Merida vs. People

Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705 penalizes the cutting of timber on private land without authority, and a private complainant may initiate the filing of charges for such violation without violating Section 80 of the same decree.

On 23 December 1998, private complainant Oscar M. Tansiongco discovered that petitioner Sesinando Merida had cut a narra tree inside Tansiongco's property in Magdiwang, Romblon. When confronted by the punong barangay and subsequently by a DENR forester, Merida admitted to felling the tree but claimed he did so with the permission of a certain Vicar Calix, who allegedly bought the property under a pacto de retro sale. Merida presented a written authorization signed by Calix's wife. Despite the DENR forester's order against converting the trunk to lumber, Merida proceeded to cut it into six pieces. At trial, Merida retracted his prior admissions and denied cutting the tree.

• Discovery of the Cutting: On 23 December 1998, Tansiongco learned that Merida cut a narra tree in the Mayod Property. Tansiongco reported the matter to Punong Barangay Florencio Royo.
• Petitioner's Admission: On 24 December 1998, Royo summoned Merida to a meeting with Tansiongco. Merida admitted cutting the tree but claimed permission from Vicar Calix, who allegedly bought the property via pacto de retro. Merida presented a written authorization signed by Calix's wife.
• DENR Investigation: On 11 January 1999, Tansiongco reported the incident to DENR forester Thelmo Hernandez. Hernandez confronted Merida, who reiterated his claim of Calix's permission. Hernandez ordered Merida not to convert the felled trunk into lumber.
• Confiscation: On 26 January 1999, Tansiongco informed Hernandez that Merida had converted the trunk into lumber. Hernandez and DENR personnel went to the property, confiscated six pieces of lumber measuring 111 board feet (valued at P3,330), and deposited them with Royo. A larger portion of the felled tree remained at the property, bringing the total estimated value to P20,930.40.
• Trial Testimony: During trial, Merida testified as the lone defense witness and claimed for the first time that he had no part in cutting the tree. The trial court dismissed this denial in view of his repeated extrajudicial admissions.

• Applicability of Section 68 to Private Land: Petitioner argued that Section 68 of PD 705, which prohibits cutting timber from forest land, does not apply to the cutting of timber on private land.
• Authority to Initiate Charges: Petitioner contended that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the complaint was filed by a private complainant rather than an investigating forest officer, as mandated by Section 80 of PD 705.

• Jurisdiction: The Office of the Solicitor General countered that the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the case despite the complaint being filed by a private citizen instead of a DENR forest officer.
• Liability: Respondent maintained that petitioner is liable for violating Section 68 of PD 705, as amended.

• Jurisdiction: Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the criminal case even though it was based on a complaint filed by a private citizen and not a DENR forest officer.
• Liability under Section 68: Whether petitioner is liable for violation of Section 68 of PD 705 for cutting timber on private land without a permit.
• Definition of Timber: Whether the felled narra tree constitutes "timber" under Section 68 of PD 705.
• Proper Penalty: Whether the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals was proper given the prosecution's evidence of the timber's value.

• Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction was properly acquired by the trial court. Section 80 of PD 705 does not prohibit an interested person from filing a complaint before a qualified officer. The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure require complaints by specified individuals only for defamation and crimes against chastity, not for violations of PD 705.
• Liability under Section 68: Liability under Section 68 was affirmed. The provision explicitly penalizes cutting timber from private land without authority. Petitioner's extrajudicial admissions to the punong barangay and DENR officer bind him, rendering his subsequent denial at trial unworthy of credence, especially against the presumption of regularity enjoyed by the public officers who testified.
• Definition of Timber: The felled narra tree constitutes "timber." In the absence of a statutory definition, "timber" is given its plain, ordinary, and common usage meaning: wood suitable for building or carpentry. The tree's dimensions and its conversion into lumber prove it was fit for such purposes.
• Proper Penalty: The penalty was reduced. To fix the penalty under Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution must present more than a mere uncorroborated estimate of the property's value. Absent reliable corroboration, the minimum penalty under Article 309(6) applies. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law in relation to Article 310 (Qualified Theft), the imposable penalty is 4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 3 years, 4 months, and 21 days of prision correccional, as maximum.

• Common Usage Meaning of Statutory Terms — When a statute does not define a term, it is given its plain, ordinary, and common usage meaning. Applied to define "timber" under Section 68 of PD 705 as wood suitable for building, carpentry, or joinery, encompassing both raw and processed wood.
• Extrajudicial Admissions as Evidence — The act, declaration, or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him (Section 26, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court). A party is bound by repeated extrajudicial admissions made to authorities, which prevail over a bare denial made for the first time at trial.
• Proof of Value in Qualified Theft — To prove the value of property taken for fixing the penalty under Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution must present more than a mere uncorroborated estimate. Absent independent and reliable corroboration, courts may apply the minimum penalty under Article 309 or fix the value based on attendant circumstances.

• "It is settled that in the absence of legislative intent to the contrary, words and phrases used in a statute should be given their plain, ordinary, and common usage meaning. And in so far as possession of timber without the required legal documents is concerned, Section 68 of PD No. 705, as amended, makes no distinction between raw and procesed timber. Neither should we."
• "To prove the amount of the property taken for fixing the penalty imposable against the accused under Article 309 of the RPC, the prosecution must present more than a mere uncorroborated 'estimate' of such fact."

• People v. CFI of Quezon, G.R. No. 46772, 13 February 1992, 206 SCRA 187 — Followed. Interpreted the phrase "reports and complaints" in Section 80 of PD 705 as referring to those brought by forest officers or deputized officials, not private citizens, clarifying that a forest officer cannot be faulted for not conducting a Section 80 investigation based on a private citizen's report.
• Mustang Lumber, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104988, 18 June 1996, 257 SCRA 430 — Followed. Defined "lumber" under Section 68 in its ordinary/common usage as processed log or timber; the same principle was applied to define "timber."
• People v. Dator, 398 Phil. 109 (2000) — Followed. Imposed the minimum penalty under Article 309(6) of the RPC when the prosecution's evidence of lumber value consisted of uncorroborated estimates by apprehending authorities.

• Section 68, Presidential Decree No. 705 (as amended by Executive Order No. 277) — Penalizes cutting, gathering, collecting, or removing timber from private land without authority. Applied to hold petitioner liable for cutting a narra tree on private land without a DENR permit.
• Section 80, Presidential Decree No. 705 — Governs the arrest and institution of criminal actions for forestry law violations. Applied to clarify that it does not prohibit private citizens from filing complaints for such violations.
• Articles 309 and 310, Revised Penal Code — Prescribe the penalties for theft and qualified theft. Applied to determine the imposable penalty for violation of Section 68, with the penalty reduced to the minimum due to lack of proof of value.
• Section 5, Rule 110, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Enumerates offenses that must be prosecuted by complaint of specific parties. Applied to show that violations of PD 705 are not restricted to complaints filed by specific individuals.
• Section 26, Rule 130, Rules of Court — Provides that the act, declaration, or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. Applied to bind petitioner to his extrajudicial admissions.

Puno, C.J., (Chairperson), Corona, Azcuna, Leonardo-de Castro, JJ.