People vs. Telen

Possession of timber or other forest products without the legal documents required by forest laws and regulations is punishable under Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, and because the offense is mala prohibita, motive or a claim of verbal permission does not negate liability; even for non-premium species from private land, DENR Administrative Order No. 79 requires a CENRO certification to accompany the shipment. The penalty follows Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code, and absent competent proof of value, the minimum under Article 309 paragraph (6) applies.

Pastor Telen was a utility worker at the Integrated Provincial Health Office, Southern Leyte, while Alfonso Dator was the accounting manager and Benito Genol the driver of an Isuzu cargo truck registered to SLEFAICO, Inc., a local cooperative engaged in buying and selling abaca fibers. The case is governed by Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705, the Revised Forestry Code, which penalizes cutting, gathering, collecting, removing timber or other forest products without authority, or possessing timber or other forest products without the legal documents required by forest laws and regulations. DENR Administrative Order No. 79, Series of 1990, which deregulated the harvesting, transporting, and sale of firewood, pulpwood, or timber planted in private lands, supplies the regulatory backdrop for Telen’s claim that no permit was needed for the lumber.

On October 29, 1993, Police Station Commander Alejandro Rojas of Maasin, Southern Leyte, and SPO1 Necitas Bacala were on board a police patrol vehicle heading toward Barangay San Rafael, Maasin, Southern Leyte. Upon reaching Barangay Laboon, they noticed an Isuzu cargo truck loaded with pieces of lumber bound toward the town proper of Maasin. Suspicious that the cargo was illegally cut lumber, Rojas maneuvered their police vehicle and gave chase. Upon catching up with the truck in Barangay Soro-soro, Maasin, Southern Leyte, they ordered the driver, Benito Genol, to pull over. Genol was left alone in the truck after his companions hurriedly left. When asked if he had the required documents for the proper transport of the pieces of lumber, Genol answered in the negative. Genol informed the police authorities that the pieces of lumber were owned by Pastor Telen, while the Isuzu cargo truck bearing Plate No. HAF 628 was registered in the name of Southern Leyte Farmers Agro-Industrial Cooperative, Inc. (SLEFAICO), a local cooperative. Consequently, Rojas and Bacala directed Genol to proceed to the Maasin Police Station for further investigation.

On November 5, 1993, Forest Ranger Romeo Galola was fetched from his office at the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO), Maasin, Southern Leyte, by SPO1 Bacala to inspect the pieces of lumber that were confiscated on October 29, 1993 in Soro-soro, Maasin, Southern Leyte, from Telen. Galola and his immediate supervisor, Sulpicio Saguing, found that the cargo consisted of forty-one (41) pieces of Dita lumber and ten (10) pieces of Antipolo lumber of different dimensions with a total volume of 1,560.16 board feet. Subsequently, SPO1 Bacala issued a seizure receipt covering the fifty-one (51) pieces of confiscated Dita and Antipolo lumber and one (1) unit of Isuzu cargo truck with Plate No. HAF 628. The confiscated pieces of lumber and the cargo truck were turned over to SPO3 Daniel Lasala, PNP Property Custodian, Maasin, Southern Leyte, who, in turn, officially transferred custody of the same to the CENRO, Maasin, Southern Leyte.

Telen, a utility worker at the Integrated Provincial Health Office, Southern Leyte, for nineteen (19) years, testified that he needed lumber to renovate the house of his grandparents in Barangay Abgao, Maasin, Southern Leyte, where he maintained residence. Knowing that it was prohibited by law to cut trees without an appropriate permit from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Telen sought the assistance of a certain Lando dela Pena, an employee at the CENRO, Maasin, Southern Leyte. Dela Pena accompanied Telen to the office of a certain Boy Leonor, the Officer in Charge of CENRO in Maasin, Southern Leyte. Leonor did not approve Telen’s plan to cut teak or hard lumber from his mother’s tract of land in Tabunan, San Jose, Maasin, Southern Leyte. According to Telen, however, Leonor allowed him to cut the aging Dita trees only and assured him that a written permit was not anymore necessary before he could cut the Dita trees, which are considered soft lumber, from the private land of his mother, provided the same would be used exclusively for the renovation of his house and that he would plant trees as replacement, which he did by planting Gemelina seedlings.

On September 15, 1993, Telen requested his cousin Vicente Sabalo to hire a cargo truck to haul the sawn lumber from the land of his mother in Tabunan, San Jose, Maasin, Southern Leyte. His cousin obliged after Telen assured him that he had already secured verbal permission from Boy Leonor, Officer in Charge of CENRO in Maasin, Southern Leyte, before cutting the lumber. After Sabalo informed Telen on October 29, 1993 at about 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon that a cargo truck was available for hire, Telen instructed his cousin to personally supervise the hauling of the sawn lumber because he was busy with his work in the office. At around 7:00 o’clock in the evening, Telen learned from his daughter that the sawn lumber had been confiscated by the police in Barangay Soro-soro, Maasin, Southern Leyte. Upon arrival in Barangay Soro-soro, Telen was accosted by Rojas, who demanded from him a DENR permit for the sawn lumber. After confirming ownership of the sawn lumber, Telen explained to Rojas that he had already secured verbal permission from Boy Leonor to cut Dita trees, which are considered soft lumber, for the renovation of his house and that he had already replaced the sawn Dita trees with Gemelina seedlings, but to no avail. Rojas ordered that the pieces of lumber and the Isuzu cargo truck be impounded at the municipal building of Maasin, Southern Leyte for failure of Telen to produce the required permit from the DENR.

Telen appeared before Bert Pesidas, CENRO hearing officer, in Maasin, Southern Leyte, for investigation in connection with the confiscated pieces of lumber. Telen tried to contact Boy Leonor after the confiscation on October 29, 1993 and even during the investigation conducted by the CENRO hearing officer for three (3) times but to no avail, because Leonor was assigned at a reforestation site in Danao, Cebu province. Alfonso Dator, the accounting manager of SLEFAICO, Inc., testified that on October 29, 1993 at 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon, Vicente Sabalo, accompanied by their company driver Benito Genol, proposed to hire the Isuzu cargo truck owned by SLEFAICO, Inc. to haul pieces of coconut lumber from Barangay San Jose to Barangay Soro-soro in Maasin, Southern Leyte. Dator readily acceded because the owner of the alleged coconut lumber, according to Sabalo, was Pastor Telen, a long-time friend and former officemate at the provincial office of the Department of Health, and because the fee to be earned from the hauling services meant additional income for the cooperative. At about 6:00 o’clock in the evening of the same day, Dator met the Isuzu cargo truck at the Canturing bridge in Maasin, Southern Leyte, being escorted by a police patrol vehicle heading toward the municipal town proper. At the municipal hall building of Maasin, he learned that the truck was apprehended because it contained a cargo of Dita and Antipolo lumber without the required permit from the DENR. He explained to the police authorities that the truck was hired merely to transport coconut lumber, but it was impounded at the municipal building just the same. Due to the incident, Dator lost his job as accounting manager in SLEFAICO, Inc.

Benito Genol testified that he was employed by SLEFAICO, Inc. as driver of its Isuzu cargo truck and that, aside from transporting abaca fibers, the truck was also available for hire. While Genol was having the two tires of the truck vulcanized on October 29, 1993 in Barangay Mantahan, Maasin, Southern Leyte, Vicente Sabalo approached him and offered to hire the services of the cargo truck. Genol accompanied Sabalo to the residence of the accounting manager, Alfonso Dator, which was nearby, and Dator agreed to the proposal to hire the truck to haul pieces of coconut lumber from San Jose, Maasin, Southern Leyte, for a fee. At 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon of the same day, Genol, Sabalo, and a son of Alfonso Dator proceeded to San Jose after fetching about six (6) haulers along the way in Barangay Soro-soro. Upon arrival in San Jose, Genol remained behind the steering wheel to take a rest and was unmindful of the actual nature of the lumber that were being loaded. After the loading, Genol was instructed to proceed to Barangay Soro-soro in front of the lumberyard of a certain Jimmy Go. Before the lumber could be unloaded at 8:00 o’clock in the evening, Genol was approached by Rojas, who demanded a DENR permit for the lumber. The pieces of lumber were confiscated by Rojas after Genol failed to produce the required permit from the DENR office. Vicente Sabalo corroborated the testimonies of the three accused: he testified that Telen requested him to engage the services of a cargo truck to transport sawn pieces of lumber from San Jose for the renovation of Telen’s house in Abgao, Maasin, Southern Leyte; that he approached Genol and offered to hire the Isuzu cargo truck; that both of them asked the permission of Dator, who readily acceded to the proposal for a fee of P500.00; that he saw Genol remain behind the steering wheel as the loading of the lumber was going on in San Jose; and that the lumber and the Isuzu cargo truck were confiscated in Barangay Soro-soro for failure of Telen to show Rojas any written permit from the DENR for the subject lumber.

• Sufficiency of Evidence under Section 68, P.D. No. 705: Petitioner-appellant argued that the RTC erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 68, P.D. No. 705, because the judgment was contrary to law and the evidence and not in conformity with DENR Administrative Order No. 79, Series of 1990.
• Verbal Permission from CENRO Officer: Petitioner-appellant contended that he secured verbal permission from Boy Leonor, Officer-in-Charge of DENR-CENRO, Maasin, Southern Leyte, before cutting the lumber, and that Leonor assured him a written permit was not necessary for cutting soft lumber such as Antipolo and Dita trees from a private tract of land for house renovation, provided he plant replacement trees, which he did.
• DENR Administrative Order No. 79: Petitioner-appellant submitted that under DENR Administrative Order No. 79, Series of 1990, no permit is required in cutting planted trees within titled lands except Benguet pine and premium species listed under DENR Administrative Order No. 78, Series of 1987, and the lumber involved was not of premium species.
• Penalty: Petitioner-appellant argued that the RTC erred in imposing reclusion perpetua, a penalty not warranted by any provision of the Revised Penal Code or jurisprudence.
• Proof of Value: Petitioner-appellant contended that proof of value of the confiscated lumber is indispensable because it is the basis for computing the penalty under Article 309 in relation to Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code; absent evidence to prove the Information’s allegation of P23,500, there is no basis for the penalty and he should be acquitted.

• Criminal Liability under Section 68, P.D. No. 705: Whether appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 68 of P.D. No. 705 for possessing 1,560.16 board feet of assorted lumber without legal documents, despite his claim of verbal permission from the CENRO Officer-in-Charge.
• Applicability of DENR Administrative Order No. 79, Series of 1990: Whether appellant may avoid liability under DENR Administrative Order No. 79 because the lumber allegedly came from planted trees on private land and did not consist of premium species.
• Penalty: Whether the RTC erred in imposing reclusion perpetua for violation of Section 68 of P.D. No. 705.
• Proof of Value: Whether the absence of competent evidence proving the value of the confiscated lumber affects the conviction or the penalty.

• Criminal Liability under Section 68, P.D. No. 705: Yes. The crime is mala prohibita; mere possession of timber without the legal documents required by forest laws and regulations gives rise to criminal liability, and appellant failed to produce such documents.
• Applicability of DENR Administrative Order No. 79, Series of 1990: No. Even if the lumber was not premium species, DENR Administrative Order No. 79 still required a CENRO certification that the forest products came from titled land or tax declared alienable and disposable land to accompany the shipment, which appellant failed to secure.
• Penalty: No. Reclusion perpetua was erroneous. The penalty for violation of Section 68 is that for qualified theft under Article 310, but absent competent proof of value the minimum under Article 309 paragraph (6) applies; increased by two degrees and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty is six months and one day of prision correccional to six years and one day of prision mayor.
• Proof of Value: No. Penalty is not an element of the offense, so failure to prove the alleged P23,500 value does not preclude conviction. The DENR transmittal letter is hearsay and was not formally offered; absent competent proof, the minimum penalty corresponding to theft involving P5.00 is the basis.

• Criminal Liability under Section 68, P.D. No. 705: Section 68 punishes 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 required under existing forest laws and regulations. Telen did not dispute that he owned the 51 pieces of assorted Antipolo and Dita lumber with a total volume of 1,560.16 board feet, and after the lumber was confiscated while in transit, he failed to produce before the authorities the required legal documents from the DENR. The SC held that the offense is a special statutory law and is mala prohibita; in prosecutions for mala prohibita, the only inquiry is whether the law has been violated, and the motive or intention underlying the act is immaterial because mere possession of the confiscated lumber without the legal documents gave rise to criminal liability. Telen’s allegation of verbal permission from Boy Leonor was not sufficient to overturn the established fact that he had no legal documents; the record did not show that he exerted any effort during trial to avail of Leonor’s testimony, and absent corroboration, the RTC did not err in disregarding his bare, self-serving testimony.
• Applicability of DENR Administrative Order No. 79, Series of 1990: Telen invoked DENR Administrative Order No. 79, which prescribes rules on deregulation of harvesting, transporting, and sale of firewood, pulpwood, or timber planted in private lands, and argued that no permit is required in cutting planted trees within titled lands except Benguet pine and premium species listed under DENR Administrative Order No. 78, Series of 1987. The SC conceded that the varieties of lumber for which Telen was held liable do not belong to the premium species enumerated under DENR Administrative Order No. 78, but held that under the same DENR administrative order, a certification from the CENRO concerned to the effect that the forest products came from a titled land or tax declared alienable and disposable land must still be secured to accompany the shipment. Telen failed to do so, and thus he remained criminally liable under Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, which necessitates prior acquisition of permit and “legal documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations.”
• Penalty: The RTC imposed reclusion perpetua, but the SC held that the penalty for violation of Section 68 of P.D. No. 705 is governed by Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code. The SC noted that the estimated value of P23,500 in the DENR-CENRO transmittal letter could not serve as evidence or as a valid basis for the penalty because it is hearsay and was not formally offered in evidence under Section 34, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court. Following People vs. Elizaga and People vs. Reyes, and considering that the confiscated lumber was soft, non-premium lumber cut by Telen, a mere janitor in a public hospital, from his mother’s land, not for commercial purposes but for renovating his house, and that he had no prior conviction or pending criminal case under P.D. No. 705, the SC held that the basis for the penalty should be the minimum amount under Article 309 paragraph (6) of the Revised Penal Code, which carries arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods for simple theft. Because Section 68 punishes the offense as qualified theft under Article 310, the penalty is increased by two degrees to prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods; applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty is six months and one day of prision correccional, as minimum, to six years and one day of prision mayor, as maximum.
• Proof of Value: The SC held that penalty is not an element of the offense, so the prosecution’s failure to adduce evidence supporting the Information’s allegation that the confiscated lumber was worth P23,500 was not necessarily fatal to its case. The DENR-CENRO transmittal letter containing the estimated value could not be used for computing the proper penalty because it is hearsay and was not formally offered in evidence contrary to Section 34, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court. In People vs. Elizaga, where the value of the stolen bag and its contents was estimated at P500 but not conclusively proved, the SC fixed the value at P100 based on the attendant circumstances; in People vs. Reyes, the SC held that if there is no available evidence to prove the value of the stolen property or the prosecution failed to prove it, the corresponding penalty should be the minimum penalty corresponding to theft involving the value of P5.00. In this case, because the value was not competently proved, the SC used the minimum amount under Article 309 paragraph (6) of the Revised Penal Code as the basis for the penalty.

• Mala prohibita — In crimes mala prohibita, the only inquiry is whether the law has been violated; motive or intention is immaterial. The SC applied this to Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, holding that Telen’s alleged verbal permission and good faith did not negate liability because he possessed lumber without the required legal documents.
• Possession of timber without legal documents under Section 68, P.D. No. 705 — Section 68 penalizes 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 required under existing forest laws and regulations. The SC applied the possession mode: Telen owned the 51 pieces of lumber and failed to produce the required DENR documents when the lumber was confiscated in transit.
• DENR Administrative Order No. 79 certification requirement — Even for non-premium tree species planted in private or titled land, a certification from the CENRO concerned that the forest products came from a titled land or tax declared alienable and disposable land must be secured to accompany the shipment. The SC held Telen criminally liable because he failed to secure this certification.
• Penalty is not an element of the offense — The prosecution’s failure to prove the value of the confiscated lumber alleged in the Information does not necessarily acquit the accused; it affects the penalty. The SC affirmed Telen’s conviction but reduced the penalty because the alleged P23,500 value was not competently proved.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law in Section 68, P.D. No. 705 cases — For violation of Section 68, the penalty is that for qualified theft under Article 310, RPC. Absent competent proof of value, the minimum under Article 309 paragraph (6) for simple theft applies, increased by two degrees, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law fixes the minimum and maximum terms at six months and one day of prision correccional to six years and one day of prision mayor.

• “In the prosecution for crimes that are considered mala prohibita, the only inquiry is whether or not the law has been violated.” — This is the SC’s statement of the governing rule for Telen’s Section 68 charge.
• “The motive or intention underlying the act of the appellant is immaterial for the reason that his mere possession of the confiscated pieces of lumber without the legal documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations gave rise to his criminal liability.” — The SC used this to reject Telen’s claim that his intent or verbal permission excused the possession.
• “However, under the same DENR administrative order, a certification from the CENRO concerned to the effect that the forest products came from a titled land or tax declared alienable and disposable land must still be secured to accompany the shipment.” — The SC used this to reject Telen’s reliance on DENR Administrative Order No. 79 despite the lumber not being premium species.
• “It is a basic rule in criminal law that penalty is not an element of the offense.” — The SC used this to hold that the unproven P23,500 value did not require acquittal.

• People vs. Elizaga, 86 SCRA 364, 383 (1950) — Relied on for fixing the value of stolen property based on attendant circumstances when proof is not conclusive; the SC used it to support reducing the penalty due to lack of competent proof of value.
• People vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 38901, October 2, 1933 — Relied on for the rule that if there is no available evidence to prove the value of stolen property or the prosecution failed to prove it, the penalty should be the minimum corresponding to theft involving P5.00.
• People vs. Simon, 234 SCRA 555, 579-580 (1994) — Cited for applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law in computing the modified penalty.
• Mustang Lumber, Inc. vs. CA, 257 SCRA 430, 446 (1996) — Cited in support of criminal liability for violation of P.D. No. 705.
• People vs. Que, 265 SCRA 721, 730 (1996) — Cited in support of criminal liability for violation of P.D. No. 705.
• U.S. vs. Go Chico, 14 Phil. 128, 134 (1909) — Cited for the mala prohibita rule that the only inquiry is whether the law was violated.
• National Development Co. vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 19 SCRA 865, 866 (1967) — Cited for the rule that motive or intention is immaterial in mala prohibita.

• Section 68, Presidential Decree No. 705 (Revised Forestry Code) — Penalizes cutting, gathering, collecting, removing timber or other forest products without authority, or possessing timber or other forest products without the legal documents required under forest laws and regulations; the SC applied the possession mode to Telen.
• Article 309, Revised Penal Code — Provides penalties for theft based on value; the SC used Article 309 paragraph (6), which carries arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods for simple theft, as the base penalty because value was not proven.
• Article 310, Revised Penal Code — Punishes qualified theft; the SC applied it because Section 68 of P.D. No. 705 punishes the offense as qualified theft, increasing the base penalty by two degrees.
• Article 61(5), Revised Penal Code — Cited for the increase of penalty by two degrees.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to fix the minimum and maximum terms of imprisonment.
• Section 34, Rule 132, Revised Rules of Court — Cited for the rule that the DENR transmittal letter cannot serve as evidence because it is hearsay and was not formally offered.
• DENR Administrative Order No. 79, Series of 1990 — Deregulates harvesting, transporting, and sale of firewood, pulpwood, or timber planted in private lands; no permit required for cutting planted trees within titled lands except Benguet pine and premium species, but a CENRO certification that forest products came from titled land or tax declared alienable and disposable land must accompany shipment. The SC applied it and found Telen failed to secure certification.
• DENR Administrative Order No. 78, Series of 1987 — Lists premium species; the SC noted the lumber involved was not premium but still required certification.