Case Summary (G.R. No. 206794)
Petitioner
Edwin Talabis, charged with violation of Section 68, Presidential Decree No. 705 (Revised Forestry Code), as amended.
Respondent
The People of the Philippines.
Key Dates
• Offense: December 4, 2005
• RTC Judgment: September 9, 2009
• CA Decision: January 16, 2014; Motion for Reconsideration denied September 2, 2014
• Supreme Court Decision: January 17, 2022
Applicable Law
• Section 68, PD 705 (as amended)
• Section 80, PD 705 (arrest and complaint procedures)
• Articles 309 and 310, Revised Penal Code (qualified theft)
• Rule 110, Rules of Court (persons authorized to file complaints)
• Indeterminate Sentence Law
• 1987 Constitution
Factual Antecedents
Leonora and Rhoda filed a joint affidavit-complaint after household workers Eric Lanta-an and Raymundo Abuyog observed four men—including petitioner and Arsebino—cutting 18 Benguet pine trees with a chainsaw and bolo. CENRO-DENR personnel inventoried and valued the timber at ₱22,496.76. No cutting permit was produced.
Regional Trial Court Decision
The RTC, Branch 64, Abatan, Buguias, found both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 68, PD 705. It imposed 14 years, 4 months and 1 day to 15 years of reclusion temporal, medium. A motion for reconsideration was denied.
Court of Appeals Decision
The CA affirmed the conviction but reduced the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of six years of prision correccional (minimum) to ten years of prision mayor (maximum). It ordered confiscation of the felled trees and denied reconsideration based on the late raising of mitigating circumstances.
Issues
- Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction despite the complaint being filed by private individuals rather than a forest officer.
- Whether petitioner is entitled to mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and old age.
Jurisdiction of the RTC
Section 80, PD 705 authorizes forest officers to arrest and “file the proper complaint” after warrantless arrest or investigation of reports brought to their attention. In Merida v. People and People v. Court of First Instance of Quezon, this Court held that reports or complaints of violations not made in the officers’ presence must originate from other forest officers or deputized personnel. Here, the complaint was filed by private individuals with the provincial prosecutor to trigger a preliminary investigation. Under Rule 110, any person may file a complaint before the prosecutor; the prosecutor must conduct the preliminary inquiry and file the information. PD 705 did not remove this general prosecutorial function. Exclusive jurisdiction cases (e.g., Anti-Pollution Law, Alien Registration Act) hinge on specialized determinations within the exclusive competence of the administrative body—unlike forestry infractions where evidentiary facts are within public and private purview. Accordingly, the RTC properly acquired jurisdiction.
Applicability of Mitigating Circumstance of Voluntary Surrender
Voluntary surrender requires that the accused not be under arrest, that surrender be to a person in authority, and that it be spontaneous. Petitioner first raised voluntary surrender and old age on motion for reconsideration before the CA, failing to present them at trial. Issues not raised in the lower court cannot be entertained on appeal; to do so would prejudice the prosecution’s due process right to disprove spontaneity. Estoppel by laches also bars late claims. However, advanced age (83 years) may be considered equitably.
Determination of the Proper Penalty
Violation of Section 68, PD 705 is treated as qualified theft under Article 310, RPC. The timber’s value (₱22,496.76) places the basic penalty under Article 309 at prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. Article 310 raises the penalty two degrees hi
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 206794)
Facts of the Case
- On December 4, 2005, four men were observed cutting Benguet pine trees at Sinto Bangao, Buguias, Benguet, using a power chainsaw and bolo.
- Eric Lanta-an and Raymundo Abuyog, working on Leonora Edoc’s land, heard the chainsaw and saw the men cutting and chopping branches.
- One of the men (Arsebino Talabis) told Eric they needed the timber to do work on the land where the trees stood.
- Leonora Edoc and her husband arrived at noon, saw missing pine trees, and personally witnessed Edwin Talabis directing the chainsaw operator while Arsebino pointed out trees to be cut.
- Leonora reported the incident to Cesar Kitayan, Forester and Reforestation Unit Head of CENRO-DENR, who inspected the site and found 18 felled trees.
- Forest Rangers measured the volume at 3.1464 cubic meters, valuing the timber at ₱22,496.76; CENRO-DENR certified no permit had been issued to Edwin or Arsebino.
Procedural History
- Leonora Edoc and Rhoda Bay-An filed a joint affidavit-complaint with the Provincial Prosecutor charging Edwin and Arsebino with violation of Section 68 of PD 705.
- The Regional Trial Court (Branch 64, Abatan, Buguias) arraigned the accused; both pleaded not guilty and trial ensued.
- On September 9, 2009, the RTC found both Edwin and Arsebino guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced them to reclusion temporal in its medium period (14 years, 4 months, 1 day to 15 years).
- The RTC denied their motion for reconsideration on December 1, 2009.
- On appeal, Arsebino died during the proceedings; the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed his appeal on February 8, 2011.
- On January 16, 2014, the CA affirmed the RTC’s conviction of Edwin with modification of the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of six years prision correccional (minimum) to ten years prision mayor (maximum), and ordered confiscation of the felled trees.
- The CA denied Edwin’s motion for reconsideration on September 2, 2014.
- Edwin filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.
Issues Presented
- Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the criminal case despite the complaint being filed by private individuals instead of a forest officer.
- Whether Edwin is entitled to the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and old age.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
- Elements of illegal logging under Section 68, PD 705, were proven: cutting and removal of timber without permit, fro