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 felled narra 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 court’s 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
wasbased 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 705or 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.