rder +o. 2=21, dated 28 ebruar" 2, private land owners are re@uired to obtain a 'pecial Private Fand Ti&ber Per&it ('PFTP) fro& the D+R to cut, 3ather and utili
'ection 2*, Rule 1# of the Rules of Court provides 5The act, declaration or o&ission of a part" as to a relevant fact &a" be 3iven in evidence a3ainst hi&.5 #1
'ection #(@), PD - provides 5orest product &eans &#-e', pulpwood, Arewood, bar?, tree top, resin, 3u&, wood, oil, hone", beeswa/, nipa, rattan, or other forest 3rowth such as 3rass, shrub, and Nowerin3 plant, the associated water, Ash, 3a&e, scenic, historical, recreational and 3eolo3ic resources in forest lands.5 (&phasis supplied) #2
Mustan3 Fu&ber, nc. v. Court of $ppeals, .R. +o. 1!988, 18 June 199*, 2- 'CR$ !#. ##
n the PaciAc and +orthwestern Re3ion (Re3ion *) of the Enited 'tates orest 'ervice, ti&ber utili
n the 4aden=:urtte&ber3 'tate of the ederal Republic of er&an", the 5stand a3es5 are - "ears for coniferous stands and "ears for deciduous stands ('ection 1* of the orest Faw). n 'weden, the followin3 are the &ini&u& rotation a3e conifer stands = !- "ears to 1 "ears (dependin3 on the @ualit" of the site)L hardwood stands = #- "earsL and oa? and beech trees = 1 "ears (see +ritish Columbia )eport ). #-
'upra.
#*
'upra at !!8.
#
:ebsters Third +ew nternational Dictionar" (199* ed.).
#8
:ood pulps fro& ti&ber can also be used for paper production.
#9
/h. 5.5
!
RTC Decision, p. !L Rollo, p. 2-.
!1
C$ Decision, p. 8L )ollo, p. !2.
!2
#ucas v. Court of 'ppeals , !#8 Phil. -# (22). 'ee also People v. 0lizaga , 8* Phil. #*! (19-). !#
People v. %ator , #98 Phil. 19 (2). The Court dee&s it i&proper to ta?e Budicial notice of the sellin3 price of narra at the ti&e of the co&&ission of the oense in this case. 'uch evidence would both be unreliable and inconclusive considerin3 the lac? of independent and co&petent source of such infor&ation. !!
'upra.
!-
'rresto mayor in its &ini&u& and &ediu& periods.
!*
The Court also too? into account the followin3 circu&stances (1) the accused, a Banitor, cut the pieces of soft lu&ber fro& his &others landholdin3 for use in renovatin3 his house and (2) the accused had no prior record for violation of PD -. >ere, petitioner also appears to have no record for violation of PD -.
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila T>RD D;'0+
A.M. No. MTJ9:;98<= M('! 1=, 1::5 AUGUSTUS L. MOMONGAN, Re$#on(" D#'e&o', De)('&-en& o% En#'on-en& (n+ N(&u'(" Re*ou'e*, Re$#on VIII, T("o(n C#&, petitioner, vs. JUDGE RAFAEL 6. OMIPON, >&! Mun##)(" C#'u#& T'#(" Cou'&, H#nun(n$(n S#"($o, Sou&!e'n Le&e,respondent.
R'0FET0+
ROMERO, J.%
$t around 1 ocloc? of +ove&ber 1!, 1992, police o%cers of the Municipalit" of >inunan3an, 'outhern Fe"te apprehended Dionisio olpe while he was drivin3 his truc? loaded with ille3all" cut lu&ber. The truc? and lo3s were i£ed. $ co&plaint was Aled a3ainst 4asilio Cabi3, the alle3ed owner of the lo3s. $fter conductin3 the preli&inar" investi3ation, respondent Jud3e Rafael 4. 0&ipon found that a prima facie case e/ists a3ainst Mr. Cabi3 but he ordered the release of the truc? inas&uch as the ownerQdriver, Mr. olpe, was not char3ed in the co&plaint. Re3ional Director $u3ustus F. Mo&on3an of the Depart&ent of nviron&ent and +atural Resources Aled the instant co&plaint a3ainst respondent Jud3e alle3in3 that his order releasin3 the truc? used in the transport of ille3all" cut forest products violated Presidential Decree -, as a&ended b" /ecutive 0rder +o. 2, 'ection *8 and *8=$ 1 and $d&inistrative 0rder +o. -9, 'eries of 199. 2 Co&plainant clai&s that respondent Jud3e has no authorit" to order the release of the truc? despite the non=inclusion of Mr. olpe in the co&plaint. The truc? should have been turned over to the Co&&unit" nviron&ent and +atural Resources 0%ce of 'an Juan, 'outhern
Fe"te for appropriate disposition as the sa&e falls under the ad&inistrative Burisdiction of the Depart&ent of nviron&ent and +atural Resources 0%ce. n his co&&ent, respondent Jud3e e/plained that after conductin3 the preli&inar" investi3ation, he found that olpe, the owner of the truc?, is principall" en3a3ed in the h aulin3 of sand and 3ravel and the deliver" of hollow bloc?s. 0n his wa" ho&e after deliverin3 hollow bloc?s in 4aran3a" 'to. +io , he &et his friend Cabi3 who re@uested hi& to load sliced lu&ber and deliver the sa&e at 4r3". Fun3sod=daan, >inunda"an to be used for the construction of a baran3a" hi3h school buildin3. The" were apprehended when the truc? had a Nat tire. $fter chan3in3 the tire, both the lu&ber and the truc? were ordered deposited at the police station of >inunan3an. Respondent Jud3e observed that olpe has a lesser participation in the cri&e of ille3al lo33in3 and, bein3 a &ere accessor", he &i3ht be utiliead or his dul" authoriowever, on the third hearin3 date, respondent Jud3e failed to appear as he suered a stro?e and was hospitalie also &anifested that the co&plainant is sub&ittin3 the ad&inistrative &atter for resolution and reco&&endation without adducin3 evidence a3ainst respondent. Respondents counsel did not obBect to co&plainants &anifestation. The counsel of both co&plainant and respondent Bointl" a3reed to su b&it the case for appropriate action. The nvesti3atin3 Jud3es conAdential report, in part, states n view of this develop&ent in the course of an intended investi3ation this investi3ator could not elicit additional facts than are found in the records, whether inculpator" or e/culpator". Respondent was 3iven an opportunit" to e/plain the unfavorable circu&stances a3ainst hi& but he was overta?en b" a serious illness.
'o &uch was e/pected fro& the co&plainant to suppl" the facts not e/tant in the records, but he lost interest in substantiatin3 his $pril 199# report to the 'upre&e Court. n fact, he was sub&ittin3 this ad&inistrative &atter for resolution without adducin3 evidence a3ainst respondent. /cept for the 21 Januar" 199! &otion for reinvesti3ation of D+R counsel sber which sou3ht for the inclusion of Beep owner and driver Dionisio olpe in the cri&inal infor&ation, there is nothin3 new that can be added to the facts found b" the >onorable Deput" Court $d&inistrator as reNected in his Me&orandu& for the >onorable Chief Justice dated 12 0ctober 199#. There bein3 no actual investi3ation conducted, no additional facts could be reported and conse@uentl", there is no basis for a reco&&endation on the basis of facts. This investi3ator can onl" reco&&end appropriate action b" the 'upre&e Court on the basis of the facts alread" e/tant in the records with a pra"er for consideration of respondent pli3ht especiall" so since on account of this investi3ation his health has deteriorated and &a" aect his e%cienc" output as a Bud3e. Perhaps, allowin3 hi& to bow out of the service with honor and correspondin3 beneAts. 5 Durin3 the pendenc" of this case, respondent Jud3e Aled for disabilit" retire&ent. >is application was approved but his pension was not released pendin3 the outco&e of this case. :e And respondent Jud3es order to release the truc? owned and driven b" Mr. Dionisio olpe le3all" BustiAable, hence, he is not subBect to an" disciplinar" sanction. $ccordin3 to the Revised Penal Code, $rt. !-, Arst para3raph 5 67ver" penalt" i&posed for the co&&ission of a felon" shall carr" with it the forfeiture of the proceeds of the cri&e and the instru&ent or tools with which it was co&&itted.5 >owever, this cannot be done if such proceeds and instru&ents or tools 5be the propert" of a third person not liable for oense.5 n this case, the truc?, thou3h used to transport the ille3all" cut lu&ber, cannot be conAscated and forfeited in the event accused therein be convicted because the truc? ownerQdriver, Mr. Dionisio olpe was not indicted. >ence, there was no BustiAcation for respondent Jud3e not to release the truc?. Co&plainant is correct in pointin3 out that based on Pres. Decree +o. -, 'ec. *8=$ and $d&. 0rder +o. -9, the D+R 'ecretar" or his dul" authoriowever, as co&plainant hi&self li?ewise pointed out, this power is in relation to the ad&inistrative Burisdiction of the D+R. :e do not And that when respondent Jud3e released the truc? after he conducted the preli&inar" investi3ation and satisAed hi&self that there was no reason to continue ?eepin3 the truc?, he violated Pres. Decree +o. - and $d&. 0rder +o. -9. The release of the truc? did not render nu3ator" the ad&inistrative authorit" of the D+R 'ecretar". The conAscation proceedin3s under $d&. 0rder +o. -9 > is dierent fro& the conAscation under the Revised Penal Code, which is an additional penalt" i&posed in the event of conviction. Despite the order of release, the truc? can be sei
Aeld o%ces, deputiR0R, the co&plaint is D'M''D. '0 0RDRD. Feliciano, $elo, 1itug and Francisco, &&., concur.
Foo&no&e*
1 Presidential Decree +o. - S R;'+ PR'D+T$F DCR +0. #89, 0T>R:' I+0:+ $' T> 0R'TRG R0RM C0D 0 T> P>FPP+'. 'ec . *8. Cutting, Gathering and/or collecting imber, or !ther Forest Products "ithout #icense. S $n" person who shall cut, 3ather, collect, re&ove ti&ber or other forest products fro& an" forest land, or ti&ber fro& alienable or disposable public land, or fro& private land, without an" authorit", or possess ti&ber or other forest products without the le3al docu&ents as re@uired under e/istin3 forest laws and re3ulations, shall be punished with the penalties i&posed under $rticles #9 and #1 of the Revised Penal Code Provided, That in the case of partnerships, associations or corporations, the o%cers who ordered the cuttin3, 3atherin3 collection or possession shall be liable, and if such o%cers are aliens, the" shall, in addition to the penalt", be deported without further proceedin3s on the part of th e Co&&ission on &&i3ration and Deportation. The Court shall further order the conAscation in favor of the 3overn&ent of the ti&ber or an" forest products cut, 3athered, collected, re&oved, or possessed as well as the &achiner", e@uip&ent, i&ple&ents and tools ille3all" used in the area where the ti&ber or forest products are found. 'ec. *8=$. 'dministrative 'uthority of the %epartment 2ead or 2is %uly 'uthorized )epresentative to !rder Con3scation . S n all cases of violations of this Code or other forest laws ruled and re3ulations, the Depart&ent >ead or his dul" authori C0+'C$T0+, 0RTER $+D D'P0'T0+ 0 C0+;G$+C' E'D + T> C0MM''0+ 0 0+'' P+$FD E+DR
'CT0+ *8, P.D. -, $' $M+DD 4G HCET; 0RDR +0. 2, 'R' 0 198 $+D 0T>R 0R'TRG F$:', REF' $+D REF$T0+'. /// /// /// 'ec. 2. Conveyances 4ub5ect to Con3scation and Forfeiture . $ll conve"ance used in the transport of an" forest product obtained or 3athered ille3all" whether or not covered with transport docu&ents found spurious or irre3ular in accordance with 'ection *8=$ of P.D. -, shall be conAscated in favor of the 3overn&ent or disposed of in accordance with pertinent laws, re3ulations or policies on the &atter. /// /// /// 'ec. 9. %isposition of Conveyance . $ll conve"ances found to have been used in the transport of an" forest product fro& ille3al sources andQor covered b" spurious docu&ents shall be declared forfeited in favor of the 3overn&ent in accordance with 'ec. *8=$ of PD -, as a&ended. orfeited conve"ances &a" be used, at the discretion of the D+R, in the forest protection and develop&ent activities, otherwise, the sa&e shall be disposed of throu3h public auction b" th e 'ecretar" or the Re3ional 0%ce, as the case &a" be, in accordance with e/istin3 policies and procedures for the disposition of 3overn&ent propert". * 'ec. . 6otice to !*ner . or the purpose onl" of co&pl"in3 with due process, the 'ecretar", RDQP+R0QC+R0 or their dul" authori
G.R. No. L9=><<2 Fe'u(' 1;, 1::2 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ?UE@ON 6RANCH VIIB, GODOFREDO ARRO@AL AND LUIS FLORES,respondents. Felipe +. Paganlungan for private respondents.
MEDIALDEA, J.%
This petition see?s the annul&ent of the order of the Court of irst nstance (now Re3ional Trial Court) of Kueonorable Court, the above=na&ed accused, odofredo $rro0E'$+D T:0 >E+DRD ; P'0' and TG T:0 C+T$;0' (P-,2-.-2) includin3 3overn&ent char3es, to the da&a3e and preBudice of the said owner in the aforesaid a&ount. Contrar" to Faw. Fucena Cit", Januar" 19. (p.1, )ollo). 0n March 2#, 19, the na&ed accused Aled a &otion to @uash the infor&ation on two (2) 3rounds, to wit (1) that the facts char3ed do not constitute an oenseL and, (2) that the infor&ation does not confor& substantiall" to the prescribed for&. 0n $pril 1#, 19, the trial court dis&issed the infor&ation on the 3rounds invo?ed (pp. #2= !2, )ollo), The reconsideration sou3ht was denied on $u3ust 9, 19 (p.!2, )ollo). 0n 0ctober 1-, 19, this petition was Aled directl" with this Court, raisin3 the followin3 @uestions of law (1) whether or not the infor&ation char3ed an oenseL and (2) whether or not the trial court had Burisdiction over the case. 0n the Arst issue, the People alle3ed that, contrar" to the alle3ation of the private respondents and the opinion of the trial court, the infor&ation substantiall" alle3ed all the ele&ents of the
cri&e of @ualiAed theft of lo3s as described in 'ection *8 of P.D. -. :hile it was ad&itted that the infor&ation did not precisel" alle3e that the ta?in3 of the lo3s in @uestion was 5without the consent of the state,5 nevertheless, said infor&ation e/pressl" stated that the accused 5ille3all" cut, 3ather, ta?e, steal and carr" awa" therefro&, without the consent of said owner and without an" authorit" under a license a3ree&ent, lease, lease, license or per&it, si/t" (*) lo3s of dierent species. . . .5 'ince onl" the state can 3rant the lease, license, license a3ree&ent or per&it for utili
products shall re3ister his title to the sa&e with the Director orestr". $ list of such owners, with a state&ent of the boundaries their propert", shall be furnished b" said Director to the Collector nternal Revenue, and the sa&e shall be supple&ented fro& ti&e ti&e as occasion &a" re@uire.
of of of to
Epon application of the Director of orestr" the Ascal of the province in which an" such land lies shall render assistance in the e/a&ination of the title thereof with a view to its re3istration in the 4ureau of orestr".5 n the above provision of law, there is no state&ent to the eect that non= co&pliance with the re@uire&ent would divest the owner of the land of his ri3hts thereof and that said ri3hts of ownership would be transferred to the 3overn&ent. 0f course, the land which had been re3istered and titled in the na&e of the plainti under that Fand Re3istration $ct could no lon3er be the obBect of a forester license issued b" the Director of orestr" because ownership of said land includes also ownership of ever"thin3 found on its surface ($rt. !#, +ew Civil Code). 0bviousl", the purpose of the re3istration re@uired in section 1829 of the $d&inistrative Code is to e/e&pt the title owner of the land fro& the pa"&ent of forestr" char3es as provided for under 'ection 2** of the +ational nternal Revenue Code, to wit 5Charges collective on forest products cut, gathered and removed from unregistered private lands. S The char3es above prescribed shall be collected on all forest products cut, 3athered and re&oved fro& an" private land the title to which is not re3istered with the Director of orestr" as re@uired b" the orest FawL Provided, however, That in the absence of such re3istration, the owner who desires to cut, 3ather and re&ove ti&ber and other forest products fro& such land shall secure a license fro& the Director of orestr" Faw and Re3ulations. The cuttin3, 3atherin3 and re&ovin3 of ti&ber and the other forest products fro& said private lands without license shall be considered as unlawful cuttin3, 3atherin3 and re&ovin3 of forest products fro& public forests and shall be subBect to the char3es prescribed in such cases in this chapter. /// /// /// 0n the other hand, while it is ad&itted that the plainti has failed to re3ister the ti&ber in his land as a private woodland in accordance with the oft=repeated provision of the Revised $d&inistrative Code, he still retained his ri3hts of ownership, a&on3 which are his ri3hts to the fruits of the land and to e/clude an" person fro& the enBo"&ent and disposal thereof ($rt. !29, +ew Civil Code) S the ver" ri3hts violated b" the defendant 4asilan Fu&ber Co&pan". :hile it is onl" the state which can 3rant a license or authorit" to cut, 3ather, collect or re&ove forest products it does not follow that all forest products belon3 to the state. n the Bust cited case, private ownership of forest products 3rown in private lands is retained under the principle in civil law that ownership of the land includes ever "thin3 found on its surface. 0wnership is not an essential ele&ent of the oense as deAned in 'ection * of P.D. +o. -. Thus, the failure of the infor&ation to alle3e the true owner of the forest products is not &aterialL it was su%cient that it alle3ed that the ta?in3 was without an" authorit" or license fro& the 3overn&ent. $nent the second issue raised, 'ection 8 of Presidential Decree -, provides
'ec. 8. 'rrest L Institution of Criminal 'ctions . S $ forest o%cer or e&plo"ee of the 4ureau shall arrest even without warrant an" person who has co&&itted or is co&&ittin3 in his presence an" of the oenses deAned in this Chapter. >e shall also seiead. The Depart&ent >ead &a" deputi
in their presence. 'uch interpretation beco&es co3ent when we consider that the whole of 'ection 8 deals precisel" with the authorit" of forest o%cers or e&plo"ees to &a?e arrests and institute cri&inal actions involvin3 oenses deAned in the Decree. (p. 2*, )ollo). Fi?ewise, the 'olicitor eneral was correct in insistin3 that P.D. - did not repeal 'ection 1*8 of the $d&inistrative Code 3ivin3 authorit" to the Ascal to conduct investi3ation into the &atter of an" cri&e or &isde&eanor and have the necessar" infor&ation or co&plaint prepared or &ade a3ainst persons char3ed with the co&&ission of the cri&e. 'ec. 1*8. 'uthority of 3scal to conduct investigation in criminal matter . S $ provincial Ascal shall have authorit", if he dee&s it wise, to conduct an investi3ation into the &atter of an" cri&e or &isde&eanor. To this end, he &a" su&&on reputed witnesses and re@uire the& to appear and testif" upon oath before hi&. . . . :ith the e/ception of the so=called 5private cri&es5 1 and in election oenses, 2 prosecutions in Courts of irst nstance &a" be co&&enced b" an infor&ation si3ned b" a Ascal after conductin3 a preli&inar" investi3ation. 'ection 8 of P.D. - did not divest the Ascals of this 3eneral authorit". +either did the said decree 3rant forest o%cers the ri3ht of preli&inar" investi3ations. n both cases under said 'ec. 8 na&el", 1) after a forest o%cer had &ade the arrest (for oenses co&&itted in his presence)L or 2) after conductin3 an investi3ation of reports or co&plaints of violations of the decree (for violations not co&&itted in his presence) S he is still re@uired to Ale the proper co&plaint with the appropriate o%cial desi3nated b" law to conduct preli&inar" investi3ations in court. 'aid section should not be interpreted to vest e/clusive authorit" upon forest o%cers to conduct investi3ations re3ardin3 oenses described in the decree rather, it should be construed as 3rantin3 forest o%cers and e&plo"ees special authorit" to arrest and investi3ate oenses described in P.D. -, to reinforce the e/ercise of such authorit" b" those upon who& it is vested b" 3eneral law. $CC0RD+FG, the petition is R$+TD. The @uestioned order of the trial court dis&issin3 the infor&ation is 'T $'D. Cri&inal Cases +o. 1-91 is reinstated. '0 0RDRD. 6arvasa, C.&., Cruz and Gri7o('8uino, &&., concur.
Foo&no&e*
1 Concubina3e, adulter", seduction, abduction, rape, acts of lasciviousness and defa&ation i&putin3 an" of the aforesaid oenses where the rule provides that these cri&es shall not be prosecuted e/cept upon a co&plaint Aled b" the oended part". 2 n People v. ntin3, .R. +o. 88919, Jul" 2-, 199, 18 'CR$ 88, :e hold that the Co&elec has the e/clusive power to conduct preli&inar" investi3ations in cases involvin3 election oenses and to prosecute such oenses. >owever, if the Co&elec fails to act on an" co&plaint within two (2) &onths fro& Alin3, the co&plainant &a" Ale the co&plaint with the o%ce of the iscal or with the Depart&ent of Justice for preli&inar" investi3ation and prosecution, if warranted.
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila T>RD D;'0+ G.R. No. L9==>=: A)'#" 15, 1:88 DALINDA A. LAGUA, MANUEL P. LAGUA, HONORATO ACHAN@AR (n+ RESTITUTO DONGA, petitioners, vs. HONORA6LE VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., #n !#* ()(#& (* P'e*#+#n$ Ju+$e o% &!e Cou'& o% F#'*& In*&(ne o% D((o C#&, 6'(n! I, CONSTANCIO MAGLANA (n+ &!e EASTCOAST DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES,respondents. "ilfred %. 'sis for petitioner. Carlos '. Carbonilla for respondents.
GUTIERRE@, JR., J.%
This petition for &anda&us ori3inated fro& a co&plaint for da&a3es which was instituted b" the petitioners a3ainst the private respondents for closin3 a lo33in3 road without authorit". n their co&plaint, the petitioners, alle3ed, a&on3 others n Para3raph -(a) a) 0n 1 Januar" 19*, $tt". rnesto +o&brado, le3al counsel for defendants, issued a &e&orandu& to the Chief 'ecurit" uard of Defendant astcoast directin3 the latter to prevent the passa3e of Plainti Fa3uas haulin3 truc?s loaded with lo3s for the Japanese vessel (there were no other truc?s haulin3 lo3s at that ti&e) on the national hi3hwa" loadin3 towards where the vessel was berthed. n co&pliance with this directive, the securit" force of Defendant astcoast closed the road to the use b" plaintis truc?s and other e@uip&ents and eectivel" prevented their passa3e thereof while the vehicles and truc?s of other people were curiousl" not disturbed and were allowed passess on the sa&e road. t resulted that the loadin3 of lo3s on the MQ' 5I"ofu?u Maru5 was discontinued. $ /ero/ed cop" of this +o&brado &e&orandu&, the ori3inal of which is however in the possession of defendants, is hereto attached as $nne/ 5C5 and &ade an inte3ral part hereof. n Para3raph -(b)
b) Epon representations &ade to ndalecio F. $spiras, $ctin3 'tation 0%cer=in= Char3e, 4D Fa&baBon orest 'tation, and in response to plainti Fa3uas co&plaint, a letter dated 2 Januar" 19* was addressed b" $spiras to the Resident Mana3er of Defendant astcoast with instructions to open and allow Plainti Fa3uas truc?s and &achineries to pass that road closed to the& (but not to others) b" Defendant astcoast. $ /ero/ed cop" of this letter is hereto attached as $nne/ 5D5 and &ade a part hereof. $ccordin3l", 'a3rado Constantino, Resident Mana3er of Defendant astcoast, issued an order to their Chief 'ecurit" uard for the latter to co&pl" with the $spiras letter. These events, however, too? the whole da" of 2 Januar" 19* so that notwithstandin3 the liftin3 of the road closure no haulin3 of lo3s could be &ade b" Plainti Fa3uas on that da". n Para3raph -(c) c) :hen Plaintis Fa3uas were alread" resu&in3 the haulin3 operations of their lo3s towards the Japanese ;essel on # Januar" 19*, a3ain that sa&e road, onl" the da" before ordered b" the 4D to be opened for use and passa3e b" plaintis, was closed to the& b" Defendant astcoasts securit" &en upon a radio &essa3e order of Defendant Ma3lana. ven the vessel MQ' 5I"ofu?u Maruwas5 ordered b" Defendant Ma3lana to untie her anchor contrar" to e/istin3 laws, rules and re3ulations of the 4ureau of Custo&s and the Philippine Coast3uard. $ /ero/ed cop" of the Ma3lana &essa3e, the ori3inal of which is in the possession of the defendants, is hereto attached as $nne/ 55 and &ade an inte3ral part hereof. $nd in para3raph -(d) d) iven no recourse in the face of the blatant and ille3al closure of the road in deAance of 4D orders to the contrar" b" the Defendant astcoast throu3h the order of Defendant Ma3lana, Plainti Fa3uas had to depart postpaste to Mati, Davao 0riental, fro& 4a3an3a where the ship&ent and the road closure were &ade, to see? the assistance of the PC thereat. Thus on - Januar" 19*, Provincial Co&&ander $lfonso Fu&ebao issued a directive to the PC Detach&ent Co&&ander at 4a3an3a to lift the ille3al chec?point &ade b" defendants. $ /ero/ed cop" of this directive is hereto attached as $nne/ 55 and &ade a part hereof. (Rollo, pp. -=-8) The private respondents Aled a &otion to dis&iss on two 3rounds, na&el" (1) lac? of Burisdiction, and (2) lac? of cause of action. The private respondents e/tended that as the acts co&plained of b" the petitioners arose out of the le3iti&ate e/ercise of respondent astcoast Develop&ent nterprises, nc., ri3hts as a ti&ber licensee, &ore particularl" in the use of its lo33in3 roads, therefore, the resolution of this @uestion is properl" and le3all" within the 4ureau of orest Develop&ent, citin3 as authorit" Presidential Decree (P.D.) +o. -. The private respondents also ar3ued that petitioner Da"linda Fa3uas has no capacit" to sue as her na&e was not re3istered as an 5a3ent5 or 5dealer5 of lo3s in the 4ureau of orestr". 0n $u3ust #, 19*, the trial court issued the @uestioned order dis&issin3 the petitioners co&plaint on the basis of the above&entioned 3rounds. t ruled The Court a3rees with the defendants that under the law, the 4ureau of orest Develop&ent has the e/clusive power to re3ulate the use of lo33in3 road and to deter&ine whether their use is in violation of laws. 'ince the da&a3es clai&ed to have been sustained b" the plaintis arose fro& the alle3ed ille3al closure of a lo33in3 road S in the lan3ua3e of the defendants on pa3e # of their &otion to dis&iss. The si&ple fact is there was an ille3al closure of the national hi3hwa" aectin3 the private ri3hts of the plaintis who sustained da&a3es and losses as a conse@uence thereof S the @uestion whether or not the road was ille3all" closed &ust Arst be deter&ined b" the 4ureau of orest Develop&ent. f the said 4ureau Ands that the road was le3all" closed, an action for da&a3es &a" be Aled in Court.
0therwise, no civil action would prosper, for there would be no tortious act. (Rollo, pp. -8=*9). /// /// /// $fter the lo33in3 road was closed for the Arst ti&e, &ore so after the second ti&e, b" the defendant astcoast Develop&ent nterprises, nc., the plaintis should have as?ed the 4ureau of orest Develop&ent to deter&ine the le3alit" or ille3alit" of the closure since the" wanted to Ale, as the" did Ale, an action for da&a3es based on the alle3ed ille3al closure. The fact that the letter of Januar" 2, 19*, directed defendant astcoast Develop&ent nterprises, nc. to open the road does not necessaril" &ean that the 4ureau of orest Develop&ent had found that the closure was ille3al. There &ust be a positive Andin3 that the closure was ille3al. ... (Rollo, p. *) /// /// /// $s an attorne"=in=fact, Da"linda $. Fa3ua is not entitled to, and cannot cannot clai&, da&a3es in her personal capacit". or she could not have sustained da&a3es as a result of the alle3ed ille3al closure of the road in her personal capacit" while actin3 in her representative capacit". 'o if she and her husband sustained da&a3es, it &ust have been because their le3al ri3hts were violated b" a tortious act co&&itted b" the defendants other than the alle3ed ille3al closure of the road. 4ut as stated elsewhere in this order, even the plaintis ad&it that the da&a3es the" clai&ed to have sustained arose fro& the alle3ed ille3al closure of the lo33in3 road. $ssu&in3, however, that another tortious act violated the le3al ri3hts of the Fa3uas, still the" could not Boint $chanence, this petition for &anda&us which we will treat as a petition for certiorari in the interest of Bustice. The petitioners &aintain that since their action is for da&a3es, the re3ular courts have Burisdiction over the sa&e. $ccordin3 to the&, the respondent court had no basis for holdin3 that the 4ureau of orestr" Develop&ent &ust Arst deter&ine that the closure of a lo33in3 road is ille3al before an action for da&a3es can be instituted. :e a3ree. P.D. +o. - upon which the respondent court based its order does not vest an" power in the 4ureau of orest Develop&ent to deter&ine whether or not the closure of a lo33in3 road is le3al or ille3al and to &a?e such deter&ination a pre=re@uisite before an action for da&a3es &a" be &aintained. Moreover, the co&plaint instituted b" the petitioners is clearl" for da&a3es based on the alle3ed ille3al closure of the lo33in3 road. :hether or not such closure was ille3al is a &atter to be established on the part of the petitioners and a &atter to be disproved b" the private respondents. This should appropriatel" be threshed out in a Budicial proceedin3. t is be"ond the power and authorit" of the 4ureau of orest Develop&ent to deter&ine the unlawful closure of a passa3e wa", &uch less award or den" the pa"&ent of da&a3es based on such closure. +ot ever" activit" inside a forest area is subBect to the Burisdiction of the 4ureau of orest Develop&ent. $s we have held in 'teneo de $anila 9niversity v. Court of appeals (1!- 'CR$ 1, 11) The issue in this court was whether or not the private respondents can recover da&a3es as a result of the of their son fro& the petitioner universit". This is a purel" le3al @uestion and nothin3 of an a ad&inistrative nature is to or can be done (onechanova, 9 'CR$ 2#L Tapales v. Eniversit" of the Philippines, 'CR$ -##L Fi&oico v. 4oard of $d&inistrators. (PJ$) 1## 'CR$ !#L Malabanan v. Ra&onte, 129 'CR$ #-9). The case was brou3ht pursuant to the law on da&a3es provided in the Civil Code. The Burisdiction to tr" the case belon3s to the civil courts.
The private respondents, in their &e&orandu& Aled with the respondent court, alle3ed that the lo3s of petitioner $chanowever, the co&plaint can still be &aintained. t cannot be dis&issed because the real parties in interest, $chanR0R, in view of the fore3oin3, the petition is hereb" R$+TD. The @uestioned order of the respondent court is 'T $'D and this case is ordered re&anded to the court of ori3in for trial on the &erits '0 0RDRD. Fernan, :Chairman;, Feliciano, +idin and Cortes, &&., concur.
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila R'T D;'0+ G.R. No. 1>5==8 Ju" 2<, 200: ERNESTO A?UINO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. DC'0+ CARPIO, J.% T!e C(*e 4efore the Court is a petition for review 1 assailin3 the - June 199 Decision 2 and 2! 'epte&ber 2! Resolution # of the Court of $ppeals in C$=.R. CR +o. 1-#!. T!e An&ee+en& F(&* 0n behalf of Teachers Ca&p, 'er3io u<&an Aled with the Depart&ent of nviron&ent and +atural Resources (D+R) an application to cut down 1! dead 4en3uet pine trees within the Teachers Ca&p in 4a3uio Cit". The trees, which had a total volu&e of 1#.# cubic &eters, were to be used for the repairs of Teachers Ca&p. 0n 19 Ma" 199#, before the issuance of the per&it, a tea& co&posed of &e&bers fro& the Co&&unit" nviron&ent and +atural Resources 0%ce (C+R0) and Michael Cuten3 (Cuten3), a forest ran3er of the orest 'ection of the 0%ce of the Cit" $rchitect and Par?s 'uperintendent of 4a3uio Cit", conducted an inspection of the trees to be cut. Thereafter, 'abado T. 4atca3an, /ecutive Director of the D+R, issued a per&it allowin3 the cuttin3 of 1! trees under the followin3 ter&s and conditions 2. That the cut ti&ber shall be utilionorable Court, the above=na&ed accused, conspirin3, confederatin3 and &utuall" aidin3 one another, and without an" authorit", license or per&it, did then and there willfull", unlawfull" and feloniousl" cut nine (9) pine trees with a total volu&e and &ar?et price as P182,!!.2 (;olu&e 1*.-- M # !2! bd. ft.QM # and unit price U P2*. bd. ft.) and with a total forest char3e of P11,8##.2- or havin3 a total su& of P19!,28.!- at Teachers Ca&p, 4a3uio Cit", without the le3al docu&ents as re@uired under e/istin3 forest laws and re3ulations, particularl" the Depart&ent of nviron&ent and +atural Resources Circular +o. -, 'eries of 1989, in violation of the aforecited law. *la*phil Masin3 alle3ed that he was not aware of the li&itations on the per&it as he was not 3iven a cop" of the per&it. Masin3 stated that he cut 1 pine trees under the supervision of petitioner who clai&ed to be in possession of the necessar" per&it. >e stated that three of the trees were
stu&ps about four or Ave feet hi3h and were not At for lu&ber. >e stated that while he was cuttin3 trees, petitioner and 'alinas were present. 'antia3o testiAed that he cut trees under petitioners supervision. >e stated that petitioner was in possession of the per&it. >e stated that he cut 1 trees, si/ of which were cut into lu&ber while two were stu&ps and two were rotten. 'alinas testiAed that Masin3 and 'antia3o were &erel" hired as saw"ers and the" &erel" followed petitioners instructions. Cuten3 testiAed that he was part of the tea& that inspected the trees to be cut before the per&it was issued. >e stated that the trees cut b" 'antia3o were covered b" the per&it. +acatab testiAed that he onl" went to Teachers Ca&p on 1# Jul" 199# and he saw 'antia3o and Masin3 cuttin3 down the trees in petitioners presence. Petitioner alle3ed that he was sent to supervise the cuttin3 of trees at Teachers Ca&p. >e alle3edl" infor&ed his superior, Paul $pilis, that he was not aware of the trees covered b" the per&it. >owever, he still supervised the cuttin3 of trees without procurin3 a cop" of the vicinit" &ap used in the inspection of the trees to be cut. >e clai&ed that he could not prevent the overcuttin3 of trees because he was Bust alone while Cuten3 and 'antia3o were acco&panied b" three other &en. T!e De#*#on o% &!e T'#(" Cou'& n its 2* Ma" 199! Decision, the Re3ional Trial Court of 4a3uio Cit", 4ranch - (trial court), ruled as follows :>R0R, the Court Ands and declares the accused R+'T0 $KE+0 " 'TPEF$R, MC>$F CET+ " F'C$0 and 4+DCT0 '$+T$0 " D0CF' 3uilt" be"ond reasonable doubt of the cri&e char3ed and hereb" sentences $C> of the& to suer an indeter&inate penalt" of 'H (*) G$R' of prision correccional, as &ini&u&, to T:+TG (2) G$R' of reclusion te&poral, as &a/i&u&L to inde&nif", Bointl" and severall", the overn&ent in the a&ounts of P182,!.2 and P11,8##.2-, representin3 the &ar?et value of and forest char3es on the 4en3uet pine trees cut without per&itL and to pa" their proportionate shares in the costs. The chainsaw conAscated fro& the accused 'antia3o is hereb" declared forfeited in favor of the overn&ent. 0n the other hand, the accused $+DR: +$C$T$4 " D0D0G and MI M$'+ " $+$' are ac@uitted on reasonable doubt, with costs de oAcio, and the cash bonds the" deposited for their provisional libert" in the a&ount of P,-. each under 0.R. +os. 1#9*- and 1#9*!*, dated ebruar" !, 199* and ebruar" 2#, 199!, respectivel", are ordered released to the& upon proper receipt therefor. '0 0RDRD.8 The trial court ruled that the trees cut e/ceeded the allowed nu&ber of the trees authoriR0R, the decision of the court a @uo is M0DD. The accused=appellants 4enedicto 'antia3o and Michael Cuten3 are hereb" ac@uitted on reasonable doubt. The appellant rnesto $@uino is found 3uilt", and is hereb" sentenced to suer the indeter&inate penalt" of si/ (*) "ears and one (1) da" of prision &a"or as &ini&u&, to fourteen (1!) "ears, ei3ht (8) &onths, and one (1) da" of reclusion te&poral, as &a/i&u&. The award of da&a3es is deleted. +o costs. '0 0RDRD.9 The Court of $ppeals ruled that as a forest 3uard or ran3er of the C+R0, D+R, petitioner had the dut" to supervise the cuttin3 of trees and to ensure that the saw"ers co&plied with the ter&s of the per&it which onl" he possessed. The Court of $ppeals ruled that while it was Teachers Ca&p which hired the saw"ers, petitioner had control over their acts. The Court of $ppeals reBected petitioners clai& that he was restrained fro& ta?in3 a bolder action b" his fear of 'antia3o because petitioner could have infor&ed his superiors but he did not do so. The Court of $ppeals further reBected petitioners contention that the law conte&plated cuttin3 of trees without per&it, while in this case there was a per&it for cuttin3 down the trees. The Court of $ppeals ruled that the trees which were cut b" the saw"ers were not covered b" the per&it. The Court of $ppeals ruled that conspirac" was not su%cientl" proven. $s such, the Court of $ppeals found that the prosecution failed to prove Cuten3s 3uilt be"ond reasonable doubt. The Court of $ppeals li?ewise ac@uitted 'antia3o because he was onl" followin3 orders as to which trees to cut and he did not have a cop" of the per&it. Petitioner Aled a &otion for reconsideration. n its 2! 'epte&ber 2! Resolution, the Court of $ppeals denied the &otion for lac? of &erit. >ence, the petition before this Court. T!e I**ue The onl" issue in this case is whether petitioner is 3uilt" be"ond reasonable doubt of violation of 'ection *8 of PD -. T!e Ru"#n$ o% &!#* Cou'&
The petition has &erit. The 'olicitor eneral alle3es that the petition should be denied because petitioner onl" raises @uestions of facts and not @uestions of law. :e do not a3ree. $ @uestion of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a @uestion of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsit" of the alle3ed facts.1 or @uestions to be one of law, the sa&e &ust not involve an e/a&ination of the probative value of the evidence presented b" the liti3ants. 11 The resolution of the issue &ust rest solel" on what the law provides on the 3iven set of circu&stances. 12 n this case, petitioner challen3es his conviction under 'ection *8 of PD -. 'ection *8 of PD - provides 'ection *8. Cuttin3, atherin3 andQor Collectin3 Ti&ber or 0ther orest Products :ithout Ficense.=$n" person who shall cut, 3ather, collect, re&ove ti&ber or other forest products fro& an" forest land, or ti&ber fro& alienable or disposable public land, or fro& private land, without an" authorit", or possess ti&ber or other forest products without the le3al docu&ents as re@uired under e/istin3 forest laws and re3ulations, shall be punished with the penalties i&posed under $rticles #9 and #1 of the Revised Penal Code Provided, that in the case of partnerships, associations, or corporations, the o%cers who ordered the cuttin3, 3atherin3, collection or possession shall be liable, and if such o%cers are aliens, the" shall, in addition to the penalt", be deported without further proceedin3s on the part of the Co&&ission on &&i3ration and Deportation. There are two distinct and separate oenses punished under 'ection *8 of PD -, to wit (1) Cuttin3, 3atherin3, collectin3 and re&ovin3 ti&ber or other forest products fro& an" forest land, or ti&ber fro& alienable or disposable public land, or fro& private land without an" authorit"L and (2) Possession of ti&ber or other forest products without the le3al docu&ents re@uired under e/istin3 forest laws and re3ulations. 1# The provision clearl" punishes an"one who shall u&, $(&!e', o""e& o' 'e-oe ti&ber or other forest products fro& an" forest land, or ti&ber fro& alienable or disposable public land, or fro& private land, without an" authorit". n this case, petitioner was char3ed b" C+R0 to supervise the i&ple&entation of the per&it. >e was not the one who cut, 3athered, collected or re&oved the pine trees within the conte&plation of 'ection *8 of PD -. >e was not in possession of the cut trees because the lu&ber was used b" Teachers Ca&p for repairs. Petitioner could not li?ewise be convicted of conspirac" to co&&it the oense because all his co= accused were ac@uitted of the char3es a3ainst the&. Petitioner &a" have been re&iss in his duties when he failed to restrain the saw"ers fro& cuttin3 trees &ore than what was covered b" the per&it. $s the Court of $ppeals ruled, petitioner could have infor&ed his superiors if he was reall" inti&idated b" 'antia3o. f at all, this could onl" &a?e petitioner ad&inistrativel" liable for his acts. t is not enou3h to convict hi& under 'ection *8 of PD -. +either could petitioner be liable under the last para3raph of 'ection *8 of PD - as he is not an o%cer of a partnership, association, or corporation who ordered the cuttin3, 3atherin3, or collection, or is in possession of the pine trees. HEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. :e SET ASIDE the - June 199 Decision and 2! 'epte&ber 2! Resolution of the Court of $ppeals in C$=.R. CR +o. 1-#!. Petitioner rnesto $@uino is AC?UITTED of the char3e of violation of 'ection *8 of Presidential Decree +o. -. Costs de o
2
)ollo, pp. 1*=#1. Penned b" $ssociate Justice ubulo . ;erilarion F. $@uino, concurrin3. # d. at ##=#-. Penned b" $ssociate Justice ubulo . ;er
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila + 4$+C
G.R. No. 10=:88 June 18, 1::>
MUSTANG LUM6ER, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., Se'e&(', De)('&-en& o% En#'on-en& (n+ N(&u'(" Re*ou'e* DENRB, (n+ ATT. VINCENT A. RO6LES, C!#e%, S)e#(" A&#on* (n+ Ine*&#$(&#on* D##*#on, DENR, respondents. G.R. No. 10>=2= June 18, 1::> PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, )e&#& ioner, vs. HON. TERESITA DI@ON9CAPULONG, #n !e' ()(#& (* &!e P'e*#+#n$ Ju+$e, Re$#on(" T'#(" Cou'&, N(&#on(" C()#&(" Ju+##(" Re$#on, 6'(n! 1<2, V("enue"(, Me&'o M(n#"(, (n+ RI CHU PO, respondents. G.R. No. 12;<8= June 18, 1::> MUSTANG LUM6ER, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ATT. VINCENT A. RO6LES, C!#e%, S)e#(" A&#on* (n+ Ine*&#$(&#on D##*#on, De)('&-en& o% En#'on-en& (n+ N(&u'(" Re*ou'e* DENRB, ATT. NESTOR V. GAPUSAN, TIRSO P. PARIAN, JR., (n+ FELIPE H. CALLORINA, JR., respondents.
DAVIDE, JR., J.% p
The Arst and third case, .R. +o. 1!988 and .R. +o. 12#8!, were ori3inall" assi3ned to the 'econd and Third Divisions of the Court, respectivel". The" were subse@uentl" consolidated with the second, a case of the Court en banc. Petitioner, a do&estic corporation with principal o%ce at +os. 1#-=1#-2 Juan Funa 'treet, Tondo, Manila, and with a Fu&ber"ard at ortune 'treet, ortune ;illa3e, Paseo de 4las, ;alen
0n ! $pril 199, the tea& returned to the pre&ises of the petitioners lu&ber"ard in ;alen 0n 11 $pril 199, Robles sub&itted his &e&orandu&=report reco&&endin3 to 'ecretar" actoran the followin3 1. 'uspension and subse@uent cancellation of the lu&ber Dealers Per&it of Mustan3 Fu&ber, nc. for operatin3 an unre3istered lu&ber"ard and resaw &ill and possession of $l&aci3a Fu&ber (a banned specie) without the re@uired docu&entsL 2. ConAscation of the lu&ber sei
0n 1 'epte&ber 199, in response to reports that violations of P.D. +o. - (The Revised orestr" Code of the Philippines), as a&ended, were co&&itted and actin3 upon instruction of Robles and under 'pecial 0rder +o. 89, series of 199, a tea& of D+R a3ents went to the business pre&ises of the petitioner located at +o. 1#-2 Juan Funa 'treet, Tondo, Manila. The tea& cau3ht the petitioner operatin3 as a lu&ber dealer althou3h its lu&ber=dealers per&it had alread" been suspended or 2# $pril 199. 'ince the 3ate of the petitioners lu&ber"ard was open, the tea& went inside and saw an owner=t"pe Beep with a trailer loaded with lu&ber. Epon investi3ation, the tea& was infor&ed that the lu&ber loaded on the trailer was to be delivered to the petitioners custo&er. t also ca&e upon the sales invoice coverin3 the transaction. The &e&bers of the tea& then introduced the&selves to the careta?er, one Ms. Chua, who turned out to be the wife of the petitioners president and 3eneral &ana3er, Mr. Ri Chu" Po, who was then out of town. The tea&s photo3rapher was able to ta?e photo3raphs of the stoc?piles of lu&ber includin3 newl" cut ones, fresh dust around sawin3 or cuttin3 &achineries and e@uip&ent, and the transport vehicles loaded with lu&ber. The tea& thereupon eected a constructive seiR0R, pre&ises considered, it is hereb" reco&&ended that an infor&ation be Aled a3ainst respondent Ri Chu" Po for ille3al possession of appro/i&atel" 2, bd. ft. of lu&ber consistin3 of al&aci3a and supa and for ille3al ship&ent of al&aci3a and lauan in violation of 'ec. *8 of PD - as a&ended b" .0. 2, series of 198. t is further reco&&ended that the #, bd. ft. of narra shorts, tri&&in3s and slabs covered b" le3al docu&ents be released to the ri3htful owner, Malupa. 12 This resolution was approved b" Endersecretar" of Justice 'ilvestre >. 4ello , who served as Chair&an of the Tas? orce on lle3al Fo33in3.5 1; 0n the basis of that resolution, an infor&ation was Aled on - June 1991 b" the D0J with 4ranch 12 of the RTC of ;alenonorable Court, the above=na&ed accused, did then and there wilfull", feloniousl" and unlawfull" have in his possession truc?loads of al&aci3a and lauan and appro/i&atel" 2, bd. ft. of lu&ber and shorts of various species includin3 al&aci3a and supa, without the le3al docu&ents as re@uired under e/istin3 forest laws and 1= re3ulations. 0n June 1991, 4ranch #- of the RTC of Manila rendered its decision the dispositive portion of which reads
15
:>R0R, Bud3&ent in this case is rendered as follows
in the R'T C;F C$',
1. The 0rder of Respondent 'ecretar" of the D+R, the >onorable ul3encio '. actoran, Jr., dated # Ma" 199 orderin3 the conAscation in favor of the overn&ent the appro/i&atel" #11, board feet of Fauan, supa, end al&aci3a Fu&ber, shorts and stic?s, found inside and seion. $driano 0sorio, /ecutive Jud3e, Re3ional Trial Court, +CR, ;alen $s to the sei . 0n Jul" 1991, accused Ri Chu" Po Aled in the CRM+$F C$' a Motion to Kuash andQor to 'uspend Proceedin3s based on the followin3 3rounds (a) the infor&ation does not char3e an oense, for possession of lumber , as opposed to timber , is not penali
-, as a&ended, and even 3rantin3 arguendo that lumber falls within the purview of the said section, the sa&e &a" not be used in evidence a3ainst hi& for the" were ta?en b" virtue of an ille3al sei dis&issin3 for lac? of &erit the petitioners appeal fro& the decision in the R'T C;F C$' and a%r&in3 the trial courts rulin3s on the issues raised. $s to the clai& that the truc? was not carr"in3 contraband articles since there is no law punishin3 the possession of lumber , and that lumber is not timber whose possession without the re@uired le3al docu&ents is unlawful under P.D. +o. -, as a&ended, the Court of $ppeals held This undue e&phasis on lumber or the co&&ercial nature of the forest product involved has alwa"s been foisted b" those who clai& to be en3a3ed in the le3iti&ate business of lu&ber dealership. 4ut what is i&portant to consider is that when appellant was re@uired to present the valid docu&ents showin3 its ac@uisition and lawful possession of the lu&ber in @uestion, it failed to present an" despite the period of e/tension 3ranted to it. 25 The petitioners &otion to reconsider the said decision was denied b" the Court of $ppeals in its resolution of # March 1992. 2> >ence, the petitioner ca&e to this Court b" wa" of a petition for review on certiorari in G.). 6o. ->?@@ , which was Aled on 2 Ma" 1992. 2< 0n 2! 'epte&ber 1992, 4ranch 2! of the RTC of Manila handed down a decision in the 'C0+D C;F C$' dis&issin3 the petition for certiorari and prohibition because (a) the petitioner did not e/haust ad&inistrative re&ediesL (b) when the seiouse Dictionar" of the n3lish Fan3ua3e, viz ., 5wood, esp. when suitable or adapted for various buildin3 purposes,5 the respondent Court held that since *ood is included in the deAnition of forest product in 'ection #(@) of P.D. +o. -, as a&ended, lumber is necessaril" included in 'ection *8 under the ter& forest product .
The Court of $ppeals further e&phasie shall also sei?=?
The petitioner had &oved to @uash the infor&ation in Cri&inal Case +o. #2!=;=91 on the 3round that it does not char3e an oense. Respondent Jud3e Di
Punished then in this section are (1) the cutting, gathering, collection, or removal of timber or other forest products fro& the places therein &entioned without an" authorit"L and (b) possession of ti&ber forest products without the le3al docu&ents as re@uired under e/istin3 forest laws and re3ulations. ndeed, the word lumber does not appear in 'ection *8. 4ut concedin3 eD gratia that this o&ission a&ounts to an e/clusion of lu&ber fro& the sections covera3e, do the facts averred in the infor&ation in the CRM+$F C$' validl" char3e a violation of the said sectionO $ cursor" readin3 of the infor&ation readil" leads us to an infallible conclusion that lumber is not solely its sub5ect matter . t is evident therefro& that what are alle3ed to be in the possession of the private respondent, without the re@uired le3al docu&ents, are truc?loads of (1) al&aci3a and lauanL and (2) appro/i&atel" 2, bd. ft. of lumber and shorts of various species includin3 al&aci3a and supa. The 5al&aci3a and lauan5 speciAcall" &entioned in no. (1) are not described as 5lu&ber.5 The" cannot refer to the 5lu&ber5 in no. (2) because the" are separated b" the words 5appro/i&atel" 2, bd. ft.5 with the conBunction 5and,5 and not with the preposition 5of.5 The" &ust then be raw forest products or, &ore speciAcall", timbers under 'ection #(@) of P.D. +o. -, as a&ended, which reads 'ec. #. %e3nitions. == /// /// /// (@) orest product &eans ti&ber, Arewood, bar?, tree top, resin, 3u&, wood, oil, hone", beeswa/, nipa, rattan, or other forest plant, the associated water, Ash 3a&e, scenic, historical, recreational and 3eolo3ical resources in forest lands. t follows then that lumber is onl" one of the ite&s covered b" the infor&ation. The public and the private respondents obviousl" &isco&prehended the aver&ents in the infor&ation. $ccordin3l", even if lumber is not included in 'ection *8, the other ite&s therein as noted above fall within the a&bit of the said section, and as to the&, the infor&ation validl" char3es an oense. 0ur respected brother, Mr. Justice Jose C. ;itu3, su33ests in his dissentin3 opinion that this Court 3o be"ond the four corners of the infor&ation for enli3hten&ent as to whether the infor&ation e/clusivel" refers to lumber . :ith the aid of the pleadin3s and the anne/es thereto, he arrives at the conclusion that 5onl" lu&ber has been envisioned in the indict&ent.5 The &aBorit" is unable to subscribe to his view. irst, his proposition violates the rule that onl" the facts alle3ed in the infor&ation vis(a(vis the law violated &ust be considered in deter&inin3 whether an infor&ation char3es an oense. 'econd, the pleadin3s and anne/es he resorted to are insu%cient to Bustif" his conclusion. 0n the contrar", the Joint $%davit of Melencio Jalova, Jr., and $ra&an 4ellen3, which is one of the anne/es he referred to, ;0 cannot lead one to infer that what the tea& sei
n the sa&e vein, the dispositive portion of the resolution ;1 of the investi3atin3 prosecutor, which served as the basis for the Alin3 of the infor&ation, does not li&it itself to lumber L thus :>R0R, pre&ises considered, it is hereb" reco&&ended that an infor&ation be Aled a3ainst respondent Ri Chu" Po for ille3al possession of 2, bd. ft. of lu&ber consistin3 of al&aci3a and supa and for illegal shipment of almaciga and lauan in violation of 'ec. *# of PD - as a&ended b" .0. 2, series of 198. (e&phasis supplied) The fore3oin3 dis@uisitions should not, in an" &anner, be construed as an a%r&ance of the respondent Jud3es conclusion that lumber is e/cluded fro& the covera3e of 'ection *8 of P.D. +o. -, as a&ended, and thus possession thereof without the re@uired le3al docu&ents is not a cri&e. 0n the contrar", this Court rules that such possession is penali?@@
:e And this petition to be without &erit. The petitioner has &iserabl" failed to show that the Court of $ppeals co&&itted an" reversible error in its assailed decision of 29 +ove&ber 1991. t was dul" established that on 1 $pril 199, the petitioners truc? with Plate +o. CCI=#22 was co&in3 out fro& the petitioners lu&ber"ard loaded with lauan and al&aci3a lu&ber of dierent si
search as an incident to a lawful arrest, (2) seience, it could be served at an" ti&e within the said period, and if its obBect or purpose cannot be acco&plished in one da", the sa&e &a" be continued the followin3 da" or da"s until co&pleted. Thus, when the search under a warrant on one da" was interrupted, it &a" be continued under the s a&e warrant the followin3 da", provided it is still within the ten=da" period. ;> $s to the Anal plea of the petitioner that the search was ille3al because possession of lu&ber without the re@uired le3al docu&ents is not ille3al under 'ection *8 of P.D. +o. -, as a&ended, since lumber is neither speciAed therein nor included in the ter& forest product , the sa&e hardl" &erits further discussion in view of our rulin3 in .R. +o. 1*!2!. G.). 6o. -=AB@?
The alle3ations and ar3u&ents set forth in the petition in this case palpall" fail to shaw prima facie that a reversible error has been co&&itted b" the Court of $ppeals in its challen3ed decision of #1 Jul" 199- and resolution of * ebruar" 199* in C$=.R. 'P +o. ##8. :e &ust, forthwith, den" it for utter want of &erit. There is no need to re@uire the respondents to co&&ent on the petition. The Court of $ppeals correctl" dis&issed the petitioners appeal fro& the Bud3&ent of the trial court in the 'C0+D C;F C$'. The petitioner never disputed the fact that its lu&ber=dealers license or per&it had been suspended b" 'ecretar" actoran on 2# $pril 199. The suspension was never lifted, and since the license had onl" a lifeti&e of up to 2- 'epte&ber 199, the petitioner has absolutel" no ri3ht to possess, sell, or otherwise dispose of lu&ber. $ccordin3l", 'ecretar" actoran or his authoriead or his dul" authoriR0R, Bud3&ent is hereb" rendered 1. (a) R$+T+ the petition in .R. +o. 1*!2!L (b) 'TT+ $'D and $++EFF+, for havin3 been rendered with 3rave abuse of discretion, the challen3ed orders of 1* $u3ust 1991 and 18 0ctober 1991 of respondent Jud3e
Teresita Di
Se)('(&e O)#n#on*
VITUG, J.& dissentin3
The prosecution see?s, in its petition for review on certiorari in .R. +o. 1*!2!, the annul&ent of the 1*th $u3ust 1991 0rder of respondent Jud3e 3rantin3 the &otion of private respondent Ri Chu" Po to @uash the infor&ation that has char3ed hi& with the ;iolation of 'ection *8 of Presidential Decree (5PD5) +o. - (otherwise ?nown as the orestr" Refor& Code, as a&ended b" /ecutive 0rder 65057 +o. 2 1) and the 18th 0ctober 1991 0rder den"in3 petitioners &otion for reconsideration. The infor&ation of ! June 1991, containin3 the alle3ed inculpator" facts a3ainst private respondent, reads The undersi3ned 'tate Prosecutor hereb" accuses R C>EG P0 of the cri&e of violation of 'ection *8, Presidential Decree +o. -, as a&ended b" /ecutive 0rder +o. 2, 'eries of 198, co&&itted as follows 5That on or about the #rd da" of $pril 199, or prior to or subse@uent thereto, within the pre&ises and vicinit" of Mustan3 Fu&ber, nc. in ortune Drive, ortune ;illa3e, ;alenonorable Court, the above=na&ed accused, did then and there wilfull", feloniousl" and unlawfull", have in his possession truc?loads of al&aci3a and lauan and appro/i&atel" 2, bd. ft. of lu&ber and shorts of various species includin3 al&aci3a and supa, without the le3al docu&ents as re@uired under e/istin3 forest laws and re3ulations. 5C0+TR$RG T0 F$:.5 2 Private respondent, on 1 Jul" 1991, &oved for the @uashal of the infor&ation on the 3round that the facts co&prisin3 the char3e did not a&ount to a cri&inal oense, or in the alternative, to
suspend the proceedin3s on the 3round of a preBudicial @uestion, private respondent havin3 for&all" challen3ed the le3alit" of the sei
trou3hs, bowls, cart wheels, table tops and other si&ilar articles ('ec. 2.2*, D+R $d&inistrative 0rder +o. -, 'eries of 198*, dated +ove&ber 11, 198*) == (2) that to e/clude 5lu&ber5 under 'ection *8 of PD - would be to defeat the purpose of the law, i.e., to stop or &ini&i
(d) The subse@uent #rd Ma" 199 0rder, li?ewise issued b" 'ecretar" actoran, authori
well as the &achiner", e@uip&ent, i&ple&ents and tools ille3all" used in the area where the ti&ber or forest products are found. a3ree with the court a 8uo that the covera3e of 'ection *8, PD -, as so a&ended, is e/plicit, and it is conAned to 5ti&ber and other forest products.5 'ection #(@) of the decree deAnes 5forest product5 to &ean == (@) . . . timber , pulpwood, Arewood, bar?, tree top, resin, 3u&, wood, oil, hone", beeswa/, nipa, rattan, or other forest gro*th such as 3rass, shrub, and Nowerin3 plant, the associated water, Ash, 3a&e, scenic, historical, recreational and 3eolo3ic resources in forest lands (e&phasis supplied)L and distin3uishes it, in correlation with 'ection #(aa) of the law, fro& that which has under3one processin3. n deAnin3 a 5processin3 plant,5 this section of the decree holds it to refer to == . . . an" &echanical set=up, &achine or co&bination of &achine used for the processin3 of lo3s and other forest raw &aterials into lumber veneer, pl"wood, wallboard, bloc?=board, paper board, pulp, paper or other Anished wood products (e&phasis supplied). n Ane, ti&ber is so classiAed, under 'ection #(@) of the law, as a forest product, while lu&ber has been cate3ori &andate. $ccordin3l", and with respect, vote to den" the petition in .R. +o. 1*!2!, to 3rant the petition in .R. +o. 1!988 and to re@uire co&&ent on the petition in .R. +o. 12#8!. &ust hasten to add, nevertheless, that do appreciate the well=&eant rationale of D+R Me&orandu& 0rder +o. #*, 'eries of 1988, for, indeed, the need for preservin3 whatever re&ains of the countr"s forest reserves can never now be full" e&phasi
well as of untold loss of lives and propert", could well be on end the e/pected order of the da". , therefore, Boin ail those who call for the passa3e of re&edial le3islation before the proble& trul" beco&es irreversible.
Se)('(&e O)#n#on* VITUG, J.& dissentin3
The prosecution see?s, in its petition for review on certiorari in .R. +o. 1*!2!, the annul&ent of the 1*th $u3ust 1991 0rder of respondent Jud3e 3rantin3 the &otion of private respondent Ri Chu" Po to @uash the infor&ation that has char3ed hi& with the ;iolation of 'ection *8 of Presidential Decree (5PD5) +o. - (otherwise ?nown as the orestr" Refor& Code, as a&ended b" /ecutive 0rder 65057 +o. 2 1) and the 18th 0ctober 1991 0rder den"in3 petitioners &otion for reconsideration. The infor&ation of ! June 1991, containin3 the alle3ed inculpator" facts a3ainst private respondent, reads The undersi3ned 'tate Prosecutor hereb" accuses R C>EG P0 of the cri&e of violation of 'ection *8, Presidential Decree +o. -, as a&ended b" /ecutive 0rder +o. 2, 'eries of 198, co&&itted as follows 5That on or about the #rd da" of $pril 199, or prior to or subse@uent thereto, within the pre&ises and vicinit" of Mustan3 Fu&ber, nc. in ortune Drive, ortune ;illa3e, ;alenonorable Court, the above=na&ed accused, did then and there wilfull", feloniousl" and unlawfull", have in his possession truc?loads of al&aci3a and lauan and appro/i&atel" 2, bd. ft. of lu&ber and shorts of various species includin3 al&aci3a and supa, without the le3al docu&ents as re@uired under e/istin3 forest laws and re3ulations. 5C0+TR$RG T0 F$:.5 2 Private respondent, on 1 Jul" 1991, &oved for the @uashal of the infor&ation on the 3round that the facts co&prisin3 the char3e did not a&ount to a cri&inal oense, or in the alternative, to suspend the proceedin3s on the 3round of a preBudicial @uestion, private respondent havin3 for&all" challen3ed the le3alit" of the sei
possession of pre&iu& hardwood lu&ber (narra and supa included) punishable b" &ere inferenceL and (!) that 4ureau of orest Develop&ent Circular +o. 1, 'eries of 198#, clariAed b" D+R Me&orandu& +o. 12, 'eries of 1988, re@uires a certiAcate of lu&ber ori3in (5CF05) onl" on lu&ber shipped outside the province, cit" or the 3reater Manila area to another province or cit" or, in lieu of a CF0, an invoice to acco&pan" a lu&ber ship&ent fro& le3iti&ate sources if the ori3in and destination points are both within the 3reater Manila area or within the sa&e province or cit", and not, li?e in the instant case, where the lu&ber is not re&oved fro& the lu&ber "ard. Petitioner counters (1) that the almaciga, supa and lauan lu&ber products found in the co£ of Mustan3 Fu&ber, nc., are included in 'ection *8, PD -, as a&ended b" 0 +o. 2, the possession of which without re@uisite le3al docu&ents is penali
appro/i&atel" 2, bd. ft. of lu&ber and shorts of various species includin3 al&aci3a and supa, . . .5 has failed to specif" whether the 5al&aci3a5 and 5lauan5 there &entioned refer to 5ti&ber5 or 5lu&ber5 or both. $ perusal of the pleadin3s and anne/es before the Court, however, would indicate that onl" lu&ber has been envisioned in the indict&ent. or instance == (a) The pertinent portions of the Boint a%davit of Melencio Jalova, Jr., and $ra&an 4ellen3, ;subscribed and sworn to before 'tate Prosecutor Claro $rellano, upon which basis the latter reco&&ended the Alin3 of the infor&ation, read, as follows 5That durin3 the wee?end, ($pril 1 and 2, 199) the securit" detail fro& our a3enc" continued to &onitor the activities inside the co£ and in fact apprehended and later on brou3ht to the D+R co£ a si/=wheeler truc? loaded *ith almaciga and lauan lumber after the truc? driver failed to produce an" docu&ents coverin3 the ship&entL /// /// /// 5That we are e/ecutin3 this a%davit in order to lod3e a cri&inal co&plaint a3ainst Mr. Ri Chu" Po, owner of Mustan3 Fu&ber for violation of 'ection *8, P.D. -, as a&ended b" /ecutive 0rder 2, havin3 in its possession prohibited *ood and *ood products *ithout the re8uired documents.5 = (&phasis supplied) (b) The resolution, dated 1! Ma" 1991, issued b" nvesti3atin3 Prosecutor $rellano, approved b" Endersecretar" of Justice 'ilvestre 4ello , conAr&ed that == 5 . . . 0n $pril 1 and 2 199, the securit" detail continued to &onitor the activities inside the co£ and in fact apprehended a si/= wheeler truc? co&in3 fro& the co£ of Mustan3 loaded *ith almaciga and lauan lumber *ithout the necessary legal documents covering the shipment .5 5 (c) The 2#rd $pril 199 0rder of then D+R 'ecretar" ul3encio actoran, suspendin3 the CertiAcate of Re3istration +o. +RD=!=92-9=!*9 of Mustan3 Fu&ber, nc., was issued because of, a&on3 other thin3s, the latters possession of almaciga lumber without the re@uired docu&ents. > (d) The subse@uent #rd Ma" 199 0rder, li?ewise issued b" 'ecretar" actoran, authori
:hile 3enerall" factual &atters outside of the infor&ation should not wei3h in resolvin3 a &otion to @uash followin3 the standin3 rule that the allegations of the information &ust alone be considered and should not be challen3ed, there should, however, be no serious obBections to ta?in3 into account additional and clariAcator" facts which, althou3h not &ade out in the infor&ation, are ad&itted, conceded, or not denied b" the parties. $s earl" as the case of People vs. 6avarro, 10 reiterated in People vs. %ela )osa, 11 the Court has had occasion to e/plain == . . . t would see& to be pure technicalit" to hold that in the consideration of the &otion the parties and the Bud3e were precluded fro& considerin3 facts which the Ascal ad&itted to be true, si&pl" because the" were not described in the co&plaint. 0f course, it &a" be added that upon si&ilar &otions the court and the Ascal are not re@uired to 3o be"ond the aver&ents of the infor&ation, nor is the latter to be invei3led into a pre&ature and ris?" revelation of his evidence. 4ut we see no reason to prohibit the Ascal fro& &a?in3, in all candor, ad&issions of undeniable facts, because the principle can never be su%cientl" reiterated that such o%cials role is to see that Bustice is done not that all accused are convicted, but that the 3uilt" are Bustl" punished. Fess reason can there be to prohibit the court fro& considerin3 those ad&issions, and decidin3 accordin3l", in the interest of a speed" ad&inistration of Bustice. $nd now on the &ain substantive issue. 'ection *8 of PD -, as a&ended b" 0 +o. 2, reads 'ec. *8. Cutting, Gathering and/or Collecting imber or !ther Forest Products "ithout #icense. == $n" person who shall cut, 3ather, collect, re&ove ti&ber or other forest products fro& an" forest land, or ti&ber fro& alienable or disposable public land, or fro& private land, without an" authorit", or possess ti&ber or other forest products without the le3al docu&ents as re@uired under e/istin3 forest laws and re3ulations, shall be punished with the penalties i&posed under $rticles #9 and #1 of the Revised Penal Code Provided, That in the case of partnerships, associations, or corporations, the o%cers who ordered the cuttin3, 3atherin3, collection or possession shall be liable, and if such o%cers are aliens, the" shall, in addition to the penalt", be deported without further proceedin3s on the part of the Co&&ission on &&i3ration and Deportation. The Court shall further order the conAscation in favor of the 3overn&ent of the ti&ber or an" forest products cut, 3athered, collected, re&oved, or possessed, as well as the &achiner", e@uip&ent, i&ple&ents and tools ille3all" used in the area where the ti&ber or forest products are found. a3ree with the court a 8uo that the covera3e of 'ection *8, PD -, as so a&ended, is e/plicit, and it is conAned to 5ti&ber and other forest products.5 'ection #(@) of the decree deAnes 5forest product5 to &ean == (@) . . . timber , pulpwood, Arewood, bar?, tree top, resin, 3u&, wood, oil, hone", beeswa/, nipa, rattan, or other forest gro*th such as 3rass, shrub, and Nowerin3 plant, the associated water, Ash, 3a&e, scenic, historical, recreational and 3eolo3ic resources in forest lands (e&phasis supplied)L and distin3uishes it, in correlation with 'ection #(aa) of the law, fro& that which has under3one processin3. n deAnin3 a 5processin3 plant,5 this section of the decree holds it to refer to == . . . an" &echanical set=up, &achine or co&bination of &achine used for the processin3 of lo3s and other forest raw &aterials into lumber veneer, pl"wood, wallboard, bloc?=board, paper board, pulp, paper or other Anished wood products (e&phasis supplied).
n Ane, ti&ber is so classiAed, under 'ection #(@) of the law, as a forest product, while lu&ber has been cate3ori &andate. $ccordin3l", and with respect, vote to den" the petition in .R. +o. 1*!2!, to 3rant the petition in .R. +o. 1!988 and to re@uire co&&ent on the petition in .R. +o. 12#8!. &ust hasten to add, nevertheless, that do appreciate the well=&eant rationale of D+R Me&orandu& 0rder +o. #*, 'eries of 1988, for, indeed, the need for preservin3 whatever re&ains of the countr"s forest reserves can never now be full" e&phasi
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila R'T D;'0+
G.R. No. 11550< M( 1:, 1::8 ALEJANDRO TAN, ISMAEL RAMILO (n+ FRED MORENO, petitioners, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (n+ THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
PANGANI6AN, J.%
n den"in3 this petition, the Court reiterates that th e 3atherin3, collection andQor possession, without license, of lu&ber, which is considered ti&ber or forest product, are prohibited and penali
n this petition for review on certiorari under Rule !- of the Rules of Court, petitioners see? to set aside the Decision 1 of the Court of $ppeals 2 in C$=R +o. CR=1281- pro&ul3ated on Jul" #, 199#, and its Resolution ;pro&u3ated on $pril 28, 199!. The assailed Decision a%r&ed the Bud3&ent = of the Re3ional Trial Court of Ro&blon, 4ranch 81, 5 which, in the co&plaint a3ainst petitioners for violation of 'ection *8, PD - (orestr" Refor& Code) as a&ended, disposed as follows :>R0R, this court Ands a) the accused $FJ$+DR0 T$+, 'M$F R$MF0 and RD M0R+0 EFTG be"ond reasonable doubt of the cri&e of ille3al possession of lu&ber under the nfor&ation, dated March 1*, 199, under 'ection *8, P.D. +o. -, as a&ended b" /ecutive 0rder +o. 2, and sentences each of the& to an indeter&inate sentence of 'H (*) M0+T>', as &ini&u&, to 0ER (!) G$R' and T:0 (2) M0+T>', as &a/i&u&, with the accessor" penalties of the law, and to pa" the costs, and b) the accused $FJ$+DR0 T$+, 'M$F R$MF0 and CR'P+ C$4ED0F EFTG be"ond reasonable doubt of the cri&e of ille3al possession of lu&ber under th e nfor&ation, dated March 1*, 199, under 'ection *8, P.D. +o. -, as a&ended b" /ecutive 0rder +o. 2, and sentences each of the& to an indeter&inate sentence of 'H (*) M0+T>', as &ini&u&, to 0ER (!) G$R' and T:0 (2) M0+T>', as &a/i&u&, with the accessor" penalties of the law, and to pa" the costs. The two (2) ter&s of i&prison&ent of each of the accused shall be served successivel" under $rticle , RPC.
The preventive i&prison&ent which an" of the accused &a" have suered is credited in his favor to its full e/tent. The Court further orders the conAscation of the lu&ber described in the aforesaid nfor&ations in favor of the 3overn&ent. '0 0RDRD. he Facts
0n 0ctober 2*, 1989, about *# p.&., in the town proper of CaBidiocan, 'ibu"an sland, Ro&blon, orest uards Joseph Panadero and duardo Rabino intercepted a du&p truc? loaded with narra and white lauan lu&ber. The truc? was driven b" Petitioner red Moreno, an e&plo"ee of $ V Construction. $3ain, about 8 p.&. on 0ctober #, 1989, this ti&e in 4aran3a" Ca&baBao, orest uards Panadero and Rabino apprehended another du&p truc? with Plate +o. DI=*!* loaded with tanguile lu&ber. 'aid truc? was driven b" Crispin Cabudol, also an e&plo"ee of $ V Construction. 4oth &otor vehicles, as well as the construction Ar&, were owned b" Petitioner $leBandro Tan. n both instances, no docu&ents showin3 le3al possession of the lu&ber were, upon de&and, presented to the forest 3uardsL thus, the pieces of lu&ber were conAscated. 0n March 1*, 199, Tan and Moreno, to3ether with s&ael Ra&ilo, careta?er and ti&e ?eeper of $ V Construction, were char3ed b" irst $ssistant Provincial Prosecutor eli/ R. Rocero with violation of 'ection *8, >PD +o. -, as a&ended b" 0 +o. 2, in an nfor&ation < which reads That on or about the 2*th da" of 0ctober, 1989, at around *# ocloc? in the Poblacion, &unicipalit" of CaBidiocan, province of Ro&blon, Philippines, and within the Burisdiction of this >onorable Court, the said accused, conspirin3, confederatin3 and &utuall" helpin3 one another, with intent of 3ain and without the le3al docu&ents as re@uired under e/istin3 forest laws and re3ulations, did then and there willfull", unlawfull" and feloniousl" have in their possession and under their custod" and control 1# pieces narra lu&ber about 11 board feet and !1 pieces tan3uile lu&ber about 8#! board feet valued at P8,2!., Philippine currenc", to the da&a3e and preBudice of the 3overn&ent in the aforestated a&ount. n another nfor&ation, 8 Tan and Ra&ilo, to3ether with Crispin Cabudol, were also char3ed for the sa&e violation in connection with the 0ctober #, 1989 in cident. 0n $pril 2*, 199, all the accused, assisted b" counsel, were arrai3ned on the basis of the afore&entioned nfor&ationsL each pleaded not 3uilt". : The cases were thence Bointl" tried, pursuant to 'ection 1!, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court. 10 Durin3 the trial, the defense did not contest the above factual circu&stances e/cept to den" that the forest 3uards de&anded, on either of the two occasions, papers or docu&ents showin3 le3al possession of the lu&ber. $dditionall", Prisco Marin, who clai&ed to h ave been the o%cer=in= char3e (0C) of the 4ureau of orest Develop&ent of 'ibu"an, testiAed that the seie added that he had inspected the lu&ber in @uestion in the co£ of $ V Construction or CaBidiocan Tradin3, where he was shown the au/iliar" invoice coverin3 the subBect. 12 )uling of the rial Court
The trial court brushed aside the version of the defense and ruled that the conAscated pieces of lu&ber which were ad&ittedl" owned b" $ccused Tan were not le3iti&ate deliveries but aborted nocturnal haulin3. t convicted all the accused as char3ed, for their failure to co&pl" with the
orestr" Refor& Code, which re@uires the followin3 le3al docu&ents (1) an au/iliar" invoice, (2) a certiAcate of ori3in, (#) a sales invoice, (!) scaleQtall" sheets and (-) a lu&ber dealer per&it. )uling of )espondent Court of 'ppeals
0n appeal, the accused assi3ned to the trial court these ten errors (1) holdin3 the& liable under 'ection *8 of 0 2L (2) rulin3 that their possession of the lu&ber were unauthori The seventh and ninth assi3ned errors were dee&ed answered in the fore3oin3 discussions. $s to the ei3hth, no other than the ad&ission of his careta?er or ati*ala, Co=$ccused Ra&ilo, proved that Tan was involved in the conspirac". Ra&ilo testiAed that the deliveries of lu&ber on the subBect dates (0ctober 2* and #, 1989) were &ade pursuant to the instruction of TanL and that the latter owned said lu&ber, the truc?s and the construction Ar&. The two accused tru c? drivers who were cau3ht in agrante delicto were &ere e&plo"ees of Tan. 1< The last assi3ned error was set aside b" Respondent Court as unnecessar". $bsolutel" of no concern to the petitioners, who were cau3ht in possession of lu&ber without the re@uired le3al docu&ents, was the alle3ed unconstitutionalit" of the inclusion of 5Arewood, bar?, hone", beeswa/, and even 3rass, shrub, the associated water or Ash5 in 0 2. There bein3 other 3rounds to resolve the case, the constitutionalit" of said phrase was n ot passed upon. 18 n their &otion for reconsideration, petitioners raised these additional 3rounds (1) the orestr" Refor& Code and the laws and re3ulations of the Depart&ent of nviron&ent and +atural Resources (D+R) distin3uish between ti&ber and lu&ber and between lu&ber and other forest productsL (2) the nfor&ations alle3ed and the facts proved that lu&ber is not covered b" the provision supposedl" violatedL (#) Budicial interpretation or construction &a" not be resorted to in
order to All a 3ap or clear an a&bi3uit" in penal statutes and, assu&in3 the propriet" thereof, construction should be in favor of the accusedL (!) lac? of docu&ents for possession of lu&ber is not punishable under the lawL and (-) the perceived wea?ness in the testi&on" of Defense :itness Prisco Marin should not stren3then the case for the prosecution. n its $pril 28, 199! Resolution, Respondent Court found 5no co3ent reason for the reversal or &odiAcation5 of its Decision. >ence, this petition. 1: he Issues
Petitioners now as? this Court to li?ewise pass upon their fore3oin3 sub&issions. Man" of the errors raised, however, involve factual @uestions, the review of which is not within the a&bit of this Courts functions, particularl" in this case where the Andin3s of the trial court were a%r&ed b" the appellate court and where petitioners failed to show an" &isappreciation of the evidence presented. 20 :e shall therefore li&it our review onl" to @uestions of law. $ccordin3l", we shall rule on the followin3 le3al issues (1) the constitutionalit" of 'ection *8 of 0 2, (2) the treat&ent b" the lower court of lu&ber as ti&ber andQor forest product within the conte&plation of PD -, as a&ended, and (#) the alle3ed retroactive application of 0 2. he Courts )uling
The petition is not &eritorious. Preli&inar" ssue Constitutionality of 4ec. @, 0.!. =BB
The i&pu3ned le3al provision reads 'ec. *8. Cuttin3, atherin3 andQor Collectin3 Ti&ber, or other orest Products :ithout Ficense. S $n" person who shall cut, 3ather, collect, re&ove ti&ber or other forest products fro& an" forest land, or ti&ber fro& alienable or disposable public land, or fro& private land without an" authorit", or possess ti&ber or other forest products without the le3al docu&ents as re@uired under e/istin3 forest laws and re3ulations, shall be punished with the penalties i&posed under $rticles #9 and #1 of the Revised Penal Code Provided, That in the case of partnerships, associations or corporations, the o%cers who ordered the cuttin3, 3atherin3, collection or possession shall be liable and if such o%cers are aliens, the" shall, in addition to the penalt", be deported without further proceedin3 on the part of th e Co&&ission on &&i3ration and Deportation. The Court shall further order the conAscation in favor of the 3overn&ent of the ti&ber or an" forest products cut, 3athered, collected, re&oved, or possessed, as well as the &achiner", e@uip&ent, i&ple&ents and tools ille3all" used in the area where the ti&ber or forest products are found. Petitioners aver that the above provision is violative of substantive due process, because it re@uires the possession of certain le3al docu&ents to Bustif" 5&ere possession5 of forest products which, under 'ection #(@) of PD -, includes, a&on3 others, 5 Arewood, bar?, hone", beeswa/, and even 3rass, shrub, Nowerin3 plant, the associated water or Ash5 and penali
convincin3 evidence of a clear and une@uivocal breach of the Constitution that would Bustif" the nulliAcation of said provision. 22 $ statute is alwa"s presu&ed to be constitutional, and one who attac?s it on the 3round of unconstitutionalit" &ust convincin3l" prove its invalidit". 2; $ain IssueH 9nder P% B> and 0! =BB, Is #umber Considered imber or Forest Product
Petitioners contend that possession of &anufactured lu&ber is not punishable under the orestr" Refor& Code, as a&ended. $s e/plicitl" provided in 'ection *8 of both PD - and 0 2 (the law that a&ended the for&er), onl" the cuttin3, 3atherin3, collectin3 andQor possession, without license, of ti&ber and other forest products are prohibited. $s e/pressl" deAned under 'ection #(@) of PD -, lu&ber is not ti&ber or a forest product. t is onl" in 'ection 9 of the sa&e law where the sale of lu&ber, without co&pliance with established 3radin3 rules and standards, is prohibited. Petitioners sub&it that the forest laws and re3ulations su%cientl" dierentiate between ti&ber and lu&berL therefore, court should not construe lu&ber as ti&ber. The @uestion of whether lu&ber is e/cluded fro& the covera3e of 'ection *8 of PD -, as a&ended, has been settled in $ustang #umber, Inc. vs. Court of 'ppeals , 2= in which this Court e/pressl" ruled that 5lu&ber is included in the ter& ti&ber.5 25 :e @uote at len3th the Courts discussion The Revised orestr" Code contains no deAnition of either ti&ber of lu&ber. :hile the for&er is included in forest products as deAned in para3raph (@) of 'ection #, the latter is found in para3raph (aa) of the sa&e section in th e deAnition of 5Processin3 plant,5 which reads (aa) Processin3 plant is an" &echanical set=up, &achine or co&bination of &achine used for the processin3 of lo3s and other forest raw &aterials into lu&ber, veneer, pl"wood, wallboard, blac?board, paper board, pulp, paper or other Anished wood products. This si&pl" &eans that lu&ber is a processed lo3 or processed forest raw &aterial. Clearl", the Code uses the ter& lu&ber in its ordinar" or co&&on usa3e. n the 199# cop"ri3ht edition of :ebsters Third +ew nternational Dictionar", lu&ber is deAned, inter alia, as 5ti&ber or lo3s after bein3 prepared for the &ar?et.5 'i&pl" put, lu&ber is a processed lo3 or ti&ber. t is settled that in the absence of le3islative intent to the contrar", words and phrases used in a statute should be 3iven their plain, ordinar", and co&&on u sa3e &eanin3. $nd insofar as possession of ti&ber without the re@uired le3al docu&ents is concerned, 'ection *8 of P.D. +o. -, as a&ended, &a?es no distinction between raw or processed ti&ber. +either do we. 9bi leD non distinguit nec nos distinguire debemus. 2> $ustang was recentl" reiterated in #alican vs . 1ergara, 2< where we also said that 56t7o e/clude possession of lu&ber fro& the acts penali
n addition, under $&erican Burisprudence, lu&ber has been le3all" accepted as a ter& referrin3 to the &anufactured product of lo3s 28 or to ti&ber sawed or split into &ar?etable for&, especiall" for use in buildin3s. 2: Consistent with $ustang, we And no error in the holdin3 of both lower courts. Clearl", petitioners are liable for violation of 'ection *8 of the orestr" Refor& Code, as a&ended. Corollary Issue
