hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

5/19/2018 hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

1/3

CRISOSTOMO VILLARIN et.al , Petitioners, . PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Facts:In a Criminal Complaint filed before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 4,

Cagayan de Oro City by Marcelino B. Pioquinto (Pioquinto), Chief of the ForestProtection and Law Enforcement Unit under the TL Strike Force Team of Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources (DENR), petitioner Aniano Latayada (Latayada)and three others namely, Barangay Captain Camilo Sudaria (Sudaria) of Tagpangi,Cagayan de Oro City, Marlon Baillo (Baillo) and Cipriano Boyatac (Boyatac), werecharged with violation of Section 68, P.D. No. 705 as amended by Executive Order No.277. The respondents were guilty of gathering and possessing sixty-three (63) piecesflitches of varying sizes belonging to the Apitong specie with a total volume of FourThousand Three Hundred Twenty Six (4,326) board feet valued at P108,150.00, withoutany authority and supporting documents as required under existing forest laws andregulation to the damage and prejudice of the government.

Issue:Whether mere possession of timber without the legal document required under forestlaws and regulations makes one automatically liable even criminal intent in violation ofSection 68, Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 705, as amended.

Ruling:Yes, As a special law, the nature of the offense is malum prohibitum and as such,criminal intent is not an essential element. There is The minimum term of theindeterminate sentence imposable on Taopa shall be the penalty next lower to thatprescribed in the RPC. In this case, the minimum term shall be anywhere between 10

years and one day to 14 years and eight months orprision mayor in its maximum periodto reclusion temporal in its minimum period. The maximum term shall be the sum of theadditional four years and the medium period of reclusion temporal in its medium andmaximum periods or 16 years, five months and 11 days to 18 years, two months and21 days of reclusion temporal. The maximum term therefore may be anywhere between16 years, five months and 11 days of reclusion temporal to 22 years, two months and21 days of reclusion perpetua.

REVALDO V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

CASE DIGEST

FACTS

Petitioner Olympio Revaldo was charged with the offense of illegal possession of premium

hardwood lumber in violation of Section 68 of the Forestry Code.On June 18, 1992, around 11:00 in the

morning, Chief Alejandro, SP03 Talisic, SP03 Sunit went to the house of the petitioner to verify the

report of Sunit that petitioner had in possession of lumber without any necessary documents, they were

not armed with a search warrant and they confiscated 20 pieces of lumber of different varieties lying

around the vicinity of the house of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the warrantless search

and seizure conducted by the police officers was illegal and thus the items seized should not have been

admitted in evidence against him. The respondent contends that even without a search warrant, the


2/3

personnel of the PNP can seize the forest products cut, gathered or taken by an offender pursuant to

Section 80 of the Forestry Code.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the arrest of Olympio Revaldo was illegal.

Whether or not the mere possession of the lumber without legal documents gives rise to

criminal liability.

RULING:

The arrest of Olympio Revaldo was not illegal. Section 80 of the Forestry Code provides that a

forest officer or employee of the Bureau or any personnel of the Philippine Constabulary/Philippine

National Police shall arrest even without warrant any person who has committed or is committing in his

presence any of the offenses defined in this chapter. He shall also confiscate, in favor of the

Government, the tools and equipment used in committing the offense, and the forest products cut,

gathered or taken by the offender in the process of committing the offense. In the case of People V.

Doria, search warrant is not necessary under the plain view doctrine. It applies when; a) the law

enforcement officer in search of evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from

which he can view a particular area; b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; c.) it isimmediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime.

With regard to the mere possession of lumber without documents, Section 68 of the Forestry

Code provides, possession of timber or other forest products without legal documents required under

existing Forest laws and regulations constitutes a violation. In the case of People V. Que, Supreme Court

held that mere possession of forest products, without proper documents consummates the crime

whether or not it comes from a legal source.


3/3

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Documents