Case Summary (G.R. No. L-46772)
Facts and Charges
Godofredo Arrozal, Luis Flores, and others were charged with qualified theft of sixty (60) logs from private land in Barangay Mahabang Lalim, Municipality of General Nakar, Province of Quezon. The timber was on land titled under Original Certificate of Title No. 6026 registered in the name of the deceased Macario Prudente. The charge included allegations that the accused unlawfully entered the private property without consent and without any license, permit, lease, or authority under the law to cut, gather, take, steal, and carry logs valued at ₱50,205.52.
Grounds for Dismissal by Trial Court
The respondents filed a motion to quash the information arguing that:
- The facts charged did not constitute an offense.
- The information did not substantially conform to the prescribed legal form.
The trial court dismissed the information holding that the complaint was defective because it did not allege that the logs taken belonged to the State or that the taking was without consent of the State. The court found this omission fatal to the sufficiency of the information and consequently dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
First Legal Issue: Sufficiency of the Information
The Supreme Court analyzed whether the information sufficiently alleged an offense under Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, which penalizes cutting, gathering, or collecting forest products without any authority under a license agreement, lease, license, or permit. The Court emphasized that:
- The information must allege facts which, if admitted, establish the essential elements of the offense.
- The elements required are (a) cutting, gathering, collecting, or removing timber or forest products; (b) ownership of the products by either the State or a private individual; and (c) absence of authority or license from the State to perform such acts.
The Court agreed with the People of the Philippines that the information sufficiently stated the offense because it alleged illegal taking “without any authority under a license agreement, lease, license or permit,” which implies lack of State consent, since only the State can grant such licenses.
Ownership of Timber in Private Lands
The Court clarified that although the State alone grants licenses for timber cutting, ownership of timber or forest products found on titled private land does not automatically vest in the State. The Court cited Santiago v. Basilan Company to clarify the following points:
- Private ownership of timber in private lands exists and is recognized under the principle that ownership of land includes ownership of its fruits and everything found on its surface (Article 437 of the New Civil Code).
- Non-registration of private woodlands under administrative forestry regulations does not divest the landowner of ownership rights.
- The obligation to register timber owners under Section 1829 of the Revised Administrative Code does not transfer ownership to the State if not complied with but imposes administrative duties and potential license requirements.
Thus, the failure of the information to allege that the State owns the timber was not a fatal defect. It was sufficient that it alleged no authority from the State was obtained for the cutting and removal of the timber.
Second Legal Issue: Jurisdiction of the Trial Court and Authority to File Information
The respondents argued that the Court of First Instance lacked jurisdiction because the information was not filed by a forest officer pursuant to Section 80 of P.D. No. 705, which governs arrests and institution of criminal actions for forestry offenses.
Section 80 provides:
- Forest officers may arrest without warrant persons caught in the act of violating forestry laws and must file complaints with the proper authorities within prescribed periods.
- Forest officers investigate reports or complaints of violations not committed in their presence and file complaints if supported by prima facie evidence.
However, the Court found the circumstances involved neither a warrantless arrest nor a forest officer-initiated complaint. The offense was reported by a private party and did not involve arrest or investigation by forest officers as described in Section 80.
The Supreme Court held that Section 80 of P.D. 705 did not divest the fiscal (public prosecutor) of his general authority under Section 1687 of the Administrative Code to investigate crimes and file informations. The fiscal’s authority to initiate prosecution after preliminary investigation remains intact and concurrent with the special powers gr
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-46772)
Procedural History and Nature of the Petition
- This case involves a petition seeking the annulment of the order of the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Quezon, Branch VII, in Criminal Case No. 1591.
- The trial court dismissed the information filed against respondents Godofredo Arrozal, Luis Flores, and twenty other unknown individuals accused of qualified theft of logs.
- The dismissal was based on two grounds raised in the motion to quash: (1) that the facts charged did not constitute an offense; and (2) that the information did not conform substantially to the prescribed form.
- The petition was filed directly with the Supreme Court on October 15, 1977, challenging the trial court's decision and raising the following questions of law: whether the information charged an offense, and whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the case.
Facts of the Case
- The respondents were charged under Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705, the Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines, with qualified theft of logs.
- The information alleged that on or about July 28-30, 1976, at Barangay Mahabang Lalim, Quezon, the accused unlawfully entered private land titled to Felicitacion Pujalte (deceased father Macario Prudente) and unlawfully cut, gathered, took, stole, and carried away sixty logs of various species valued at approximately P50,205.52.
- The logs were removed without the consent of the owner and without any authority such as a license agreement, lease, license, or permit.
- The accused included Godofredo Arrozal, administrator of Infanta Logging Corporation, Luis Flores, and unidentified individuals.
Issue: Sufficiency of the Information to Constitute an Offense
- The petitioners argued that the information properly alleged all elements of qualified theft of logs under Section 68 of P.D. No. 705.
- Despite not explicitly stating the logs were taken without the consent of the State, the information alleged the taking was without any authority or permit granted by the State, which was tantamount to removal without State consent.
- The Supreme Court agreed that the information correctly alleged the offense since the absence of lawful authority to cut or remove timber suffices, as only the State can grant licenses and permits for forest resources.
- The elements of qualified theft of logs were detailed as: (1) cutting, gathering, collecting, or removing timber or forest products; (2) that the timber belongs to government or a private individual; and (3) that such act was done without authorization via license, lease, or permit by the St