Talabis v. People Of The Philippines
Edwin Talabis v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 214647, March 4, 2020
- Procedural (Remedial Law)
- Criminal Law
- Revised Forestry Code
- PD 705 Section 68
- illegal cutting of pine trees
- qualified theft
- complaint by private individuals
- jurisdiction
- estoppel by laches
- mitigating circumstances
- old age
- voluntary surrender
- Indeterminate Sentence Law
- Article 310 Revised Penal Code
I. Facts of the Case
Petitioner Edwin Talabis and his co-accused Arsebino Talabis were charged with violating Section 68 of PD 705 (Revised Forestry Code) for cutting pine trees without a permit in Buguias, Benguet. The complaint was filed by private individuals Leonora Edoc and Rhoda Bay-An, not by a DENR forest officer. The Supreme Court had to decide whether the complaint was valid, whether petitioner was entitled to mitigating circumstances, and what the correct penalty was.
December 4, 2005
Eric Lanta-an and Raymundo Abuyog, who were gardening on Leonora Edoc's land in Buguias, Benguet, heard a power chainsaw and saw four men cutting pine trees. One man, later identified as Arsebino, held a bolo and chopped small branches of the felled trees. Arsebino told Eric they were cutting the trees because they needed to do some work on the land.
December 4, 2005
At noontime Leonora and her husband Galbones noticed that the pine trees at the edge of the garden were missing. Leonora saw Arsebino and petitioner with two others cutting trees. Petitioner directed the chainsaw operator while Arsebino pointed at the trees to be cut.
December 4, 2005
Leonora reported to Cesar Kitayan, a Forester and Reforestation Unit Head of CENRO-DENR, and both went to the cutting site. They saw felled pine trees and four men, including petitioner and Arsebino. The two only smiled when asked if they had a permit. Arsebino claimed ownership of the land, while Leonora insisted it belonged to her daughter Rhoda, and a heated argument followed.
Kitayan counted 18 felled Benguet pine trees, took photographs and submitted a report to his superior. Forest Rangers inventoried and scaled the trees and found a total volume of 3.1464 cu.m., with forest charges of P22,496.76. At Leonora's request CENRO-DENR certified that no permit or authority to cut had been issued to Arsebino and/or petitioner.
Leonora and Rhoda filed a Joint Affidavit-Complaint before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of La Trinidad, Benguet. After preliminary investigation, petitioner and Arsebino were charged with violating Section 68 of PD 705 for cutting, collecting and gathering pine trees without any permit. Both pleaded not guilty at arraignment and trial ensued.
September 9, 2009
The RTC, Branch 64, Abatan, Buguias, Benguet, found petitioner and Arsebino guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 68 of PD 705. It sentenced each to 14 years, 4 months and 1 day to 15 years of reclusion temporal medium. It believed the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses over the accused's denials. It found all elements proven, including lack of a permit, through the testimony of the CENRO records officer.
December 1, 2009
The RTC denied the motion for reconsideration. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing in his Brief that the complaint should have been filed by a DENR official and not by private individuals Leonora and Rhoda.
September 30, 2010
Arsebino died while the appeal was pending.
February 8, 2011
Citing People v. Bayotas, the CA dismissed the appeal as to Arsebino. His death extinguished his criminal liability and the civil liability based solely on the offense.
January 16, 2014
The CA affirmed the RTC with modification. It held that no qualifying circumstance under Article 310 of the RPC was alleged in the Information, so the penalty could not be increased by two degrees and Article 309 governed. It sentenced petitioner to six years of prision correccional minimum to ten years of prision mayor maximum. It ordered the felled pine trees confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, claiming for the first time the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and old age.
September 2, 2014
The CA denied the motion for reconsideration because the mitigating circumstances had never been raised during trial. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court. He maintained that the complaint was invalid because it was not filed by a forest officer, and he invoked the mitigating circumstances.
II. Issues
Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. 464-CR-06 even though it was based on a complaint filed by private individuals Leonora and Rhoda and not by a DENR forest officer.
Whether petitioner is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, which was raised for the first time in his motion for reconsideration before the CA.
Whether petitioner is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of old age.
Whether the CA correctly determined the imposable penalty on petitioner for violation of Section 68 of PD 705.
III. Ruling
Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. 464-CR-06 even though it was based on a complaint filed by private individuals Leonora and Rhoda and not by a DENR forest officer.
The complaint filed by private individuals with the Provincial Prosecutor was valid, so the RTC acquired jurisdiction. Section 80 of PD 705 does not make forest officers the only persons who may file such complaints.
How the Court reasoned
- Lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage. Estoppel by laches under Tijam v. Sibonghanoy is only an exception, and it did not apply because petitioner raised the issue in his CA Brief before any considerable time had passed.
- Section 80 of PD 705 covers only offenses committed in the presence of forest officers, or reports and complaints brought to them by other forest officers or deputized officials. Here a private individual made the report, so the provision did not govern.
- A complaint for preliminary investigation may be filed by any competent person. Rule 110 limits who may file only for private crimes such as defamation and crimes against chastity, and violation of the Forestry Code is not one of them.
- Section 80 does not give forest officers exclusive authority to file complaints. It recognizes and reinforces their special authority to arrest, seize and file complaints.
- Mead v. Argel (Anti-Pollution Law) and Yao Lit v. Geraldez (Alien Registration Act) are distinguishable. Those involved specialized technical matters, while no special technical expertise is needed to know that trees were cut without a permit.
- The complaint of Leonora and Rhoda before the Provincial Prosecutor was therefore valid, and the RTC validly acquired jurisdiction.
“Proceeding from the forgoing discussion, the complaint thus filed by Leonora and Rhoda with the Provincial Prosecutor was valid.”
Rule applied
Section 80 (Section 89) of PD 705, as amended by PD 1775; Rule 110, Sections 3 and 5 of the Rules of Court; Tijam v. Sibonghanoy (estoppel by laches)
Whether petitioner is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, which was raised for the first time in his motion for reconsideration before the CA.
Voluntary surrender cannot be considered because petitioner raised it for the first time in his motion for reconsideration before the CA.
How the Court reasoned
- Issues and defenses not raised during trial cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
- Petitioner raised voluntary surrender only in his motion for reconsideration before the CA.
- Considering it that late would deny the prosecution due process, since it had no chance to contest the claim.
- The CA was therefore correct in refusing to take cognizance of the issue.
“The CA was correct in refusing to take cognizance of the belatedly raised issue of whether or not petitioner is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.”
Rule applied
Rule that issues not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; due process
Whether petitioner is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of old age.
Petitioner is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of old age, even though he raised it late.
How the Court reasoned
- Petitioner is 83 years old.
- Although old age was not raised below, the Court appreciated it on equitable and humanitarian grounds.
- With one mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance, Article 64(2) fixes the penalty in its minimum period.
Rule applied
Article 64(2), Revised Penal Code; equitable and humanitarian considerations
Whether the CA correctly determined the imposable penalty on petitioner for violation of Section 68 of PD 705.
The CA erred in applying Article 309 alone. Violation of Section 68 of PD 705 is punished as qualified theft, so the penalty is two degrees higher than that in Article 309.
How the Court reasoned
- Section 68 of PD 705 punishes cutting, gathering or possessing timber without a permit with the penalties of Articles 309 and 310 of the RPC, which govern qualified theft.
- Under Article 310, the penalty for qualified theft is two degrees higher than that provided in Article 309.
- The CA reasoned that no qualifying circumstance was alleged in the Information, and applied Article 309 alone. This was an error, because the offense is by law punished as qualified theft.
- The Court applied the two-degree increase and then Article 64(2), since old age was mitigating and there was no aggravating circumstance.
- Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court fixed the penalty at 1 year, 8 months and 20 days of prision correccional minimum to 5 years, 5 months and 10 days of prision correccional maximum.
“Violation of Section 68 of PD 705, as amended, is punished as qualified theft.”
Rule applied
Section 68 of PD 705; Articles 309, 310 and 64(2) of the Revised Penal Code; Indeterminate Sentence Law
Doctrines
A complaint for violation of the Revised Forestry Code may be filed with the Provincial Prosecutor by any competent person, including private individuals. Section 80 of PD 705 does not give forest officers exclusive authority to investigate and file complaints. It only recognizes and reinforces their special authority to arrest, seize and file complaints.
Estoppel by laches against raising lack of jurisdiction, as in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, is an exception that applies only when a considerable time has passed before the issue is raised.
Issues not raised in the trial court, such as the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, cannot be raised for the first time on appeal or in a motion for reconsideration, because doing so denies the prosecution due process.
Old age may be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance on equitable and humanitarian grounds even if not raised below.
Violation of Section 68 of PD 705 is punished as qualified theft, so the penalty is two degrees higher than that in Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code, as provided in Article 310.
The death of an accused pending appeal extinguishes criminal liability and civil liability based solely on the offense (People v. Bayotas).
Final Disposition
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The January 16, 2014 Decision and September 2, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 33097 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner Edwin Talabis is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 1 year, 8 months and 20 days of prision correccional minimum to 5 years, 5 months and 10 days of prision correccional maximum, and the confiscation and forfeiture of the felled pine trees in favor of the Government is maintained.
Notes
The appeal was dismissed as to co-accused Arsebino Talabis because of his death on September 30, 2010. The Court's modification of the penalty rests on the reasoning that violation of Section 68 of PD 705 is punished as qualified theft.