15. Sesinando Merida v.
People of the Philippines
FACTS: Sesinando Merida cut a narra tree on his property in Ipil, Mayod, Romblon. Oscar
Tansiongco reported the matter to Florencio Royo (Royo), the punong barangay of Ipil.
On 24 December 1998, 7 Royo summoned Merida to a meeting with Tansiongco. When confronted
during the meeting about the felled narra tree, Merida admitted cutting the tree but claimed that he did
so with the permission of one Vicar Calix (Calix) who, according to him, bought the Mayod Property
from Tansiongco in October 1987 under a pacto de retro sale. Petitioner showed to Royo Calix's
written authorization signed by Calix's wife.
On 11 January 1999, Tansiongco reported the tree-cutting to the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) forester Thelmo S. Hernandez (Hernandez) in Sibuyan, Romblon. DENR
forester: ordered petitioner not to convert the felled tree trunk into lumber.
On 26 January 1999, Tansiongco informed Hernandez that petitioner had converted the narra trunk
into lumber. Hernandez, with other DENR employees and enforcement officers, went to the Mayod
Property and saw that the narra tree had been cut into six smaller pieces of lumber. Hernandez took
custody of the lumber, 9 deposited them for safekeeping with Royo, and issued an apprehension
receipt to petitioner. A larger portion of the felled tree remained at the Mayod Property. The DENR
subsequently conducted an investigation on the matter.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
Tansiongco filed a complaint to the provincial Prosecutor of Romblon for violation of Sec. 68 of PD
705. Prosecutor found probable cause and filed an information to the RTC.
* RTC (upon complaint of Tansiongco): Petitioner was charged in the Regional Trial Court of Romblon,
Romblon, Branch 81 (trial court) with violation of Section 68 of PD 705, as amended, for "cut[ting],
gather[ing], collect[ing] and remov[ing]" a lone narra tree inside a private land in Mayod, Ipil,
Magdiwang, Romblon (Mayod Property) over which private complainant Oscar M. Tansiongco
(Tansiongco) claims ownership.
* CA: affirmed trial court’s decision.
*Petitioners’ contentions/issues:
I. WHETHER x x x SECTION 68 OF P.D. 705 AS AMENDED PROHIBITING THE
CUTTING, GATHERING, COLLECTING AND REMOVING TIMBER OR OTHER FOREST
PRODUCTS FROM ANY FOREST LAND APPLIES TO PETITIONER. WHETHER x x x
POSSESSION OF THE NARRA TREE CUT IN PRIVATE LAND CONTESTED BY
PRIVATE-COMPLAINANT OSCAR TANSIONGCO IS COVERED BY SECTION 80 OF
P.D. 705 AS AMENDED.
II. WHETHER x x x THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE CASE
FILED BY PRIVATE-COMPLAINANT BECAUSE IT WAS NOT THE INVESTIGATING
OFFICER AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 80 OF P.D. 705 AS AMENDED WHO MUST BE
THE ONE TO INSTITUTE THE FILING OF THE SAME.16
ISSUES & RULINGS:
1) Whether petitioner is liable for violation of Section 68 of PD 705, as amended.
YES.
Before his trial, petitioner consistently represented to the authorities that he cut a narra tree in the
Mayod Property and that he did so only with Calix's permission. However, when he testified, petitioner
denied cutting the tree in question. We sustain the lower courts' rulings that petitioner's extrajudicial
admissions bind him.
SECTION 68. Cutting, Gathering and/or Collecting Timber, or Other Forest Products Without License.
- Any person who shall cut, gather, collect, remove timber or other forest products from any forest
land, or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private land, without any authority, or
possess timber or other forest products without the legal documents as required under existing forest
laws and regulations, shall be punished with the penalties imposed under Articles 309 and 310 of the
Revised Penal Code: Provided, That in the case of partnerships, associations, or corporations, the
officers who ordered the cutting, gathering, collection or possession shall be liable, and if such officers
are aliens, they shall, in addition to the penalty, be deported without further proceedings on the part of
the Commission on Immigration and Deportation.
The court shall further order the confiscation in favor of the government of the timber or any forest
products cut, gathered, collected, removed, or possessed as well as the machinery, equipment,
implements and tools illegally used in the area where the timber or forest products are found.
(Emphasis supplied)
2) Whether 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, trial court has jurisdiction.
[NOTE: This dispositive no longer applicable since the Rules of Procedure for Environmental cases
requires complaint to be filed first with the DENR, but the preliminary investigation is done by the
prosecutor]
Section 80 of PD 705 provides in relevant parts:
SECTION 80. Arrest; Institution of criminal actions. - x x x x
Reports and complaints regarding the commission of any of the offenses defined in this Chapter, not
committed in the presence of any forest officer or employee, or any of the deputized officers or
officials, shall immediately be investigated by the forest officer assigned in the area where the offense
was allegedly committed, who shall thereupon receive the evidence supporting the report or
complaint.
If there is prima facie evidence to support the complaint or report, the investigating forest officer shall
file the necessary complaint with the appropriate official authorized by law to conduct a preliminary
investigation of criminal cases and file an information in Court. (Emphasis supplied)
Here, it was not "forest officers or employees of the Bureau of Forest Development or any of the
deputized officers or officials" 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, as amended. For its part, the trial court correctly took cognizance of Criminal Case No.
2207 as the case falls within its exclusive original jurisdiction.
*Is the narra tree timber?
YES.
The closest this Court came to defining the term "timber" in Section 68 was to provide that "timber,"
includes "lumber" or "processed log."
In other jurisdictions, timber is determined by compliance with specified dimensions or certain "stand
age" or "rotation age." In Mustang Lumber, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, this Court was faced with a similar
task of having to define a term in Section 68 of PD 705 - "lumber" - to determine whether possession
of lumber is punishable under that provision. In ruling in the affirmative, we held that "lumber" should
be taken in its ordinary or common usage meaning to refer to "processed log or timber,"
We see no reason why, as in Mustang, the term "timber" under Section 68 cannot be taken in its
common acceptation as referring to "wood used for or suitable for building or for carpentry or joinery."
Indeed, tree saplings or tiny tree stems that are too small for use as posts, panelling, beams, tables, or
chairs cannot be considered timber.
Undoubtedly, the narra tree petitioner felled and converted to lumber was "timber" fit "for building or for
carpentry or joinery" and thus falls under the ambit of Section 68 of PD 705, as amended.
