View full case

SESINANDO MERIDA v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

Petitioner Sesinando Merida was charged with violation of Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705 (PD 705) for cutting a narra tree inside a private land owned by private complainant Oscar Tansiongco. Tansiongco reported the tree-cutting to the punong barangay and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and an investigation was conducted. Petitioner claimed that he had permission from a certain Vicar Calix, who allegedly bought the land from Tansiongco. The trial court found petitioner guilty, and he appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling but confiscated the seized lumber in favor of the government. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied. Petitioner now raises several issues relating to the applicability of the law and the possession of the tree.

The petitioner argues that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. 2207 because the complaint was filed by a private citizen, Tansiongco, and not by a forest officer of the DENR as required by Section 80 of PD 705. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) asserts that the trial court indeed had jurisdiction and that the petitioner is liable for violating Section 68 of PD 705.

The main issues raised in the petition are: (1) whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction even if the complaint was filed by Tansiongco instead of a DENR forest officer, and (2) whether the petitioner is liable for violating Section 68 of PD 705.

The court ruled that the trial court did acquire jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. 2207. The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure do not require the complaint to be filed by a DENR forest officer specifically in cases of violations of Section 68 of PD 705. Section 80 of PD 705 allows interested persons like Tansiongco to file a complaint with any qualified officer against the petitioner. The court clarified that the phrase "reports and complaints" in Section 80 refers to reports and complaints brought by forest officers or employees, not private citizens like Tansiongco. Thus, Tansiongco was not precluded from filing a complaint with the Provincial Prosecutor against the petitioner's alleged violation.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Hernandez can be faulted for not conducting an investigation to determine "if there is prima facie evidence to support the complaint or report" regarding the tree-cutting in the Mayod Property.

  2. Whether the trial court correctly took cognizance of the criminal case against petitioner.

  3. Whether petitioner is liable for cutting timber in private property without a permit.

  4. Whether the lone narra tree constitutes "timber" under Section 68 of PD 705.

  5. Whether the term "timber" under Section 68 of PD No. 705, as amended, refers to both raw and processed timber.

  6. Whether the narra tree that petitioner felled and converted into lumber falls under the ambit of Section 68 of PD No. 705, as amended.

  7. What penalty is imposable on petitioner for the violation of Section 68 of PD No. 705, as amended.

  8. The issue in this case is whether the penalty imposed by the trial court on the petitioner is correct.

RULING:

  1. Hernandez cannot be faulted for not conducting an investigation to determine "if there is prima facie evidence to support the complaint or report" because the reports and complaints referred to under Section 80 of PD 705 pertain to violations of forest laws reported by forest officers or employees of the Bureau of Forest Development, or deputized officers or officials, and not by private citizens.

  2. The trial court correctly took cognizance of the criminal case against petitioner as it falls within its exclusive original jurisdiction.

  3. Petitioner is liable for cutting timber in private property without a permit under Section 68 of PD 705.

  4. The lone narra tree cut by petitioner constitutes "timber" under Section 68 of PD 705.

  5. The Supreme Court held that the term "timber" under Section 68 of PD No. 705, as amended, refers to both raw and processed timber. The Court emphasized that in the absence of legislative intent to the contrary, words and phrases used in a statute should be given their plain, ordinary, and common usage meaning. The Court further explained that the Code uses the term lumber in its ordinary or common usage, which is defined as "timber or logs after being prepared for the market."

  6. The Supreme Court ruled that the narra tree petitioner felled and converted into lumber falls under the ambit of Section 68 of PD No. 705, as amended. The Court stated that the measurements indicated in the apprehension receipt and the testimony of the witness establish that the narra tree was converted into sawn lumber that is fit for building or for carpentry or joinery. Therefore, it qualifies as "timber" under Section 68.

  7. The Supreme Court held that the penalty imposable on petitioner for the violation of Section 68 of PD No. 705, as amended, is Qualified Theft under Article 310 in relation to Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code. The exact penalty to be imposed depends on the value of the property stolen. However, the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the exact value of the stolen property. In the absence of independent and reliable corroboration, the Court may either apply the minimum penalty under Article 309 or fix the value of the property taken based on the attendant circumstances of the case.

  8. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals but modified the penalty imposed on the petitioner. The Court found that the evidence presented, particularly the estimate of the quantity of shabu, lacked corroboration. As a result, the Court applied the minimum penalty under Article 309(6) of the Revised Penal Code. However, considering the circumstances of the case and in light of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court found it appropriate to impose a penalty of four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor as the minimum, and three (3) years, four (4) months, and twenty-one (21) days of prision correcional as the maximum.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The phrase "reports and complaints" in Section 80 of PD 705 refers to reports and complaints brought by forest officers or employees of the Bureau of Forest Development, or deputized officers or officials, for violations of forest laws not committed in their presence.

  • Private citizens are not precluded from filing a complaint before the Provincial Prosecutor for alleged violations of forest laws under Section 68 of PD 705.

  • The cutting, gathering, collecting, or removing of timber or other forest products from a private land without any authority is punishable under Section 68 of PD 705.

  • Extrajudicial admissions made by a accused may bind him in a criminal case.

  • The term "timber" in Section 68 of PD 705 refers to processed log or lumber, taking its ordinary or common usage meaning.

  • In the absence of legislative intent to the contrary, words and phrases used in a statute should be given their plain, ordinary, and common usage meaning.

  • Possession of timber without the required legal documents is punishable under Section 68 of PD No. 705, as amended, regardless of whether the timber is raw or processed.

  • The penalty for the violation of Section 68 of PD No. 705, as amended, depends on the value of the stolen property, as determined under Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code.

  • The penalty imposed on an accused must be based on the evidence presented.

  • The lack of corroboration of evidence may result in the imposition of a minimum penalty.

  • The Indeterminate Sentence Law allows the imposition of a minimum and maximum penalty, providing a range of sentences for the judge to consider.