Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 188 views

    Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous ubixYA
    The private respondents were charged with qualified theft of logs from privately owned land. The trial court dismissed the information, ruling that the facts did not constitute an offense and the information did not conform to the proper form. The Supreme Court ruled that the information correctly charged an offense under the Revised Forestry Code. Ownership of the logs is not an essential element of the crime. The regular courts also had jurisdiction over the case, not forest officers, because the offense did not occur in their presence and was not reported to them, but rather was committed on private land and reported by a private party.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous ubixYA
    188 views2 pages
    The private respondents were charged with qualified theft of logs from privately owned land. The trial court dismissed the information, ruling that the facts did not constitute an offense and the information did not conform to the proper form. The Supreme Court ruled that the information correctly charged an offense under the Revised Forestry Code. Ownership of the logs is not an essential element of the crime. The regular courts also had jurisdiction over the case, not forest officers, because the offense did not occur in their presence and was not reported to them, but rather was committed on private land and reported by a private party.

    Original Description:

    people of the phil. vs court of first instance

    Original Title

    46772 case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The private respondents were charged with qualified theft of logs from privately owned land. The trial court dismissed the information, ruling that the facts did not constitute an offense and the information did not conform to the proper form. The Supreme Court ruled that the information correctly charged an offense under the Revised Forestry Code. Ownership of the logs is not an essential element of the crime. The regular courts also had jurisdiction over the case, not forest officers, because the offense did not occur in their presence and was not reported to them, but rather was committed on private land and reported by a private party.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    188 views2 pages

    Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous ubixYA
    The private respondents were charged with qualified theft of logs from privately owned land. The trial court dismissed the information, ruling that the facts did not constitute an offense and the information did not conform to the proper form. The Supreme Court ruled that the information correctly charged an offense under the Revised Forestry Code. Ownership of the logs is not an essential element of the crime. The regular courts also had jurisdiction over the case, not forest officers, because the offense did not occur in their presence and was not reported to them, but rather was committed on private land and reported by a private party.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.

    COURT OF FIRST
    INSTANCE OF QUEZON , respondent.
    G.R. No. L-46772 February 13, 1992

    Facts:
    The private respondents were charged with the crime of qualified
    theft of logs, defined and punished under Section 68 of Presidential Decree
    No. 705, otherwise known as the Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines.
    The information provided that Godofredo Arrozal and Luis Flores,
    together with 20 other John Does whose identities are still unknown, the
    first-named accused being the administrator of the Infanta Logging
    Corporation, conspired and entered the privately-owned land of one
    Felicitacion Pujalte, titled in the name of her deceased father, Macario
    Prudente, and proceeded to illegally cut, gather, and take, there from,
    without the consent of the said owner and without any authority under
    a license agreement, 60 logs of different species.
    On March 23, 1977, the named accused filed a motion
    to quash the information on 2grounds, to wit: (1) that the facts charged do
    not constitute an offense; and, (2) that the information does not conform
    substantially to the prescribed form. Trial court thus dismissed the
    information based on the respondents grounds.
    Issue:
    Whether the information correctly and properly charged an offense and
    whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the case.
    Ruling:
    The elements of the crime of qualified theft of logs are: 1) That the
    accused cut, gathered, collected or removed timber or other forest
    products; 2) that the timber or other forest products cut ,gathered, collected
    or removed belongs to the government or to any private individual; and 3)
    that the cutting, gathering, collecting or removing was without authority under

    a license agreement, leas, license, or permit granted by the state. The


    failure of the information to allege that the logs taken were owned by the
    state is not fatal. It should be noted that the logs subject of the complaint
    were taken not from a public forest but from private woodland registered
    in the name of complainant's deceased father, Macario Prudente. The fact
    that only the state can grant a license agreement, license or lease does not
    make the state the owner of all the logs and timber products produced in
    the Philippines including those produced in private woodlands. Thus,
    ownership is not an essential element of the offense as defined in Section 60
    of P.D. No. 705. As to the second issue raised, the regular courts still has
    jurisdiction. Sec. 80 of PD 705covers 2 specific instances when a forest
    officer may commence a prosecution for the violation of the Revised Forestry
    Code of the Philippines.
    The first authorizes a forest officer or employee of the Bureau of
    Forestry to arrest without a warrant, any person who has committed or is
    committing, in his presence, any of the offenses described in the decree.
    The second covers a situation when an offense described in the decree is
    not committed in the presence of the forest officer or employee and the
    commission is brought to his attention by a report or a complaint. In both
    cases, however, the forest officer or employee shall investigate the offender
    and file a complaint with the appropriate official authorized by law to conduct
    a preliminary investigation and file the necessary informations in court.
    Unfortunately, the instant case does not fall under any of the situations
    covered by Section 80 of P.D. 705. The alleged offense was committed not in
    the presence of a forest officer and neither was the alleged commission
    reported to any forest officer. The offense was committed in a private land
    and the complaint was brought by a private offended party to the fiscal.
    As such, the OSG was correct in insisting that P.D. 705 did not repeal
    Section 1687 of the Administrative Code giving authority to the fiscal to
    conduct investigation into the crime of demeanour and have the necessary
    information or complaint prepared or made against person charged with the
    commission of the crime. In short, Section 80 does not grant exclusive
    authority to the forest officers, but only special authority to reinforce the
    exercise of such by those upon whom vested by the general law.

    You might also like