Republic of the Philippines

Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Region 10

Puntod, Cagayan de Oro City
E- mail add: denr10@gmail.com Telephone No.: (088) 856-9066 Fax No.: 856-8200

___________________

The Honorable Provincial Prosecutor

Provincial Prosecutor
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor

Dear Fiscal:

This has reference to the application of the new law, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10951 (“An act
adjusting the amount or the value of property and damage on which a penalty is based and the fines
imposed under the Revised Penal Code, amending for the purpose Act No. 3815, otherwise known as
the Revised Penal Code, as amended.”) in relation to violations of Section 77 (previously Section 68)
of Presidential Decree (P.D.) 705, as amended by Executive Order (E.O.) No. 277 and renumbered
by R.A. 7161.

It appears that in the implementation of R.A. 10951, a number of criminal cases pending before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), particularly those in violation of Section 77 of P.D. 705 (Cutting,
Gathering and/or Collecting Timber, or Other Forest Products without License) have been quashed
and/or dismissed without prejudice for re-filing before the Municipal Trial Courts. In fact, the
interpretation of R.A. 10951 vis-à-vis violation of Section 77 of P.D. 705 has caused an ambiguity as
to the proper court which shall have jurisdiction over criminal cases involving the same.

Thus, the undersigned deemed it proper to submit his/her opinion on the matter.

I am of the strong belief that cases of violation of Section 77 (previously Sec. 68) of P.D. 705 shall
be penalized as Qualified Theft and as such, should be under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) when the value or amount of the stolen forest product is over Twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000.00).

Section 68 (now renumbered to Sec. 77) of P.D. 705 provides:

“Section 68. Cutting, gathering and/or collecting timber or other products without license.
Any person who shall cut, gather, collect, or remove timber or other forest products from
any forest land, or timber from alienable and disposable public lands, or from private lands,
without any authority under a license agreement, lease, license or permit, shall be guilty of
QUALIFIED THEFT as defined and punished under Articles 309 and 310 of the
Revised Penal Code x x x.” (Emphasis ours.)

Accordingly, Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code reads:

“Art. 310. Qualified Theft. – The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next
higher by two degrees than those respectively specified in the next preceding article, if
committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the property
stolen is a motor vehicle, mail matter, or large cattle or consists of coconuts taken from the
premises of the plantation or fish taken from a fishpond or fishery, or if property is taken on
the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity,
vehicular accident or civil disturbance.” (Emphasis ours.)

Interpretation Cessat In Claris. When the language of a statue is clear and unambiguous, the law is
applied according to its express terms, and interpretation should be resorted to only when the literal
interpretation would be either impossible or absurd or would lead to an injustice (Armando
Barcellano v. Dolores Baas, G.R. No. 165287, 14 September 2011).

Section 68 of P.D. 705, thus, clearly mandates that a violation thereof shall be punished as Qualified
Theft under Article 310 in relation to Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code (Ma. Mimie Cresencio
v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 205015, 19 November 2014).
The reference, therefore, to Article 309 and Article 310 pertains to the penalties a court may impose
upon an accused. To put it simply, a person violating Section 68 of P.D. 705 is criminally liable for
Qualified Theft, but to determine the imposable penalty, Articles 309 and 310 will be used as
reference.

Notably, applying the provisions of R.A. 10951, a simple theft of property worth more than
P20,000.00 is punishable with prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. However,
the penalty two (2) degrees higher than this is prision mayor in its medium and maximum degrees,
which is the imposable penalty for Qualified Theft.

Prision mayor in its medium and maximum degrees involves imprisonment of the accused of more
than six (6) years. Thus, it is the Regional Trial Court which has jurisdiction to try the case and not
the Municipal Trial Court.1

However, it may be argued that E.O. 277, issued on July 25, 1987, amended Section 68 of P.D. 705
to read as:

“Section 68. Cutting, gathering and/or collecting Timber, or Other Forest Products without
License. Any person who shall cut, gather, collect, removed timber or other forest products
from any forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private
land, without any authority, or possess timber or other forest products without the legal
documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations, shall be punished with the
penalties imposed under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code x x x.”

The renumbering of Section 68 to Section 77 by R.A. 7161 neither affected nor amended the
provisions contained therein. Thus, violation of the Section 77 (then Section 68) of P.D. 705 is
punishable with the penalties imposed under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code.

Despite the fact, however, that the E.O. 277 amended Sec. 68 (now Sec. 77) of P.D. 705, the
Supreme Court is absolute in its ruling that a violation of Sec. 68 (now Sec. 77) of P.D. 705 is
punished as Qualified Theft. In fact, the Supreme Court, in the case of Arnado Taopa v. People of
the Philippines, G.R. No. 184098, 25 November 2008 held that:

“Section 68 of PD 705, as amended, refers to Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal
Code (RPC) for the penalties to be imposed on violators. Violation of Section 68 of PD 705,
as amended, is punished as qualified theft. The law treats cutting, gathering, collecting
and possessing timber or other forest products without license as an offense as grave
as and equivalent to the felony of qualified theft.” (Emphasis ours.)

Furthermore, in the recent case of Ernie Idanan, et al. v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 193313,
16 March 2016, the Highest Court pronounced:

“Violation of Section 68 of PD 705, as amended, is punishable as Qualified Theft under

Article 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code.” (Emphasis ours.)

Therefore, it is the humble contention of the undersigned that Violation of Sec. 77 (then Sec. 68, as
amended) of P.D. 705 shall be punished as QUALIFIED THEFT, whereby the imposable penalty is
the next two (2) degrees higher.

Needless to say, what was amended by R.A. 10951 is the Revised Penal Code. It did not amend P.D.
705 in any way. Hence, with utmost due respect, the basis in the computation of the punishable
penalty to an accused in violation of Sec. 77 of P.D. 705 is the penalty that is next two (2) higher in
degrees of those provided in R.A. 10951.

With all humility and respect, I always adhere to the fact that prosecution of all criminal cases shall
always be under the direct control and supervision of the Public Prosecutor. Hence, I continue to
submit to the sound and prudent decision of the Honorable Public Prosecutor in criminal complaints
for violation of Sec. 77 (previously Sec. 68) of P.D. 705.

1
B.P. 129, Sec. 20 (Jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts) in relation to Sec. 32 (Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial
Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in criminal cases).
Finally, I am most respectfully submitting my personal legal opinion with the above-mentioned
predicament in the application of the provisions of R.A. 10951 in relation to cases involving Section
77 (previously Section 68) of P.D. 705.

I am, thus, begging your kindest indulgence to consider the aforementioned opinion when a Motion
to Quash Information is filed before the Regional Trial Courts on the ground of Lack of Jurisdiction
to try and resolve cases involving violations of Section 77 of P.D. 705.

More power and God speed.

Sincerely,

_________________________