Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No.

170589 April 16, 2009

OLYMPIO RE AL!O, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE O" T#E P#ILIPPINES, Respondent. D CARPIO, J.: T$% C&'% "efore this !ourt is a petition for revie# b$ petitioner Ol$%pio Revaldo &petitioner' see(in) to reverse the Decision* dated +, -u)ust +../ of the !ourt of -ppeals in !-01.R. !R No. ++.,* affir%in) the Decision + dated 2 Septe%ber *334 of the Re)ional Trial !ourt, "ranch +2, Maasin, Southern 5e$te &RT!0"ranch +2', in !ri%inal !ase No. *62+, findin) petitioner )uilt$ be$ond reasonable doubt of ille)al possession of lu%ber in violation of Section 67, of the Revised Forestr$ !ode &Forestr$ !ode'./ T$% "&()' Petitioner #as char)ed #ith the offense of ille)al possession of pre%iu% hard#ood lu%ber in violation of Section 67 of the Forestr$ !ode, in an Infor%ation 2 #hich reads8 That on or about the *4th da$ of 9une *33+, in the &M'unicipalit$ of Maasin, &P'rovince of Southern 5e$te, Philippines, and #ithin the :urisdiction of this ;onorable !ourt, the above0na%ed accused, #ith intent of )ain, did then and there #illfull$, unla#full$ and feloniousl$ possess 36.*/ board ft. of the follo#in) species of flat lu%ber8 *. Si< &6' pcs. *<*.<4 Molave= +. One &*' pc. +<6<6 Molave= ,. T#o &+' pcs. +</<6 Molave= /. T#o &+' pcs. *<*.<6 Narra= 2. T#o &+' pcs. +<7<4 "a:on)= 6. One &*' pc. *<6<6 "a:on)= 4. Four &/' pcs. *<6<6 Ma)(alipa$= and 7. Three &,' pcs. *<6<2 Ma)(alipa$= #ith a total value of P*,4,..2+, Philippine !urrenc$, #ithout an$ le)al docu%ent as re>uired under e<istin) forest la#s and re)ulations fro% proper )overn%ent authorities, to the da%a)e and pre:udice of the )overn%ent. ?pon arrai)n%ent, petitioner, assisted b$ counsel, pleaded not )uilt$. Trial ensued. The prosecution presented SPO/ !onstantino Maceda &Maceda', Sulpicio Sa)uin) &Sa)uin)', and SPO/ Daniel Palo%a 5asala &5asala' as #itnesses. Maceda, the person in char)e of the operations section of the Philippine National Police &PNP' in Maasin, Southern 5e$te, testified that on *7 9une *33+, at around **8.. in the %ornin), he #ent #ith !hief -le:andro Ro:as &Ro:as', SPO, Mel>uiades Talisic &Talisic' and SPO, Nicasio Sunit &Sunit' to the house of petitioner to verif$ the report of Sunit that petitioner had in his possession lu%ber #ithout the necessar$ docu%ents. The$ #ere not ar%ed #ith a search #arrant on that da$. The$ confiscated +. pieces of lu%ber of different varieties l$in) around the vicinit$ of the house of petitioner. Maceda as(ed petitioner #ho the o#ner of the lu%ber #as and petitioner replied that he o#ned the lu%ber. Petitioner stated that he #ould use the lu%ber to repair his house and to %a(e furniture for sale. Maceda also testified that the lu%ber #ere freshl$ cut. Maceda loaded the lu%ber on the patrol :eep and brou)ht the% to the police station. For coordination purposes, Maceda infor%ed the office of the Depart%ent of nviron%ent and Natural Resources &D NR' of the confiscated lu%ber. The D NR entrusted to the police custod$ of the lu%ber.6 !ISION

Sa)uin), Forester II, ! NRO0D NR, Maasin, Southern 5e$te, testified that he #ent to the office of the PNP in Maasin, 5e$te to scale the confiscated lu%ber #hich #ere of different varieties. The total volu%e #as 36.*/ board feet belon)in) to the first )roup of hard#ood lu%ber.4 5asala, Responsible Suppl$ Ser)eant, Finance Ser)eant and vidence !ustodian, PNP, Maasin, Southern 5e$te, testified that he received the +. pieces of assorted si@es and varieties of lu%ber fro% the !ler( of !ourt of the Municipal Trial !ourt, but onl$ ten pieces re%ained because so%e #ere da%a)ed due to lac( of stora)e space. 7 For the defense, petitioner presented Dionisio !andole &!andole', -polonio !aali% &!aali%', and hi%self as #itnesses. Petitioner testified that he is a carpenter speciali@in) in furniture %a(in). ;e #as in his house #or(in) on an ordered divider for a custo%er in the %ornin) of *7 9une *33+ #hen police%en arrived and inspected his lu%ber. Maceda, Sunit and Ro:as entered his house #hile Talisic sta$ed outside. Petitioner ad%itted to the police%en that he had no per%it to possess the lu%ber because those #ere onl$ )iven to hi% b$ his uncle Feli<berto "u)0os &"u)0 os', his aunt 1liceria "olo &"olo', his %other0in0la# !ecilia Tenio &Tenio'. The seven pieces of A%a)(alipa$A lu%ber #ere left over fro% a divider he %ade for his cousin 9ose pi@. ;e e<plained further that the lu%ber #ere intended for the repair of his dilapidated house.3 The defense presented !aali% to corroborate the testi%on$ of petitioner. *. Defense #itness !andole testified that it #as "u)0os #ho hired hi% to cut a Atu)asA tree on his land, sa#ed it into lu%ber and delivered the sa%e to petitioner #ho paid for the labor transportin) the sa#n lu%ber. !andole further testified that #hile the$ #ere on their #a$ to "aran)a$ !o%bado, Sunit stopped the% but allo#ed the lu%ber to be brou)ht to the house of petitioner. ** T$% R*li+, o- )$% Tri&l Co*r) The trial court stated that petitioner failed to present "u)0os, "olo, and Tenio to attest to the fact that the$ sou)ht prior D NR per%ission before cuttin) the trees and sa#in) the% into lu%ber. The trial court further stated that the Forestr$ !ode is a special la# #here cri%inal intent is not necessar$. The Secretar$ of the D NR %a$ issue a Special Private 5and Ti%ber Per%it to lando#ners to cut, )ather, collect or re%ove narra or other pre%iu% hard#ood species found in private lands. Transportation of ti%ber or other forest products #ithout authorit$ or #ithout the le)al docu%ents re>uired under forest rules and re)ulations is punishable under Section 67 of the Forestr$ !ode. Petitioner did not present an$ docu%ent as re>uired b$ la#. The RT!0"ranch +2 rendered :ud)%ent on 2 Septe%ber *334 convictin) petitioner of the offense char)ed and sentencin) hi% as follo#s8 B; R FOR , :ud)%ent is rendered findin) the accused O5CMPIO R V-5DO 1?I5TC be$ond reasonable doubt of the offense char)ed and, creditin) hi% #ith one %iti)atin) circu%stance before appl$in) the Indeter%inate Sentence 5a# hereb$ S NT N! S hi% to an indeter%inate i%prison%ent ter% of FO?R &/' C -RS and TBO &+' MONT;S of PRISION !ORR !!ION-5 as %ini%u% to I1;T &7' C -RS and ON &*' D-C of PRISION M-COR, as %a<i%u%, and to pa$ the costs. The +* pieces of flat lu%ber of different varieties, scaled at 36.*/ board feet and valued at P*,4,..2+ are hereb$ ordered !ONFIS!-T D and FORF IT D in favor of the )overn%ent particularl$ the ! NRO, Maasin, Southern 5e$te #hich shall sell the sa%e at public auction and the proceeds turned over to the National Treasur$. *+ Petitioner appealed to the !ourt of -ppeals. T$% R*li+, o- )$% Co*r) o- App%&l' On +, -u)ust +../, the !ourt of -ppeals affir%ed the :ud)%ent of the trial court. The !ourt of -ppeals ruled that %otive or intention is i%%aterial for the reason that %ere possession of the lu%ber #ithout the le)al docu%ents )ives rise to cri%inal liabilit$. ;ence, the present petition. T$% Co*r).' R*li+, Petitioner contends that the #arrantless search and sei@ure conducted b$ the police officers #as ille)al and thus the ite%s sei@ed should not have been ad%itted in evidence a)ainst hi%. Petitioner ar)ues that the police officers #ere not ar%ed #ith a search #arrant #hen the$ #ent to his house to verif$ the report of Sunit that petitioner had in his possession lu%ber #ithout the correspondin) license. The police officers #ho conducted the search in the pre%ises of petitioner acted on the basis onl$ on the verbal order of the !hief of Police. Sunit had alread$ infor%ed the tea% of the na%e of petitioner and the location the da$ before the$ conducted the search. Petitioner ar)ues that, #ith that infor%ation on hand, the police officers could have easil$ convinced a :ud)e that there #as probable cause to :ustif$ the issuance of a search #arrant, but the$ did not. "ecause the search #as ille)al, all

ite%s recovered fro% petitioner durin) the ille)al search #ere prohibited fro% bein) used as evidence a)ainst hi%. Petitioner therefore pra$s for his ac>uittal. 1avvphi1.zw+ In its !o%%ent, respondent People of the Philippines &respondent' contends that even #ithout a search #arrant, the personnel of the PNP can sei@e the forest products cut, )athered or ta(en b$ an offender pursuant to Section 7.*, of the Forestr$ !ode. There is no >uestion that the police officers #ent to the house of petitioner because of the infor%ation rela$ed b$ Sunit that petitioner had in his possession ille)all$ cut lu%ber. Bhen the police officers arrived at the house of petitioner, the lu%ber #ere l$in) around the vicinit$ of petitionerDs house. The lu%ber #ere in plain vie#. ?nder the plain vie# doctrine, ob:ects fallin) in Aplain vie#A of an officer #ho has a ri)ht to be in the position to have that vie# are sub:ect to sei@ure and %a$ be presented as evidence. This !ourt had the opportunit$ to su%%ari@e the rules )overnin) plain vie# searches in the case of People v. Doria, */ to #it8 The Aplain vie#A doctrine applies #hen the follo#in) re>uisites concur8 &a' the la# enforce%ent officer in search of the evidence has a prior :ustification for an intrusion or is in a position fro% #hich he can vie# a particular area= &b' the discover$ of the evidence in plain vie# is inadvertent= &c' it is i%%ediatel$ apparent to the officer that the ite% he observes %a$ be evidence of a cri%e, contraband or other#ise sub:ect to sei@ure. The la# enforce%ent officer %ust la#full$ %a(e an initial intrusion or properl$ be in a position fro% #hich he can particularl$ vie# the area. In the course of such la#ful intrusion, he ca%e inadvertentl$ across a piece of evidence incri%inatin) the accused. The ob:ect %ust be open to e$e and hand and its discover$ inadvertent. *2 Bhen as(ed #hether he had the necessar$ per%it to possess the lu%ber, petitioner failed to produce one. Petitioner %erel$ replied that the lu%ber in his possession #as intended for the repair of his house and for his furniture shop. There #as thus probable cause for the police officers to confiscate the lu%ber. There #as, therefore, no necessit$ for a search #arrant. The sei@ure of the lu%ber fro% petitioner #ho did not have the re>uired per%it to possess the forest products cut is sanctioned b$ Section 67 of the Forestr$ !ode #hich provides8 Sec. 67. Cutting, Gathering and/or Collecting Timber, or Other Forest roducts !ithout "icense . E -n$ person #ho shall cut, )ather, 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 #ithout an$ authorit$, or po''%'' )i/0%r or o)$%r -or%') pro1*()' 2i)$o*) )$% l%,&l 1o(*/%+)' &' r%3*ir%1 *+1%r %4i')i+, -or%') l&2' &+1 r%,*l&)io+' , shall be punished #ith the penalties i%posed under -rticles ,.3 and ,*. of the Revised Penal !ode8 Provided, That in the case of partnerships, associations, or corporations, the officers #ho ordered the cuttin), )atherin), collection or possession shall be liable, and if such officers are aliens, the$ shall, in addition to the penalt$, be deported #ithout further proceedin)s on the part of the !o%%ission on I%%i)ration and Deportation. The !ourt shall further order the (o+-i'(&)io+ i+ -&5or o- )$% ,o5%r+/%+) o- )$% )i/0%r or &+6 -or%') pro1*()' (*), ,&)$%r%1, (oll%()%1, r%/o5%1, or po''%''%1, &' 2%ll &' )$% /&($i+%r6, %3*ip/%+), i/pl%/%+)' &+1 )ool' ill%,&ll6 *'%1 i+ )$% &r%& 2$%r% )$% )i/0%r or -or%') pro1*()' &r% -o*+1 . & %phasis supplied' There are t#o distinct and separate offenses punished under Section 67 of the Forestr$ !ode, to #it8 &*' !uttin), )atherin), collectin) and re%ovin) ti%ber or other forest products fro% an$ forest land, or ti%ber fro% alienable or disposable public land, or fro% private land #ithout an$ authorit$= and &+' Possession of ti%ber or other forest products #ithout the le)al docu%ents re>uired under e<istin) forest la#s and re)ulations.*6 -s the !ourt held in eople v. #ue,*4 in the first offense, one can raise as a defense the le)alit$ of the acts of cuttin), )atherin), collectin), or re%ovin) ti%ber or other forest products b$ presentin) the authori@ation issued b$ the D NR. In the second offense, ho#ever, it is i%%aterial #hether the cuttin), )atherin), collectin) and re%oval of the forest products are le)al or not. Mere possession of forest products #ithout the proper docu%ents consu%%ates the cri%e. Bhether or not the lu%ber co%es fro% a le)al source is i%%aterial because the Forestr$ !ode is a special la# #hich considers %ere possession of ti%ber or other forest products #ithout the proper docu%entation as malum prohibitum. On #hether the police officers had the authorit$ to arrest petitioner, even #ithout a #arrant, Section 7. of the Forestr$ !ode authori@es the forestr$ officer or e%plo$ee of the D NR or an$ personnel of the PNP to arrest, even #ithout a #arrant, an$ person #ho has co%%itted or is co%%ittin) in his presence an$ of the offenses defined b$ the Forestr$ !ode and to sei@e and confiscate the tools and e>uip%ent used in co%%ittin) the offense or the forest products )athered or ta(en b$ the offender. Section 7. reads8

Sec. 7.. $rrest% &nstitution o' Criminal $ctions . 0 - forest officer or e%plo$ee of the "ureau or &+6 p%r'o++%l o)$% P$ilippi+% Co+')&0*l&r67P$ilippi+% N&)io+&l Poli(% '$&ll &rr%') %5%+ 2i)$o*) 2&rr&+) an$ person #ho has co%%itted or is co%%ittin) in his presence an$ of the offenses defined in this chapter. ;e shall also sei@e and confiscate, in favor of the 1overn%ent, the tools and e>uip%ent used in co%%ittin) the offense, and the forest products cut, )athered or ta(en b$ the offender in the process of co%%ittin) the offense. < < < & %phasis supplied' Petitioner #as in possession of the lu%ber #ithout the necessar$ docu%ents #hen the police officers accosted hi%. In open court, petitioner cate)oricall$ ad%itted the possession and o#nership of the confiscated lu%ber as #ell as the fact that he did not have an$ le)al docu%ents therefor and that he %erel$ intended to use the lu%ber for the repair of his dilapidated house. Mere possession of forest products #ithout the proper docu%entation consu%%ates the cri%e. (ura le) sed le). The la# %a$ be harsh but that is the la#. On the penalt$ i%posed b$ the lo#er courts, #e dee% it necessar$ to discuss the %atter. Violation of Section 67 of the Forestr$ !ode is punished as Fualified Theft #ith the penalties i%posed under -rticles ,.3 and ,*. of the Revised Penal !ode,*7 thus8 -rt. ,.3. enalties. 0 -n$ person )uilt$ of theft shall be punished b$8 *. The penalt$ of prisi*n ma+or in its %ini%u% and %ediu% periods, if the value of the thin) stolen is %ore than *+,... pesos but does not e<ceed ++,... pesos= but if the value of the thin) stolen e<ceeds the latter a%ount, the penalt$ shall be the %a<i%u% period of the one prescribed in this para)raph, and one $ear for each additional ten thousand pesos, but the total of the penalt$ #hich %a$ be i%posed shall not e<ceed t#ent$ $ears. In such cases, and in connection #ith the accessor$ penalties #hich %a$ be i%posed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this !ode, the penalt$ shall be ter%ed prisi*n ma+or or reclusi*n temporal, as the case %a$ be. +. The penalt$ of prisi*n correccional in its %ediu% and %a<i%u% periods, if the value of the thin) stolen is %ore than 6,... pesos but does not e<ceed *+,... pesos. ,. The penalt$ of prisi*n correccional in its %ini%u% and %ediu% periods, if the value of the propert$ stolen is %ore than +.. pesos but does not e<ceed 6,... pesos. /. $rresto ma+or in its %ediu% period to prisiGn correccional in its %ini%u% period, if the value of the propert$ stolen is over 2. pesos but does not e<ceed +.. pesos. 2. $rresto ma+or to its full e<tent, if such value is over 2 pesos but does not e<ceed 2. pesos. 6. $rresto ma+or in its %ini%u% and %ediu% periods, if such value does not e<ceed 2 pesos. 4. $rresto menor or a fine not e<ceedin) +.. pesos, if the theft is co%%itted under the circu%stances enu%erated in para)raph , of the ne<t precedin) article and the value of the thin) stolen does not e<ceed 2 pesos. If such value e<ceeds said a%ount, the provisions of an$ of the five precedin) subdivisions shall be %ade applicable. 7. $rresto menor in its %ini%u% period or a fine not e<ceedin) 2. pesos, #hen the value of the thin) stolen is not over 2 pesos, and the offender shall have acted under the i%pulse of hun)er, povert$, or the difficult$ of earnin) a livelihood for the support of hi%self or his fa%il$. -rt. ,*.. #uali'ied the't. 0 The cri%e of >ualified theft shall be punished b$ the penalties ne<t hi)her b$ t#o de)rees than those respectivel$ specified in the ne<t precedin) articles, < < <. The trial court applied -rticle ,.3&,', in relation to -rticle ,*. of the Revised Penal !ode, considerin) that the a%ount involved #as P*,4,..2+. ;o#ever, e<cept for the a%ount stated in the Infor%ation, the prosecution did not present an$ proof as to the value of the lu%ber. Bhat the prosecution presented #ere the Sei@ure Receipt*3 and !onfiscation Receipt+. statin) the nu%ber of pieces of lu%ber, their species, di%ensions and volu%es, #ith Ano pertinent supportin) docu%ent.A These do not suffice. -s #e have held in ,erida v. eople,+* to prove the a%ount of the propert$ ta(en for fi<in) the penalt$ i%posable a)ainst the accused under -rticle ,.3 of the Revised Penal !ode, the prosecution %ust present %ore than a %ere uncorroborated Aesti%ateA of such fact. In the absence of independent and reliable corroboration of such esti%ate, the courts %a$ either appl$ the %ini%u% penalt$ under -rticle ,.3 or fi< the value of the propert$ ta(en based on the attendant circu%stances of the case. -ccordin)l$, the prescribed penalt$ under -rticle ,.3&6' of the Revised Penal !ode is arresto ma+or in its %ini%u% and %ediu% periods. ;o#ever, considerin) that violation of Section 67 of the Forestr$ !ode is punished as >ualified theft under -rticle ,*. of the Revised Penal !ode pursuant to the Forestr$ !ode, the prescribed penalt$ shall be increased b$ t#o de)rees,++ that is, to prision correccional in its %ediu% and %a<i%u% periods or

t#o &+' $ears, four &/' %onths and one &*' da$ to si< &6' $ears. Ta(in) into account the Indeter%inate Sentence 5a#, the %ini%u% ter% shall be ta(en fro% an$#here #ithin the ran)e of four &/' %onths and one &*' da$ to t#o &+' $ears and four &/' %onths of arresto ma+or, #hich is the penalt$ ne<t lo#er to the prescribed penalt$. Be find it proper to i%pose upon petitioner, under the circu%stances obtainin) here, the indeter%inate penalt$ of four &/' %onths and one &*' da$ of arresto ma+or, as %ini%u%, to t#o &+' $ears, four &/' %onths and one &*' da$ of prision correccional, as %a<i%u%. 8#ERE"ORE, #e A""IRM the appealed Decision convictin) petitioner for violation of Section 67 &no# Section 44' of the Forestr$ !ode, as a%ended, #ith MO!I"ICATION as re)ards the penalt$ in that petitioner Ol$%pio Revaldo is sentenced to suffer the indeter%inate penalt$ of four &/' %onths and one &*' da$ of arresto ma+or, as %ini%u%, to t#o &+' $ears, four &/' %onths and one &*' da$ of prision correccional, as %a<i%u%. SO OR!ERE!. ANTONIO T. CARPIO -ssociate 9ustice