Merida v. People Of The Philippines
Merida v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 158182, June 12, 2008
- Procedural (Remedial Law)
- Criminal Law
- cutting timber
- PD 705
- Section 68
- Section 80
- jurisdiction
- DENR officer
- preliminary investigation
- extrajudicial admissions
- pacto de retro
- arresto mayor
- prision correcional
- minimum penalty
I. Facts of the Case
Petitioner Sesinando Merida was charged for cutting, gathering, collecting and removing a lone narra tree inside private land (the Mayod Property) without a DENR permit. During confrontation and preliminary investigation, he repeatedly claimed he cut the tree with the permission of Vicar Calix, but he later failed to show the required DENR authorization and the DENR seized the lumber.
1998
On 23 December 1998, private complainant Oscar M. Tansiongco discovered that petitioner had cut a narra tree in the Mayod Property and reported the matter to the barangay punong barangay, Florencio Royo.
24 December 1998
On 24 December 1998, Royo summoned petitioner for a meeting with Tansiongco. Petitioner admitted cutting the tree, claiming it was with the permission of Vicar Calix and presenting Calix's written authorization signed by Calix's wife.
11 January 1999
On 11 January 1999, Tansiongco reported the matter to DENR forester Thelmo S. Hernandez. After confrontation, petitioner reiterated Calix's permission and Hernandez ordered him not to convert the felled trunk into lumber.
26 January 1999
On 26 January 1999, Tansiongco informed Hernandez that petitioner had converted the narra trunk into lumber. Hernandez and other enforcement officers went to the property, saw the tree had been cut into six smaller pieces, took custody of the lumber, deposited it for safekeeping with Royo, and issued an apprehension receipt to petitioner.
DENR conducted an investigation; the results were not shown in the record on the chunk provided.
Tansiongco filed a complaint with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Romblon charging petitioner with violation of Section 68 of PD 705, as amended, and during preliminary investigation petitioner submitted a counter-affidavit reiterating that he cut the tree with Calix's permission.
The Provincial Prosecutor found probable cause and filed the Information in the Regional Trial Court of Romblon (Criminal Case No. 2207).
During trial, the prosecution presented six witnesses, including Tansiongco, Royo, and Hernandez. Petitioner testified as the lone defense witness and for the first time claimed he had no part in the tree-cutting.
24 November 2000
The RTC rendered a Decision finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 68 of PD 705, as amended, dismissing his denial due to his repeated extrajudicial admissions that he cut the tree with Calix's permission and finding that he lacked a DENR permit.
28 June 2002
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but ordered that the seized lumber be confiscated in favor of the government.
14 May 2003
The Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration for being filed late.
June 12, 2008
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review (Rule 45), sustaining jurisdiction and affirming liability under Section 68 of PD 705 while modifying the penalty to the minimum range due to insufficient proof for the higher penalty value.
II. Issues
Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. 2207 even though it was based on a complaint filed by Tansiongco and not by a DENR forest officer.
Whether petitioner is liable for violation of Section 68 of PD 705, as amended, for cutting timber in private property without a permit.
III. Ruling
Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. 2207 even though it was based on a complaint filed by Tansiongco and not by a DENR forest officer.
The trial court acquired jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. 2207 even if the complaint was filed by an interested private complainant rather than by a DENR forest officer.
How the Court reasoned
- The Court recognized that the challenge was directed at the trial court’s jurisdiction based on the alleged defect in who filed the complaint.
- The Court relied on Section 80 of PD 705 to address whether the law prohibits an interested person from filing the complaint.
- Section 80 does not bar an interested private person from filing a complaint before any qualified officer for violations related to timber and forest rules.
- Thus, the filing by Tansiongco did not vitiate the prosecution or deprive the trial court of jurisdiction once the Information was filed and the case proceeded to trial.
“We sustain the OSG's claim that the trial court acquired jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. 2207.”
Rule applied
Presidential Decree No. 705, Section 80
Whether petitioner is liable for violation of Section 68 of PD 705, as amended, for cutting timber in private property without a permit.
Petitioner is liable for violating Section 68 of PD 705, as amended, because he repeatedly admitted cutting the narra tree in private property without showing the required DENR permit, and his later denial was unsupported.
How the Court reasoned
- The prosecution established that a narra tree inside the Mayod Property was cut and the felled tree was converted into lumber.
- Petitioner admitted during confrontations before barangay and DENR officials that he cut the tree, claiming Calix’s permission as justification.
- The trial court found these extrajudicial admissions credible and treated petitioner’s later testimony claiming he had no part as a self-serving denial inconsistent with his earlier statements.
- No DENR permit was shown to authorize the cutting, and DENR enforcement personnel ordered petitioner not to convert the trunk into lumber before seizure occurred.
- Given petitioner’s unlawful cutting without the necessary permit and his admissions, the elements of Section 68 were satisfied as found by the lower courts.
“We answer in the affirmative and thus affirm the lower courts' rulings.”
Rule applied
Presidential Decree No. 705, Section 68 (as amended by Executive Order No. 277)
Doctrines
Section 80 of PD 705 does not prohibit an interested person from filing a complaint before any qualified officer.
A conviction for timber-cutting under PD 705 may stand where the accused’s extrajudicial admissions prove the prohibited act, especially when later in-court denial is inconsistent and uncorroborated, and when the accused fails to show the required DENR permit.
When proof of the value needed for the higher penalties is insufficient, courts should apply the minimum penalty range.
Final Disposition
WHEREFORE , we AFFIRM the Decision dated 28 June 2002 and the Resolution dated 14 May 2003 of the Court of Appeals with the modification that petitioner Sesinando Merida is sentenced to four (4) months and one (1) day of _arresto mayor_ , as minimum, to three (3) years, four (4) months and twenty-one (21) days of _prision correcional_ , as maximum.
SO ORDERED.
Notes
The CA also directed that the seized lumber be confiscated in favor of the government, and the SC modified only the penalty range based on the sufficiency of evidence on the value relevant to the penalty.