INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS

AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIGESTS

MERIDA V. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 158182
June 12, 2008
Ponente: Carpio
FACTS: Petitioner was charged in the RTC of Romblon with violation of Section 68 of PD 705for
"cutting, gathering, collecting and removing a lone narra tree inside a private land over which private
complainant Oscar Tansiongco claims ownership. When confronted during the meeting about the
fellednarra tree, petitioner admitted cutting the tree but claimed that he did so with the permission of
one Vicar Calix who, according to petitioner, bought the Mayod Property from Tansiongco in October
1987 under a pacto de retro sale. It was later found out that he converted the narra trunk into lumber.
He was found guilty by the Trial Court but he appealed to the Court of Appeals reiterating his
defense of denial. Petitioner also contended that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the
case because it was based on a complaint filed by Tansiongco and not by a forest officer as provided
under Section 80 of PD 705. CA affirmed the lower courts ruling, but ordered the seized lumber
confiscated in the government's favor. Also, it sustained the trial court's finding that petitioner is
bound by his extrajudicial admissions of cutting the narra tree in the Mayod Property without any
DENR permit.
ISSUE:
1) W/N 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. YES.
2) W/N petitioner is liable for violation of Section 68 of PD 705. YES.
RATIO:
1. The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure list the cases which must be initiated by a complaint filed
by specified individuals, non-compliance of which ousts the trial court of jurisdiction from trying such
cases. However, these cases concern only defamation and other crimes against chastity and not to
cases concerning Section 68 of PD 705. Further, Section 80 of PD 705 does not prohibit an
interested person from filing a complaint before any qualified officer for violation of Section 68 of PD
705, as amended.
Moreover, here, it was not "forest officers or employees of the Bureau of Forest
Development who reported to Hernandez the tree-cutting in the Mayod Property but Tansiongco, a
private citizen who claims ownership over the Mayod Property. Thus, Hernandez cannot be faulted
for not conducting an investigation to determine "if there is prima facie evidence to support the
complaint or report." At any rate, Tansiongco was not precluded, either under Section 80 of PD 705
or the Revised Rules, from filing a complaint before the Provincial Prosecutor for petitioner's alleged
violation of Section 68 of PD 705.
2) Petitioner is guilt of the second paragraph of section 80, which is the cutting, gathering, collecting,
or removing of timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private land without any
authority. The court also said that the lumber or processed log is covered by the forest products
term in PD 705, as the law does not distinguish between a raw and processed timber.