G.R. No. L-46772 - People vs. Court of 1st Instance of Quezon, Branch VII

The private respondents, Godofredo Arrozal and Luis Flores, together with twenty other unknown accused, were charged with qualified theft of logs under Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705 (Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines).
The alleged offense dates were on or about July 28-30, 1976, at Barangay Mahabang Lalim, Municipality of General Nakar, Quezon Province.
The accused, including Arrozal as administrator of Infanta Logging Corporation, allegedly conspired to and did unlawfully enter private land owned by Felicitacion Pujalte (titled under Original Certificate of Title No. 6026 in her deceased father’s name) and illegally cut, gathered, took, stole, and carried away sixty (60) logs of various species, approximately 541.48 cubic meters in volume, valued at P50,205.52.
The information charges that the taking was without consent of the owner and without any authority under license agreement, lease, or permit.

On March 23, 1977, the accused filed a motion to quash the information, alleging:

On April 13, 1977, the trial court (Court of First Instance of Quezon) dismissed the information based on the above grounds.
A motion for reconsideration was denied on August 9, 1977.
The People filed a petition before the Supreme Court on October 15, 1977 citing two main questions of law:

The People contended that the information adequately alleged all elements of qualified theft of logs, particularly emphasizing that the taking was “without any authority under a license agreement, lease, license or permit.”
It was argued that since only the State can grant licenses or permits for forest resource utilization, the allegation effectively meant the logs were taken without consent of the State.
Cited legal provision: Section 68 of P.D. 705 criminalizes cutting, gathering, or removal of timber or forest products without authority under license agreement, lease, license, or permit.

The trial court found the information defective for failing to allege explicitly that the taking was without consent of the State.
The dismissal was based on the premise that the timber, being forest products, belong to the State; thus, absence of an allegation regarding State consent was fatal.

The logs were taken from titled private land, not public forest.
Citing Santiago v. Basilan Company (G.R. No. L-15532, 1963), the Court distinguished private ownership of timber in private lands and State ownership in public forests.

Ownership of land includes ownership of everything on its surface under Civil Code Article 437.
Noncompliance with timber registration under Administrative Code does not divest landowners of ownership rights over forest products in their lands.

Section 80 authorizes forest officers to arrest without warrant persons committing offenses in their presence and to investigate reports or complaints.
The section requires forest officers to file complaints with officials designated by law to conduct preliminary investigations and file informations.
In this case, the offense was not committed in the presence of a forest officer, nor was it reported to one. The complaint was filed by a private offended party to the fiscal.
The trial court ruled it lacked jurisdiction because the information was not filed pursuant to a complaint by a forest officer as required by Section 80.

The fiscal has authority to conduct investigations and file complaints after preliminary investigation in all crimes except private crimes and certain election offenses.
The petition argued that P.D. 705’s Section 80 did not repeal or diminish this fiscal authority.
Forest officers do not have exclusive rights to conduct preliminary investigations under P.D. 705.

Whether the information sufficiently charged the crime of qualified theft of logs under Section 68 of P.D. No. 705 despite not explicitly alleging lack of State consent to the taking of logs.
Whether the trial court has jurisdiction over the case given the filing of the information was by the fiscal, rather than a forest officer as apparently mandated by Section 80 of P.D. 705.