Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    Merida v. People of The Philippines

    Uploaded by

    KM
    This case involves Merida cutting a narra tree on Tansiongco's private land. Tansiongco filed a complaint against Merida with the Provincial Prosecutor, charging him with violating Section 68 of PD No. 705, which prohibits unlawful cutting of trees. The trial court found Merida guilty. The Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) the trial court had jurisdiction over the case, even though it was filed by a private individual and not a DENR officer, and (2) Merida was guilty of violating Section 68 of PD No. 705 based on his extrajudicial admissions to cutting the tree.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Merida v. People of The Philippines

    Uploaded by

    KM
    2K views1 page
    This case involves Merida cutting a narra tree on Tansiongco's private land. Tansiongco filed a complaint against Merida with the Provincial Prosecutor, charging him with violating Section 68 of PD No. 705, which prohibits unlawful cutting of trees. The trial court found Merida guilty. The Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) the trial court had jurisdiction over the case, even though it was filed by a private individual and not a DENR officer, and (2) Merida was guilty of violating Section 68 of PD No. 705 based on his extrajudicial admissions to cutting the tree.

    Original Description:

    Enviro Case

    Original Title

    Merida v. People of the Philippines

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves Merida cutting a narra tree on Tansiongco's private land. Tansiongco filed a complaint against Merida with the Provincial Prosecutor, charging him with violating Section 68 of PD No. 705, which prohibits unlawful cutting of trees. The trial court found Merida guilty. The Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) the trial court had jurisdiction over the case, even though it was filed by a private individual and not a DENR officer, and (2) Merida was guilty of violating Section 68 of PD No. 705 based on his extrajudicial admissions to cutting the tree.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views1 page

    Merida v. People of The Philippines

    Uploaded by

    KM
    This case involves Merida cutting a narra tree on Tansiongco's private land. Tansiongco filed a complaint against Merida with the Provincial Prosecutor, charging him with violating Section 68 of PD No. 705, which prohibits unlawful cutting of trees. The trial court found Merida guilty. The Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) the trial court had jurisdiction over the case, even though it was filed by a private individual and not a DENR officer, and (2) Merida was guilty of violating Section 68 of PD No. 705 based on his extrajudicial admissions to cutting the tree.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Merida v.

    People of the Philippines


    G.R. No. 158182, June 12, 2008, 554 SCRA 366

    Syllabus:
    The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (Revised Rules) list the cases which must be initiated by a
    complaint filed by specified individuals the non-compliance of which ousts the trial court of jurisdiction from trying
    such cases. However, these cases concern only defamation and other crimes against chastity and not to cases
    concerning Section 68 of PD No. 705, as amended. Further, Section 80 of PD No. 705 does not prohibit an interested
    person from filing a complaint before any qualified officer for violation of Section 68 of PD No. 705, as amended.

    Facts:
    A certain Tansiongco discovered that Sesinando Merida cut a narra tree in his private land, the Mayod
    Property. Tansiongco reported the matter to the punong barangay who summoned petitioner to a meeting. During
    that meeting, Merida made extrajudicial admissions that he did cut the tree but claimed that he did so with the
    permission of one Vicar Calix, who, he alleges, bought the Mayod Property from Tansiongco. Tansiongco again
    reported the matter, this time with the DENR. Merida made the same extrajudicial admissions. Tansiongco filed a
    complaint with the Provincial Prosecutor charging Merida with violation of Section 68 of PD No. 705. The Prosecutor
    found probable cause and filed the information with the trial court. The trial court found Merida guilty as charged. The
    Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

    Issues:
    (1) Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the case considering that it was filed by a private individual
    and not by a DENR forest officer.

    (2) Whether Merida is guilty of violating Section 68 of PD No. 705

    Ruling:
    (1) Yes. The trial court acquired jurisdiction.

    According to the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the list of cases which must be initiated by the
    complainant does not include cases concerning Section 68 of PD No. 705. Moreover, “Section 80 of PD No. 705 does
    not prohibit an interested person from filing a complaint before any qualified officer for violation of Section 68 of PD
    No. 705, as amended.”

    (2) Yes. Merida is guilty of violating Section 68 of PD No. 705.

    Merida constantly represented to the authorities that he cut a narra tree in the Mayod Property. Therefore,
    his extrajudicial admissions are binding on him.

    You might also like