G.R. No. 108619 July 31, 1997
Epifanio Lalican, petitioner, vs. Hon. Filomeno A. Vergara, Presiding Judge, RTC Branch 52, Puerto Princesa City and People of the Philippines, respondents.

FACTS

An information was filed against petitioner Epifanio Lalican and others for violation of Section 68 of P.D. No. 705 (The Forestry Reform Code), as amended, alleging that on February 9, 1991, they willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously had in their possession, custody, and control 1,800 board feet of assorted species and dimensions of lumber without lawful authority or permit. Petitioner moved to quash the information, contending that the facts charged did not constitute an offense. He argued that Section 68 refers to “timber and other forest products” and not to “lumber,” asserting that “timber” becomes “lumber” only after it is sawn, and thus the decree does not apply to lumber. The lower court initially granted the motion to quash, holding that the law distinguishes between timber (a forest product) and lumber (a finished wood product), and that Section 68 penalizes the unlicensed cutting, gathering, and/or collecting of timber, not the possession of lumber. Upon motion for reconsideration, the case was reassigned to another branch, which set aside the quashal order. The new court declared that even if lumber is not timber, it is a forest product, and possession thereof without legal documents is prohibited by the law, which includes “wood” in the definition of forest products. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether a charge of illegal possession of “lumber” is excluded from the crime of illegal possession of “timber” as defined in Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended, thereby warranting the quashal of an information charging such offense as a “nonexistent crime.”

RULING

No. The petition is devoid of merit. Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended, punishes (a) the cutting, gathering, collection, or removal of timber or other forest products without authority, or (b) possession of timber or other forest products without the required legal documents. The Court, citing Mustang Lumber, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, held that while the Revised Forestry Code contains no definition of either timber or lumber, lumber is a processed log or timber. The law makes no distinction between raw or processed timber. The legislative intent to include possession of lumber in Section 68 is clear from the reasons for enacting Executive Order No. 277, which aims to conserve forest resources and overcome technical difficulties in implementing forestry laws. To exclude possession of lumber would emasculate the law. The phrase “forest products” is broad enough to encompass lumber, which is manufactured timber. Therefore, possession of lumber without the required legal documents is penalized under Section 68.