G.R. No. 214647 , March 04, 2020
Edwin Talabis, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Edwin Talabis and his deceased co-accused Arsebino Talabis were charged with violating Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705 (the Revised Forestry Code) for cutting, gathering, and collecting pine trees without a permit. The Information alleged that on December 4, 2005, in Sinto Bangao, Buguias, Benguet, the accused conspired to cut pine trees with a total volume of 3.1464 cubic meters, valued at P22,496.76, without lawful authority. The complaint was initiated by private individuals Leonora Edoc and Rhoda E. Bay-An. Witnesses, including Leonora and a DENR forester, saw the accused cutting trees. A DENR certification confirmed no permit was issued to the accused. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found both accused guilty and sentenced them to imprisonment. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s judgment with modifications to the penalty, dismissing the appeal as to the deceased Arsebino. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, which argued for the appreciation of mitigating circumstances and questioned the trial court’s jurisdiction due to the complaint being filed by private individuals.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the case despite the complaint being filed by private individuals and not by a DENR official.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not appreciating the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and old age.

RULING

1. Yes, the trial court acquired jurisdiction. The Court ruled that the authority to file a complaint for violation of forestry laws is not exclusive to DENR officials. While Section 80 of PD 705 designates forest officers as peace officers with the power to arrest and file complaints, it does not preclude other persons, such as the offended party or any peace officer, from filing a complaint under the Rules of Court. The complaint filed by the private individuals was sufficient to initiate the prosecution. Jurisdiction over the offense is conferred by law, and the Information filed by the public prosecutor vested the court with jurisdiction. The petitioner’s failure to raise this issue at the earliest opportunity constituted a waiver.
2. No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and old age were not proven. For voluntary surrender, the accused must show spontaneity and an intention to surrender unconditionally to the authorities, which petitioner failed to establish. Regarding old age, while petitioner was 67 years old at the time of sentencing, this circumstance is not mitigating under Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code for the crime of qualified theft, to which the penalty under Section 68 of PD 705 refers. The Court modified the penalty imposed by the CA, applying the indeterminate sentence law. Considering the value of the timber (P22,496.76) and the absence of modifying circumstances, the proper penalty is an indeterminate sentence of six (6) years of prision correccional as minimum to ten (10) years of prision mayor as maximum. The Court affirmed the confiscation and forfeiture of the felled pine trees in favor of the government.