PART VI

CRIMINAL
AGUILAR, Krystalynne F.

PROCEDURE
PROSECUTION OF
OFFENSES
Offenses under the Revised Forestry Code

1. Cutting, gathering, collecting and removing timber or other

forest products from any forest land, or timber from alienable
or disposable public land, or from private land without any
authority
2. Possession of timber or other forest products without the legal
documents required under existing laws and regulations
Offenses under the Mining
Act

Under the Philippine Mining Act, illegally sourced mineral

products are those which are mined, extracted, removed and or
disposed of without authority or permit under existing mining
laws, rules and regulation. Transport of Mineral Products and by
products including gold bullions without the corresponding
permit documents shall be considered as prima facie evidence
of illegal mining and as basis for the filing of a complaint for
theft of minerals
Prohibitions under the
Fisheries Code
1. Poaching in Philippine waters
2. Fishing through explosives, noxious or poisonous
substances or electricity
3. Use of fine mesh net, use of active gear in municipal
waters and other fishery management areas
4. Ban coral exploitation and exportation, conversion
of mangroves, fishing in overfished areas during
closed season
5. Fishing in fishery reserves, refuge and sanctuaries,
and others
Offenses under Water Code

1. Appropriation of subterranean or ground water for

domestic use by an overlying landowner without
registration required by the Council
2. Failure to comply with any of the terms and
conditions in a water permit or a water rights grant
3. Unauthorized use of water for a purpose other than
that for which a right or permit granted
4. Establishment of a cemetery or a waste disposal
area near a source of water supply or reservoir for
domestic municipal use without permission
5. Dumping mine tailings and sediments into rivers or
waterways without permission
Prosecution of Multiple
Violations
Duplicity of offenses in a single information is a ground
to quash the Information.

Water Code additional element to be established is

the dumping of mine tailings into the Makulapnit River
and the entire Boac River System without prior permit
from the

Anti Pollution Law, the additional fact that must be

proved is the existence of actual pollution itself.

Philippine Mining Act, the additional fact that must

be established is the willful violation and gross neglect
Filing of the Information

The filing of an information charging a person with the

violation of an environmental law and subscribed by
the prosecutor, initiates the criminal action. The
preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal for
the purpose of determining whether a prima facie case
exists warranting the prosecution of the accused is
terminated upon filing the information in the proper
court.
TAOPA VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
FACTS:

 The Community Environment and Natural Office of Virac, Catanduanes seized a truck loaded
with illegally-cut lumber and arrested its driver, Placido Cuison.

 On the investigation, Cuison pointed to petitioner Amado Taopa and a certain Rufino
Ogalesco as the owners of the seized lumbers.

 Taopa, Ogalesco and Cuison were charged with violation of Section 68 of Presidential
Decree No, 705.
FACTS:

 The petitioners pleaded not guilty on the arraignment. After trial on the merits, the RTC found
them guilty as charge beyond reasonable doubt.

 Taopa and Cuison appealed to the Court of Appeals. Cuison was acquitted but Taopa’s
conviction was affirmed.

 In this petition, Taopa seeks his acquittal from the charges against him. He alleges that the
prosecution failed to prove that he was one of the owners of the seized lumber.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of violating Section

68 of Presidential Decree No. 705
RULING:

 The Supreme Court disagree with both the RTC and the CA as to the penalty imposed on
Taopa.

 Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended, refers to Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal
Code for the penalties to be imposed on violations.

 Violation of the Section 68 of P.D. 705, as amended, is punished as qualified theft.

Section 68. Cutting,  gathering  and/or  collecting  timber  or  other  products  without 
license. Any  person  who  shall  cut,  gather,  collect,  or  remove  timber  or  other  forest 
products  from  any  forest  land,  or  timber  from  alienable  and  disposable  public  lands,  or 
from  private  lands,  without  any  authority  under  a  license  agreement,  lease,  license  or 
permit, shall be guilty of qualified theft as defined and punished under Articles 309
and 310 of the Revised Penal Code;  Provided,  That  in  the  case  of  partnership, 
association  or  corporation,  the  officers  who  ordered  the  cutting,  gathering  or  collecting 
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.
Art. 309. Penalties. — Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by:
1. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the thing stolen 
is more than 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, but if the value of the thing stolen 
exceeds the latter amount the penalty shall be the maximum period of the one prescribed in this 
paragraph,  and  one  year  for  each  additional  ten  thousand  pesos,  but  the  total  of  the  penalty 
which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the 
accessory  penalties  which  may  be  imposed  and  for  the  purpose  of  the  other  provisions  of  this 
Code,  the  penalty  shall  be  termed  prision  mayor  or  reclusion  temporal,  as  the  case  may  be. 
(emphasis supplied)

Art. 310.  Qualified  theft  - The crime of theft shall be  punished by the penalties next higher  by two

degrees than those respectively specified in the next preceding articles … (emphasis 
supplied).
 The actual market value of the 113 pieces of seized lumber was P67,630.9 Following Article
310 in relation to Article 309, the imposable penalty should be reclusion temporal in its
medium and maximum periods or a period ranging from 14 years, eight months and one day
to 20 years plus an additional period of four years for the excess of P47,630.
AQUINO VS PEOPLE

Ponente: Carpio, J.
 FACTS

• Sergio Guzman – Teacher’s Camp

• Michael Cuteng – CENRO, Forest ranger

• Sabado Batcagan – Executive Director of DENR

• Windo, Sobrepe, Salamo, Guinawan, Abellera, Apilis – Forest

Rangers

• Santiago, Masing – Sawyers

• Salinas, Nacatab – supervising the cutting

• Aquino – CENRO, Forest Ranger, supervisor of the cutting, petitioner

 ISSUE

• Whether or not petitioner is

guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of violation of Section 68 of PD
705
 RULING

• The provision clearly punishes anyone who shall cut, gather, collect or
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.
• Petitioner was charged by CENRO to supervise the implementation of
the permit. He was not the one who cut, gathered, collected or
removed the pine trees within the contemplation of Section 68 of PD
705.
• He was also not in possession of the cut trees because the lumber was
used by Teachers’ Camp for repairs.
• He cannot likewise be convicted of conspiracy since all the other
accused were acquitted.
• THE PETITION WAS GRANTED. THE PETITIONER WAS ACQUITTED of the
charge of the violation of Section 68 of PD 705.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
VS WILSON B QUE
G.R. No. 120365 December 17, 1996
PUNO, J.
 FACTS

• The trial court found the accused-appellant guilty beyond

reasonable doubt for the violation of Section 68 of P.D. 705,
as amended by E.0 277 after having in his possession,
control and custody 258 pieces of various sizes of Forest
Products chainsawn lumber without necessary permit,
license or authority to do so from the proper authorities.
 APPELLANT’S CONTENTION

• Appellant argues that the law only penalizes possession of

illegal forest products and that the possessor cannot be
held liable if he proves that the cutting, gathering,
collecting or removal of such forest products is legal.
RULING
 RULING

SECTION 68 of PD 705 punishes two distinct and separate offenses, to wit:

1) The cutting, gathering, collecting and removing of timber or other

forest products from any forest land, or timber from alienable and
disposable public land, or private land without any authority.

2) The possession of timber or other forest products without the legal

document required under existing laws and regulations.
 RULING

In the first offense, one can raise as a defense the legality of the acts of
cutting, gathering, collecting, or removing timber or other forest products
by presenting authorization issued by DENR.

In the second offense, it is IMMATERIAL whether the cutting,

gathering, collecting, or removal of such products is legal or
not. MERE POSSESSION of forest products without proper
documents consummates the crime.
 RULING

In this case, the accused was given by the DENR a permit to transport one
truckload of coconut slabs. He was apprehended because the truck
contained not only coconut slabs, but also chainsawn lumber.

Under these circumstances, the Court has no doubt that the accused was
aware that he needed documents, but could not secure one and
therefore, concelaed the lumber by placing the same in a manner that
they could not be seen by the authorities.
 RULING
In this case, the accused was given by the DENR a permit to transport one
truckload of coconut slabs. He was apprehended because the truck
contained not only coconut slabs, but also chainsawn lumber.

Under these circumstances, the Court has no doubt that the accused was
aware that he needed documents, but could not secure one and
therefore, concelaed the lumber by placing the same in a manner that
they could not be seen by the authorities.

Accused-appellant’s instant appeal is DISMISSED. Decision appealed from

is AFFIRMED.
RULE 11
AREST
SECTION 1. ARREST WITHOUT
WARRANT; WHEN LAWFUL
A peace officer or an individual
deputized by the proper government
agency may, without a warrant, arrest
a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person
to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing or is attempting to
SECTION 1. ARREST WITHOUT
WARRANT; WHEN LAWFUL
(b) When an offense has just been
committed, and he has probable cause
to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances
that the person to be arrested has
committed it.
ARREST, HOW MADE
An arrest is made by an actual
restraint of a person to be arrested, or
by submission to the custody of the
person making the arrest.

It must be done immediately after the

commission of the offense.
 ARRESTS AND INSTITUTIONS OF CRIMINAL
ACTIONS UNDER THE REVISED FORESTRY CODE
Under Revised Forestry Code, Sec. 89:
A forest officer or employee of the Bureau or any personnel
of the Philippine Constabulary/ Philippine National Police
shall arrest even without warrant any person who has
committed or is committing in his presence any of the
offenses defined in this Chapter. He shall also seize and
confiscate, in favor of the Government, the tools and
equipment used in committing the offense, and the forest
products cut, gathered or taken by the of offender in the
process of committing the offense. The arresting forest
officer or employee shall thereafter deliver within six (6)
hours from the time of arrest and seizure, the offender and
the confiscated forest products, tools and equipment to,
and file the proper complaint with, the appropriate official
A FOREST OFFICER CANNOT CONDUCT
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
Sec. 89 of PD 705 should not be
interpreted to vest exclusive authority
upon forest officers to conduct
investigations regarding offenses
described in the decree
ARRESTS AND CONFISCATION UNDER THE
PHILIPPINE MINING ACT
The absence of relevant documents for the
transport of all minerals/mineral products and by-
products, including gold bullions, by permit
holders, contractors, accredited traders, retailers,
processors and other mining rights shall be
considered prima facie evidence of illegal mining
and shall cause the confiscation/seizure of the
minerals/mineral products and the tools and
equipment including conveyance used in the
commission of the offense in favor of the
WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND SEIZURE
OF FISHING VESSELS
Search and seizure without search warrant of
vessels and air crafts for violations of the
custom laws have been the traditional exception
to the constitutional requirement of a search
warrant because the vessel can be quickly
moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which
the search warrant could be secured; hence it is
not practicable to require a search warrant
before such search or seizure can be
SECTION 2. WARRANT OF ARREST
All warrants of arrest issued by
the court shall be accompanied
by a certified true copy of the
information filed with the issuing
court.
ARREST WARRANT MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY
A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE INFORMATION
Sec 2, Rule 14 provides:
SEC. 2. Duties of the court. — Before granting the
application for bail, the judge must read the
information in a language known to and understood by
the accused and require the accused to sign a written
undertaking, as follows:
(a) To appear before the court that issued the warrant
of arrest for arraignment purposes on the date
scheduled, and if the accused fails to appear without
justification on the date of arraignment, accused
waives the reading of the information and authorizes
the court to enter a plea of not guilty on behalf of the
(b) To appear whenever required by the court
where the case is pending; and
(c) To waive the right of the accused to be
present at the trial, and upon failure of the
accused to appear without justification and
despite due notice, the trial may proceed in
absentia.
WRITTEN UNDERTAKING EMPOWERS THE COURT TO
ENTER A PLEA OF NOT GUILTY FOR THE ACCUSED

The written undertaking of the

accused authorizes the court to
enter a plea of not guilty in the
event he fails to appear at the
arraignment, and proceed to
conduct trial in absentia.
END
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, 
vs.
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF QUEZON (BRANCH VII), GODOFREDO ARROZAL

AND LUIS FLORES, respondents .

G.R. No. L-46772 February 13, 1992
 Facts

Arrozal  and  Flores  were  charged  with  the  crime  of 

qualified  theft  of  logs,  defined  and  punished  under 
Section  68 of  Presidential  Decree  No.  705,  otherwise 
known  as  the  Revised  Forestry  Code  of  the 
Philippines.  They  illegally  cut,  gather,take,  steal  and 
carry  away  therefrom,  without  the  consent  of  the 
owner  and  without  any  authority  under  a  license 
agreement, lease license or permit. The accused filed 
a  motion  to  quash  in  which  the  CFI  of  Quezon 
dismissed. 
 Issue

Whether or not the trial court had

jurisdiction over the case
 Ruling

Sec  80  of  PD.  705    covers  two  (2)  specific  instances 
when  a  forest  officer  may  commence  a  prosecution 
for  the  violation  of  the  Revised  Forestry  Code  of  the 
Philippines.  The  first  authorizes  a  forest  officer  or 
employee of the Bureau of Forestry to arrest without 
a  warrant,  any  person  who  has  committed  or  is 
committing,  in  his  presence,  any  of  the  offenses 
described  in  the  decree.  The  second  covers  a 
situation  when  an  offense  described  in  the  decree  is 
not committed in the presence of the forest officer or 
employee  and  the  commission  is  brought  to  his 
attention by a report or a complaint. 
 Ruling

In  both  cases,  however,  the  forest  officer  or  employee 

shall  investigate  the  offender  and  file  a  complaint  with 
the  appropriate  official  authorized  by  law  to  conduct  a 
preliminary  investigation  and  file  the  necessary 
informations  in  court.  The  circumstances  in  the  instant 
case do not fall under any of the situations covered by 
Sec  80.The  offense  was  committed  in  a  private  land 
and  the  complaint  was  brought  by  the  private  party  to 
the  fiscal.    The  trial  court  erred  in  dismissing  the  case 
on  the  ground  of  lack  of  jurisdiction  over  the  subject 
matter  because  the  information  was  filed  not  pursuant 
to  the  complaint  of  any  forest  officer  as  prescribed  in 
Section 80 of P.D. 705.
END
Mustang Lumber vs
Court of Appeals
Chief Justice Andres Narvasa
Facts
 Petitioner was duly registered as a lumber dealer with the Bureau of Forest Development. The Special
Actions and Investigation Division of the DENR were informed that a huge stockpile of narra flitches,
shorts, and slabs were seen inside the lumberyard of the petitioner. The said organized a team of
foresters and policemen and sent it to conduct surveillance.
 In the course thereof, the team members saw coming out from the lumberyard the petitioner's truck
loaded with lauan and almaciga lumber of assorted sizes and dimensions. Since the driver could not
produce the required invoices and transport documents, the team seized the truck together with its
cargo and impounded them at the DENR compound.
 The team was not able to gain entry into the premises because of the refusal of the owner. The team
was able to secure a search warrant. By virtue thereof, the team seized on that date from the
petitioner's lumberyard four truckloads of narra shorts, trimmings, and slabs; a negligible number of
narra lumber; and approximately 200,000 board feet of lumber and shorts of various species including
almaciga and supa.
 On 4 April 1990, the team returned to the premises of the petitioner's lumberyard and placed under
administrative seizure the remaining stockpile of almaciga, supa, and lauan lumber with a total volume
of 311,000 board feet because the petitioner failed to produce upon demand the corresponding
certificate of lumber origin, auxiliary invoices, tally sheets, and delivery receipts from the source of
the invoices covering the lumber to prove the legitimacy of their source and origin.
 Facts
 Parenthetically, it may be stated that under an administrative seizure the owner retains the physical possession
of the seized articles. Only an inventory of the articles is taken and signed by the owner or his representative.
The owner is prohibited from disposing them until further orders.
 On 10 April 1990, counsel for the petitioner sent a letter to the Chief of SAID Robles requesting an extension of
fifteen days to produce the required documents covering the seized articles because some of them, particularly
the certificate of lumber origin, were allegedly in the Province of Quirino. Robles denied the petition.
Subsequently, the Sec. of DENR Factoran issued an order confiscating the woods seized in the truck of the
petitioner as well as those found in their lumberyard.
 Issue
 Whether or not that a lumber cannot be considered a timber and that petitioner should not be held for illegal
logging.
 Held
 The foregoing disquisitions should not, in any manner, be construed as an affirmance of the respondent Judge's
conclusion that lumber is excluded from the coverage of Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended, and thus
possession thereof without the required legal documents is not a crime. On the contrary, the SC rules that such
possession is penalized in the said section because lumber is included in the term timber.
 The Revised Forestry Code contains no definition of either timber or lumber. While the former is included in
forest products as defined in paragraph (q) of Section 3, the latter is found in paragraph (aa) of the same section
in the definition of "Processing plant," which reads: Processing plant is any mechanical set-up, machine or
combination of machine used for the processing of logs and other forest raw materials into lumber, veneer,
plywood, wall bond, block board, paper board, pulp, paper or other finished wood products.
 This simply means that lumber is a processed log or processed forest raw material. Clearly, the Code uses the
term lumber in its ordinary or common usage. In the 1993 copyright edition of Webster's Third New International
Dictionary, lumber is defined, inter alia, as "timber or logs after being prepared for the market." Simply put,
lumber is a processed log or timber.
 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 insofar as possession of timber without the
required legal documents is concerned, Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended, makes no distinction between
raw or processed timber.