GR 46772; (February, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-46772 February 13, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF QUEZON (BRANCH VII), GODOFREDO ARROZAL AND LUIS FLORES, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents Godofredo Arrozal and Luis Flores were charged with qualified theft of logs under Section 68 of P.D. No. 705 (The Revised Forestry Code) via an information. It alleged that they, conspiring with others, entered the private land of Felicitacion Pujalte and, without her consent and without any license, permit, or authority, illegally cut, gathered, and carried away sixty logs valued at P50,205.52. The accused filed a motion to quash, arguing the information failed to state an offense and did not conform to the prescribed form.
The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the information. It ruled the information was defective for alleging the taking was without the consent of the private landowner but failing to explicitly allege it was “without the consent of the state.” The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the information sufficiently alleges all the elements of the crime of qualified theft of logs under Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, despite not explicitly stating the taking was without the state’s consent.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and reinstated the information. The legal logic centers on the sufficiency of the allegations when testing a motion to quash based on failure to state an offense. The court examines whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, constitute the offense defined by law.
The essential elements of qualified theft of logs under the decree are: (1) the accused cut, gathered, or removed timber; (2) the timber belongs to the government or a private individual; and (3) the act was done without authority under a license, lease, or permit granted by the state. The information here explicitly alleged the acts were done “without any authority under a license agreement, lease, license or permit.” Since only the state can grant such authority, this allegation is legally equivalent to stating the taking was without the state’s consent. The ownership of the logs—whether state or private—is a matter of proof at trial. The information’s allegation that the logs were taken from private land without the owner’s consent and, crucially, without any state-granted authority, sufficiently charges the offense. The trial court erred in requiring a talismanic phrase; the substance of the allegation clearly meets the statutory elements.