G.R. No. 158182 ; June 12, 2008
SESINANDO MERIDA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Sesinando Merida was charged with violating Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705 (the Revised Forestry Code), as amended, for cutting, gathering, and removing a narra tree from a private land in Magdiwang, Romblon, owned by private complainant Oscar Tansiongco. The prosecution established that Tansiongco discovered the felled tree in December 1998. When confronted by the barangay captain and later by a DENR forester, Merida admitted to cutting the tree, claiming he had permission from Vicar Calix, who he alleged had bought the property from Tansiongco under a pacto de retro sale. Despite an order from the DENR forester not to convert the trunk, Merida later processed it into lumber, which was subsequently apprehended.
During the trial at the Regional Trial Court, Merida changed his defense and denied any involvement in the tree-cutting. The trial court convicted him, giving credence to his prior extrajudicial admissions made to the barangay captain and the DENR officer. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Merida elevated the case to the Supreme Court, contesting the applicability of the forestry law to trees cut from private land and challenging the court’s jurisdiction, arguing the complaint was improperly filed by a private individual instead of a forest officer as required by Section 80 of P.D. No. 705.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) whether Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, which penalizes the cutting of timber without a permit, applies to trees harvested from private land; and (2) whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the case despite the complaint being initiated by the private landowner and not a DENR forest officer.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed Merida’s conviction. On the first issue, the Court ruled that Section 68 of P.D. No. 705 applies regardless of land ownership. The law explicitly prohibits the cutting, gathering, or removal of timber without the necessary government permit or license. This requirement is a means of state supervision over the utilization of valuable forest resources, such as narra, which are classified as premium hardwood. The necessity for a permit is a regulatory measure to prevent indiscriminate cutting and to conserve the country’s forest resources, and it extends to trees grown on private land. Since Merida admitted to cutting the narra tree and no DENR permit was ever presented, his actions fell squarely under the prohibition.
On the jurisdictional issue, the Court held that the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction. While Section 80 of P.D. No. 705 states that arrests and prosecutions should be instituted by forest officers, this provision is merely directory and not a jurisdictional requirement. The filing of the Information by the Provincial Prosecutor after a preliminary investigation conferred jurisdiction upon the court. The law does not strip the regular courts of their jurisdiction over such offenses if the complaint originates from a private person. The offense is a public crime, and any competent individual with personal knowledge can initiate the complaint. Therefore, the proceedings were valid. The penalty imposed by the lower courts was sustained.