PEOPLE V.
CFI
ATTY. VILLEGAS
INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIGESTS
G.R. No. L-46772 February 13, 1992 Ponente: Medialdea
FACTS:
The private respondents were charged with the crime of qualified theft of logs,
defined and punished under Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705, otherwise known as the
Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines. The information provided that Godofredo
Arrozal and Luis Flores, together with 20 other John Does whose identities are
stil l unknown, the first-named accused being the administrator of the Infanta
Logging Corporation, conspired and entered the privately-owned land of one Felicitacion Pujalte,
titled in the name of her deceased father, Macario Prudente, and proceeded to illegally cut,
gather, and take, there from, without the consent of the said owner and without any
authority under a license agreement, 60 logs of different species. On March 23, 1977,
the named accused filed a motion to quash the informati on on 2grounds,
to wit: (1) that the facts charged do not constitute an offense; and, (2) that
the information does not conform substantially to the prescribed form. Trial court thus
dismissed the information based on the respondents grounds.
ISSUE:
W/N the information correctly and properly charged an offense and WON the trial court
had jurisdiction over the case.
YES.RATIO: The elements of the crime of qualified theft of logs are: 1) That the
accused cut, gathered ,collected or removed timber or other forest products; 2) that
the timber or other forest products cut, gathered, collected or removed belongs to the
government or to any private individual; and 3) that the cutting, gathering, collecting or
removing was without authority under a license agreement, lease, license, or permit granted
by the state. The failure of the information to allege that the logs taken were owned
by the state is not fatal. It should be noted that the logs subject of the complaint were
taken not from a public forest but from a private woodland registered in the name of
complainant's deceased father, Macario Prudente. The fact that only the state can
grant a license agreement ,license or lease does not make the state the owner of all
the logs and timber products produced in the Philippines including those produced in
private woodlands. Thus, ownership is not an essential element of the offense as defined
in Section 60 of P.D. No. 705. As to the second issue raised, the regular courts still has
jurisdiction. Sec. 80 of PD 705covers 2 specific instances when a forest officer may
commence a prosecution for the violation of the Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines.
The first authorizes a forest officer or employee of the Bureau of Forestry to arrest without
a warrant, any person who has committed or is committing, in his presence, any of the
offenses described in the decree. The second covers a situation when an
offense described in the decree is not committed in the presence of the forest officer
or employee and the commission is brought to his attention by a report or a complaint. In both
cases, however, the forest officer or employee shall investigate the offender and file a
complaint with the appropriate official authorized by law to conduct a preliminary investigation
and file the necessary informations in court. Unfortunately, the instant case do not fall under any of
the situations covered by Section 80 of P.D. 705. The alleged offense was committed not in the
presence of a forest officer and neither was the alleged commission reported to any forest
officer. The offense was committed in a private land and the complaint was
brought by a pri vate offended party to the fiscal. As such, the OSG was
correct in insisting that P.D. 705 did not repeal Section 1687 of the
Administrati ve Code gi ving authority to the fiscal to conduct investigation into the matter of
any crime or misdemeanor and
havethe necessary information or complaint prepared or made against pers
ons charged with thecommission of the crime. In short, Sec. 80 does not grant exclusive
authority to the forest officers, but only special authority to reinforce the exercise of such
by those upon whom it is vested by general law.
