View full case

PEOPLE v. ALFONSO DATOR

FACTS:

The defendant, Telen, was in possession of pieces of lumber which were confiscated by Commander Rojas and SPO1 Bacala for lack of legal documents. Telen claimed that he had obtained permission from Boy Leonor, the Officer in Charge of CENRO in Maasin, Southern Leyte, to cut aging Dita trees from his mother's private land. Telen stated that Leonor assured him that a written permit was not necessary and that he could use the lumber exclusively for the renovation of his house, as long as he planted replacement trees. Telen denied any knowledge that the lumber he possessed was prohibited or that he needed additional permits.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 68, P.D. 705, as amended.

  2. Whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua is justified for the violation of Section 68, P.D. 705, as amended.

  3. Whether the value of the confiscated lumber is established during the trial.

  4. Whether the verbal permission given by an officer-in-charge of the DENR-CENRO is sufficient to exempt the appellant from criminal liability.

  5. Whether the appellant can rely on DENR Administrative Order No. 79, Series of 1990 to escape criminal liability.

  6. What is the value of the stolen property when there is no conclusive proof presented?

  7. What is the applicable penalty for theft when the value of the stolen property is not proven?

RULING:

  1. The appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 68, P.D. 705, as amended. The fact that the appellant possessed the fifty-one pieces of lumber without the required legal documents from the DENR constitutes criminal liability for violation of the Revised Forestry Code.

  2. The penalty of reclusion perpetua is justified for the violation of Section 68, P.D. 705, as amended. The trial court correctly imposed the penalty based on the provisions of the Revised Penal Code and the Revised Forestry Code.

  3. The value of the confiscated lumber is not established during the trial. Although there is no evidence of the value, the court ordered the confiscation of the lumber and directed the CENRO to sell it at public auction.

  4. The Supreme Court held that the mere allegation of verbal permission is not enough to overturn the fact that the appellant had no legal documents to support valid possession of the confiscated lumber. The appellant failed to provide corroborative evidence or avail of the testimony of the officer-in-charge, and thus, the trial court did not err in disregarding the appellant's self-serving testimony.

  5. The Court ruled that while the confiscated lumber did not belong to the premium species listed in DENR Administrative Order No. 78, Series of 1987, a certification from the concerned CENRO stating that the forest products came from a titled land or tax-declared alienable and disposable land is still required, as stated in DENR Administrative Order No. 79, Series of 1990. Since the appellant failed to secure this certification, he is still criminally liable under Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705.

  6. In the absence of conclusive proof of the value of the stolen property, the court fixed the value based on the attendant circumstances of the case.

  7. If there is no available evidence to determine the value of the stolen property or if the prosecution fails to prove it, the minimum penalty corresponding to theft involving the value of P5.00 shall be imposed on the accused-appellant.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Possession of forest products without the required legal documents from the DENR is a violation of Section 68, P.D. 705, as amended.

  • The penalty of reclusion perpetua may be imposed for the violation of Section 68, P.D. 705, as amended.

  • Confiscation of illegally obtained forest products is the appropriate remedy, even if the value of the confiscated goods is not established during the trial.

  • In crimes that are considered mala prohibita, the only inquiry is whether or not the law has been violated. The motive or intention of the accused is immaterial.

  • Hearsay evidence, such as an official transmittal letter, cannot serve as a valid basis for estimating the value of confiscated items for purposes of computing the proper penalty to be imposed.

  • In cases where the value of the stolen property cannot be definitively proven, the court may fix the value based on attendant circumstances.

  • When there is no available evidence to prove the value of the stolen property, or if the prosecution fails to prove it, the minimum penalty corresponding to theft involving the value of P5.00 shall be imposed.