Revaldo V People of The Philippines

Revaldo v People of the Philippines
Facts: Petitioner was charged with the offense of illegal possession of premium hardwood lumber in
violation of Section 68 of the Forestry Code. Upon arraignment, petitioner, assisted by counsel, pleaded
not guilty. Trial ensued. The prosecution presented SPO4 Constantino Maceda, Sulpicio Saguing, and SPO4
Daniel Paloma Lasala as witnesses.
Maceda went to the house of the petitioner together with Chief Alejandro Rojas, SPO3
Melquiades Talisic, and SPO3 Nicasio Sunit to verify the report of Sunit that the petitioner had a lumber
in his house without necessary document to possess it. The group of police was not armed with search
warrant when they came to the house of the petitioner. They confiscated lumber of different varieties
lying around the vicinity of the house of petitioner. Maceda asked petitioner who the owner of the lumber
was and petitioner replied that he owned the lumber. Petitioner stated that he would use the lumber to
repair his house and to make furniture for sale. Maceda took the lumber to the DENR for its custody.
For the defense, petitioner presented Dionisio Candole (Candole), Apolonio Caalim (Caalim), and
himself as witnesses. Petitioner testied that he is a carpenter specializing in furniture making. He was in
his house working on an ordered divider for a customer in the morning of 18 June 1992 when policemen
arrived and inspected his lumber. Maceda, Sunit and Rojas entered his house while Talisic stayed outside.
Petitioner admitted to the policemen that he had no permit to possess the lumber because those were
only given to him by his uncle Felixberto Bug-os (Bug-os), his aunt Gliceria Bolo (Bolo), his mother-in-law
Cecilia Tenio (Tenio).
The trial court further stated that the Forestry Code is a special law where criminal intent is not
necessary. The Secretary of the DENR may issue a Special Private Land Timber Permit to landowners to
cut, gather, collect or remove narra or other premium hardwood species found in private lands.
Transportation of timber or other forest products without authority or without the legal documents
required under forest rules and regulations is punishable under Section 68 of the Forestry Code. Petitioner
did not present any document as required by law. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the judgement of
the lower court. Hence, this case.
Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is liable for violation of Section 68 of Forestry Code despite
warrantless search and seizure conducted by the police officers
Ruling: Yes, the petitioner is still liable. The seizure of the lumber from petitioner who did not have the
required permit to possess the forest products cut is sanctioned by Section 68 of the Forestry Code which
provides:
Sec. 68. Cutting, Gathering and/or Collecting Timber, or Other Forest Products Without License. —
Any person who shall cut, gather, collect, remove timber or other forest products from any forest land, or
timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private land without any authority, or possess
possess timber or other forest products without the legal documents as required timber or other forest
products without the legal documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations under
existing forest laws and regulations, shall be punished with the penalties imposed under Articles 309 and
310 of the Revised Penal Code.
As the Court held in People v. Que, in the first offense, one can raise as a defense the legality of
the acts of cutting, gathering, collecting, or removing timber or other forest products by presenting the
authorization issued by the DENR. In the second offense, however, it is immaterial whether the cutting,
gathering, collecting and removal of the forest products are legal or not. Mere possession of forest
products without the proper documents consummates the crime. Whether or not the lumber comes from
a legal source is immaterial because the Forestry Code is a special law which considers mere possession
of timber or other forest products without the proper documentation as malum prohibitum.
On whether the police officers had the authority to arrest petitioner, even without a warrant,
Section 80 of the Forestry Code authorizes the forestry officer or employee of the DENR or any personnel
of the PNP to arrest, even without a warrant, any person who has committed or is committing in his
presence any of the offenses defined by the Forestry Code and to seize and confiscate the tools and
equipment used in committing the offense or the forest products gathered or taken by the offender.
Petitioner was in possession of the lumber without the necessary documents when the police
ocers accosted him. In open court, petitioner categorically admitted the possession and ownership of the
conscated lumber as well as the fact that he did not have any legal documents therefor and that he merely
intended to use the lumber for the repair of his dilapidated house. Mere possession of forest products
without the proper documentation consummates the crime. Dura lex sed lex. The law may be harsh but
that is the law.
Therefore the Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner was convicted for violation of Section 68
(now Section 77) of the Forestry Code, as amended, with MODIFICATION as regards the penalty in that
petitioner Olympio Revaldo is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) months and one
(1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision
correccional, as maximum.

Revaldo V People of The Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Revaldo V People of The Philippines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Revaldo V People of The Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Revaldo v People of the Philippines

You might also like