G.R. No. 182573 - Shu vs. Dee

Petitioner Olympio Revaldo was charged with illegal possession of premium hardwood lumber, violating Section 68 of the Revised Forestry Code.
The Information alleges that on or about June 17, 1992, in Maasin, Southern Leyte, petitioner possessed 96.14 board feet of various premium hardwood species (Molave, Narra, Bajong, Magkalipay) valued at ₱1,730.52 without the required legal documents.
Petitioner pleaded not guilty upon arraignment.

SPO4 Constantino Maceda testified that on June 18, 1992, he went with other police officers to petitioner’s house without a search warrant to verify reports about possession of lumber.
They found 20 pieces of freshly cut lumber around the premises. Petitioner admitted ownership and stated the lumber was for house repairs and furniture making.
Maceda transported the lumber to the police station and coordinated with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), which took custody.
Sulpicio Saguing, Forester II of DENR, scaled the lumber, confirming total volume of 96.14 board feet of premium hardwood.
Sergeant Daniel Paloma Lasala testified as evidence custodian that some lumber were damaged due to inadequate storage.

Petitioner, a carpenter, testified he was working on a furniture order on the morning of June 18, 1992, when police arrived.
He admitted possession of the lumber but claimed they were given to him by relatives (uncle, aunt, mother-in-law), and were intended for home repairs and furniture for sale.
Witness Apolonio Caalim supported petitioner’s claim that the lumber came from relatives.
Witness Dionisio Candole testified that the lumber was from felled trees on Bug-os’ land, who hired Candole to cut and saw them; petitioner paid for labor and transport. Candole also stated police allowed the lumber to be delivered to petitioner.

Petitioner failed to present the relatives to prove legal authorization from DENR for the lumber.
The court held that criminal intent is not necessary under the Forestry Code. Mere possession without legal documents is punishable.
Petitioner was found guilty and sentenced to an indeterminate term of 4 years and 2 months to 8 years and 1 day imprisonment. Lumber was ordered confiscated and forfeited to the government.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court ruling, holding that motive or intention is immaterial since mere possession without legal documents constitutes a crime.

Petitioner claims the warrantless search and seizure were illegal and evidence should have been excluded.
Argues police could have secured a search warrant but did not, rendering seizure unlawful.
Contends for acquittal based on violation of his rights.

Respondent argues the police, as authorized by Section 80 of the Forestry Code, may seize forest products cut or possessed illegally even without a warrant.
The lumber was in plain view, justifying seizure under the plain view doctrine.
Petitioner’s admission of possession without permit provides probable cause.
Motive or source of lumber is immaterial; mere possession without required permits is punishable.

Whether the warrantless search and seizure of lumber in petitioner’s premises was lawful.
Whether mere possession of lumber without legal documents under the Forestry Code constitutes a criminal offense.
Whether the penalty imposed by the lower courts was proper considering the value of the lumber and applicable laws.
Whether petitioner’s arrest without a warrant was valid under the Forestry Code.