Revaldo vs. People

Mere possession of timber or other forest products without the legal documents required under existing forest laws and regulations consummates the offense of illegal possession under Section 68 of the Forestry Code, regardless of the legality of the source, it being a malum prohibitum.

Acting on a report that petitioner possessed illegally cut lumber, police officers proceeded to his residence without a search warrant. They observed assorted lumber lying around the vicinity of the house. Upon questioning, petitioner admitted owning the lumber, stated he lacked a permit, and claimed the lumber came from relatives and leftover work materials.

• The Charge: Petitioner was charged with illegal possession of premium hardwood lumber (96.14 board feet) valued at ₱1,730.52 without legal documents, in violation of Section 68 of the Forestry Code.
• The Seizure: On June 18, 1992, police officers went to petitioner's house to verify a report that he possessed lumber without necessary documents. Unarmed with a search warrant, they confiscated 20 pieces of lumber lying around the house's vicinity. Petitioner admitted ownership and the lack of a permit, stating the lumber was for house repair and furniture-making. The police coordinated with the DENR, which scaled the lumber and entrusted custody to the police.
• The Defense: Petitioner testified the lumber came from his uncle, aunt, and mother-in-law, with some pieces left over from a prior job. Defense witness Candole corroborated that he was hired by petitioner's uncle to cut a tree and deliver the lumber to petitioner, and that police officer Sunit had previously allowed them to transport the lumber.

• Warrantless Search and Seizure: Petitioner argued the search and seizure were illegal because the police lacked a search warrant; having prior information, they had sufficient time to secure one from a judge. The seized items should thus be inadmissible as evidence.
• Acquittal: Petitioner prayed for acquittal based on the inadmissibility of the confiscated lumber.

• Authority to Seize: Respondent countered that PNP personnel are authorized to seize forest products without a warrant pursuant to Section 80 of the Forestry Code.

• Validity of Warrantless Seizure: Whether the warrantless search and seizure of the lumber was valid.
• Elements of the Offense: Whether mere possession of forest products without legal documents consummates the crime regardless of the source of the products.
• Proper Penalty: Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court was proper given the lack of proof of the lumber's value.

• Validity of Warrantless Seizure: The warrantless seizure was justified under the plain view doctrine. The police had a right to be at the petitioner's residence to verify a report, the discovery of the lumber was inadvertent, and its illicit nature was immediately apparent when petitioner failed to produce documents. Furthermore, Section 80 of the Forestry Code expressly authorizes PNP personnel to arrest without warrant and seize forest products from offenders committing the offense in their presence.
• Elements of the Offense: Possession of timber without legal documents is a distinct offense from illegal cutting or gathering. Because the Forestry Code is a special law, the offense is malum prohibitum; mere possession without the proper documentation consummates the crime, and the legality of the source is immaterial.
• Proper Penalty: The penalty was modified. The prosecution failed to prove the value of the lumber beyond the bare allegation in the Information, presenting only seizure and confiscation receipts without pertinent supporting documents. Pursuant to Merida v. People, the minimum penalty under Article 309(6) of the Revised Penal Code was applied, increased by two degrees for qualified theft under Article 310, resulting in an indeterminate penalty of 4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor to 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day of prision correccional.

• Plain View Doctrine — Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure. The requisites are: (a) the law enforcement officer has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure. Applied to validate the seizure of lumber lying around petitioner's house when officers were there to verify a report and petitioner could not produce documents.
• Two Distinct Offenses under Section 68 of the Forestry Code — Section 68 punishes two separate offenses: (1) cutting, gathering, collecting, or removing timber without authority; and (2) possession of timber without legal documents. For the second offense, it is immaterial whether the cutting or gathering was legal; mere possession without the proper documents consummates the malum prohibitum crime.

• "Mere possession of forest products without the proper documents consummates the crime. Whether or not the lumber comes from a legal source is immaterial because the Forestry Code is a special law which considers mere possession of timber or other forest products without the proper documentation as malum prohibitum."
• "Dura lex sed lex. The law may be harsh but that is the law."

• People v. Doria, 361 Phil. 595 (1999) — Followed for the summary of the requisites of the plain view doctrine.
• People v. Que, G.R. No. 120365, 17 December 1996, 265 SCRA 721 — Followed for the distinction between the two offenses under Section 68 of the Forestry Code, specifically that in the offense of possession, the legality of the source is immaterial.
• Merida v. People, G.R. No. 158182, 12 June 2008, 554 SCRA 366 — Followed for the rule that to prove the amount 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; otherwise, the minimum penalty applies.

• Section 68 (now Section 77), Presidential Decree No. 705 (Revised Forestry Code) — Defines the offenses of cutting/gathering timber without authority and possessing timber without legal documents. Applied to convict petitioner for mere possession without documents.
• Section 80 (now Section 89), Presidential Decree No. 705 — Authorizes forestry officers or PNP personnel to arrest without warrant and seize forest products from offenders committing offenses in their presence. Applied to validate the warrantless arrest and seizure.
• Articles 309 and 310, Revised Penal Code — Prescribe the penalties for theft and qualified theft, respectively. Applied suppletorily to determine the penalty for violation of Section 68 of the Forestry Code, with the penalty for theft increased by two degrees for qualified theft.

Reynato S. Puno (CJ), Renato C. Corona, Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Lucas P. Bersamin.