Timber!!!

Cutting timber without the necessary permit is prohibited by law and may land you in jail. This is the lesson learned by Nando rather too late.

Nando’s case involved a solitary Narra tree inside a private land subject of conflicting claims of ownership between Obet and Vic. When Vic learned that Nando felled the Narra tree, he reported the matter to the Punong Barangay. After being summoned and confronted by the Puno in the presence of Vic, Nando admitted cutting the tree but claimed that he did so with the permission and upon written authority of Obet.

Thereafter, Vic also reported the tree-cutting to the DENR forester in their area. Again when confronted by the forester, Nando admitted cutting the tree with Obet’s permission. The forester then ordered Nando not to convert the felled tree into lumber.

About two weeks later however, the narra trunk was cut into six smaller pieces of lumber with three pieces measuring 2x16x6 and 3 pieces measuring 2x18x7 consisting of 111 board feet. So Vic once more reported the matter to the forester who immediately sent employees and enforcement officers at the property. There they saw the six pieces of narra lumber and the larger portion of the felled tree measuring about 76 something centimeters at the big end while the smaller end measured 65 centimeters. Based on his estimates at the prevailing local price, the forester valued the six small pieces at P3,330 which taken together with the value of the remaining log left totaled P20,930.40 and then declared them in the apprehension receipt he issued to Nando. The forester also took custody of the lumber and deposited them for safekeeping with the Punong Barangay.

After the preliminary investigation by the Provincial Prosecutor on complaint of Vic where Nando once more reiterated his claim that he cut the tree with Obet’s permission, a criminal complaint for violation of Section 68 of PD 705 was filed against Nando for having “cut, gathered, collected and removed timber or other forest products from a private land without the necessary permit”.

At the trial, Nando denied for the first time that he cut the narra tree, but the RTC still convicted him mainly because of his extra-judicial admissions that he did it with the permission of the alleged owner, Obet. He was sentenced to suffer imprisonment ranging from 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 20 years. Was the RTC correct?

The RTC is correct in convicting Nando but wrong in the penalty imposed. Section 68 of PD 705 penalizes three categories of acts: (1) cutting, gathering, collecting or removing timber or other forest products from any forest without authority; (2) cutting, gathering, collecting, or removing timber from alienable or disposable public land or from private land without authority; and (3) possession of timber or other forest products without legal documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations. Nando’s liability is under the second category, but only for the act of cutting a lone narra tree.

While Nando adopted conflicting positions on the question of whether he cut the narra tree on the private property without a DENR permit, his extrajudicial admissions that he did it with Obet’s permission bind him. He does not even deny presenting Obet’s written authorization to the punong barangay and the forester. Nando has no use of such authorization if, as he claimed during the trial, he did not cut any tree in the said property.

The lone narra tree cut from the property constitutes “timber” under Section 68. While the law does not define “timber”, such word should be taken in its ordinary meaning. In the absence of legislative intent to the contrary, words and phrases used in a statute should be given their plain, ordinary and common usage meaning. “Timber” in its common acceptation refers to “wood used for or suitable for building or for carpentry or joinery”. Here the narra tree cut by Nando was converted into several pieces of sawn lumber with their measurements indicated in the apprehension receipt. Undoubtedly, the narra tree felled by Nando and converted to lumber with such measurements was “timber” fit for building or for carpentry or for joinery and thus falls within the ambit of Section 68 PD 705.

The penalty for violation of Section 68 corresponds to those imposed by Article 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) based on the amount of the property involved. In this case, the prosecution’s evidence for the lumber’s value consisted merely of an estimate made by the apprehending authorities without any independent and reliable corroboration. This evidence does not suffice. So the minimum penalty under Article 309 of the RPC should be applied. Under the circumstances obtaining here and pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Nando’s penalty should be 4 months and 1 day to 3 years 4 months and 21 days (Merida vs. People, G.R. 158182, June 12, 2008).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

*      *      *

E-mail at: [email protected]