WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the VOL.

594, 51
Decision dated 9 July 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR JULY 27, 2009
CV No. 71137. Aquino vs. People
SO ORDERED. Criminal Law; Revised Forestry Code (Presidential Decree
Puno (C.J., Chairperson), Corona, Leonardo-De No. 705); Conspiracy; Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705
Castro and Bersamin, JJ., concur. clearly punishes anyone who shall cut, gather, collect or remove
Petition denied, judgment affirmed. timber or other forest products from any forest land, or timber from
Note.—An issuance of a transfer certificate of title tainted alienable or disposable public land, or from private land, without
with mistake and fraud cannot be valid; Reconveyance is an any authority; An accused could not be convicted of conspiracy to
action in personam and is always available so long as the commit the offense where all his co-accused were acquitted of the
property has not been passed to an innocent third party for charges against them.—There are two distinct and separate offenses
value. (Rodrigo vs. Ancilla, 492 SCRA 514 [2006]) punished under Section 68 of PD 705, to wit: (1) Cutting, gathering,
collecting and removing timber or other forest products from any
——o0o——
forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or
from private land without any authority; and (2) Possession of timber
  or other forest products without the legal documents required under
existing forest laws and regulations. The provision clearly punishes
G.R. No. 165448.  July 27, 2009.* anyone who shall cut, gather, collect or remove timber or other
ERNESTO AQUINO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE forest products from any forest land, or timber from alienable or
PHILIPPINES, respondent. disposable public land, or from private land, without any authority.
Appeals; Questions of Law; Words and Phrases; For questions In this case, petitioner was charged by CENRO to supervise the
to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the implementation of the permit. He was not the one who cut, gathered,
probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants—the collected or removed the pine trees within the contemplation of
resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on Section 68 of PD 705. He was not in possession of the cut trees
the given set of circumstances.—A question of law arises when there because the lumber was used by Teachers’ Camp for repairs.
is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is Petitioner could not likewise be convicted of conspiracy to commit
a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the offense because all his co-accused were acquitted of the charges
the alleged facts. For questions to be one of law, the same must not against them.
involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and
presented by the litigants. The resolution of the issue must rest solely resolution of the Court of Appeals.
on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances.    The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
_______________   Antonio F. Angluben for petitioner.
  The Solicitor General  for respondent.
* FIRST DIVISION. CARPIO, J.:
51

1|Page
 The Case 3. As replacement, the permittee shall plant one hundred forty
(140) pine seedlings in an appropriate place within the area. In the
Before the Court is a petition for review1 assailing the 5 absence of plantable area in the property, the same is required to
plant within forest area duly designated by CENRO concerned which
_______________ shall be properly maintained and protected to ensure/enhance growth
and development of the planted seedlings;
1 Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
52 _______________
5 SUPREME COURT
2 Rollo, pp. 16-31. Penned by Associate Justice Eubulo G. Verzola with
2 REPORTS Associate Justices Minerva P. Gonzaga-Reyes and Hilarion L. Aquino, concurring.
ANNOTATED 3 Id., at pp. 33-35. Penned by Associate Justice Eubulo G. Verzola with
Associate Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa, concurring.
Aquino vs. People 53
June 1997 Decision2 and 24 September 2004 Resolution3 of the VOL. 594, JULY 27, 53
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 17534.
2009
The Antecedent Facts Aquino vs. People
      4. Violation of any of the conditions set hereof is
On behalf of Teachers’ Camp, Sergio Guzman filed with punishable under Section 68 of PD 705 as amended by E.O. No. 277,
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources Series of 1987; and
(DENR) an application to cut down 14 dead Benguet pine trees 5. That non-compliance with any of the above conditions or
violations of forestry laws and regulations shall render this permit
within the Teachers’ Camp in Baguio City. The trees, which
null and void without prejudice to the imposition of penalties in
had a total volume of 13.37 cubic meters, were to be used for accordance with existing laws and regulations.
the repairs of Teachers’ Camp. This PERMIT is non-transferable and shall expire ten (10) days from
On 19 May 1993, before the issuance of the permit, a team issuance hereof or as soon as the herein authorized volume is
composed of members from the Community Environment and exhausted whichever comes first.” 4

Natural Resources Office (CENRO) and Michael Cuteng On 23 July 1993, Forest Rangers Ramil Windo, Moises
(Cuteng), a forest ranger of the Forest Section of the Office of Sobrepeña, Daniel Salamo, Pablo Guinawan, Antonio Abellera,
the City Architect and Parks Superintendent of Baguio City, and Forester Paul Apilis received information that pine trees
conducted an inspection of the trees to be cut. were being cut at Teachers’ Camp without proper authority.
Thereafter, Sabado T. Batcagan, Executive Director of the They proceeded to the site where they found Ernesto Aquino
DENR, issued a permit allowing the cutting of 14 trees under (petitioner), a forest ranger from CENRO, and Cuteng
the following terms and conditions: supervising the cutting of the trees. They also found sawyers
“2. That the cut timber shall be utilized as lumber and fuel- Benedicto Santiago (Santiago) and Mike Masing (Masing) on
wood by the permittee; the site, together with Clemente Salinas (Salinas) and Andrew

2|Page
Nacatab (Nacatab), who were also supervising the cutting of stated that he cut 10 pine trees under the supervision of
the trees. The forest rangers found 23 tree stumps, out of which petitioner who claimed to be in possession of the necessary
only 12 were covered by the permit. The volume of the trees permit. He stated that three of the trees were stumps about four
cut with permit was 13.58 cubic meters while the volume of the or five feet high and were not fit for lumber. He stated that
trees cut without permit was 16.55 cubic meters. The market while he was cutting trees, petitioner and Salinas were present.
value of the trees cut without permit was P182,447.20, and the  Santiago testified that he cut trees under petitioner’s
forest charges were P11,833.25. supervision. He stated that petitioner was in possession of the
An Information for violation of Section 68 of Presidential permit. He stated that he cut 10 trees, six of which were cut
Decree No. 7055 (PD 705) was filed against petitioner, Cuteng, into lumber while two were stumps and two were rotten.
Nacatab, Masing, and Santiago, as follows:  Salinas testified that Masing and Santiago were merely
“That on or about the 23rd day of July, 1993, and subsequent hired as sawyers and they merely followed petitioner’s
thereto, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction instructions.
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, Cuteng testified that he was part of the team that inspected
confederating and mutually aiding one another, and without any the trees to be cut before the permit was issued. He stated that
_______________
the trees cut by Santiago were covered by the permit.
Nacatab testified that he only went to Teachers’ Camp on
4 Records, p. 190. 13 July 1993 and he saw Santiago and Masing cutting down
5 REVISED FORESTRY CODE. the trees in petitioner’s presence.
54
Petitioner alleged that he was sent to supervise the cutting
5 SUPREME COURT
of trees at Teachers’ Camp. He allegedly informed his superior,
4 REPORTS Paul Apilis, that he was not aware of the trees covered
ANNOTATED
Aquino vs. People _______________
authority, license or permit, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
6 Rollo, p. 20.
and feloniously cut nine (9) pine trees with a total volume and
55
market price as P182,447.20 (Volume 16.55 M3 424 bd. ft./M3 and
unit price – P26.00 bd. ft.) and with a total forest charge of VOL. 594, JULY 27, 55
P11,833.25 or having a total sum of P194,280.45 at Teachers Camp, 2009
Baguio City, without the legal documents as required under existing Aquino vs. People
forest laws and regulations, particularly the Department of by the permit. However, he still supervised the cutting of trees
Environment and Natural Resources Circular No. 05, Series of 1989, without procuring a copy of the vicinity map used in the
in violation of the aforecited law.”
6
inspection of the trees to be cut. He claimed that he could not
Masing alleged that he was not aware of the limitations on prevent the overcutting of trees because he was just alone while
the permit as he was not given a copy of the permit. Masing Cuteng and Santiago were accompanied by three other men.

3|Page
 The Decision of the Trial Court Aquino vs. People
further ruled that the cutting of trees went beyond the period
In its 26 May 1994 Decision, 7 the Regional Trial Court of stated in the permit.
Baguio City, Branch 5 (trial court), ruled as follows: Petitioner, Cuteng and Santiago appealed from the trial
“WHEREFORE, the Court finds and declares the accused court’s Decision.
ERNESTO AQUINO y ESTIPULAR, MICHAEL CUTENG y
LESCAO and BENEDICTO SANTIAGO y DOCLES guilty beyond
The Decision of the Court of Appeals
reasonable doubt of the crime charged and hereby sentences EACH
of them to suffer an indeterminate penalty of SIX (6) YEARS
In its 5 June 1997 Decision, the Court of Appeals modified
of prision correccional, as minimum, to TWENTY (20) YEARS
of reclusion temporal, as maximum; to indemnify, jointly and the trial court’s Decision as follows:
severally, the Government in the amounts of P182,477.20 and “WHEREFORE, the decision of the court a quo is MODIFIED.
P11,833.25, representing the market value of and forest charges on The accused-appellants Benedicto Santiago and Michael Cuteng are
the Benguet pine trees cut without permit; and to pay their hereby acquitted on reasonable doubt. The appellant Ernesto Aquino
proportionate shares in the costs. is found guilty, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate
The chainsaw confiscated from the accused Santiago is hereby penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as
declared forfeited in favor of the Government. minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day
On the other hand, the accused ANDREW NACATAB y of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The award of damages is
DODOY and MIKE MASING y GANAS are acquitted on deleted. No costs.
reasonable doubt, with costs de oficio, and the cash bonds they SO ORDERED.” 9

deposited for their provisional liberty in the amount of P7,500.00 The Court of Appeals ruled that as a forest guard or ranger
each under O.R. Nos. 139605 and 139646, dated February 4, 1996 of the CENRO, DENR, petitioner had the duty to supervise the
and February 23, 1994, respectively, are ordered released to them cutting of trees and to ensure that the sawyers complied with
upon proper receipt therefor. the terms of the permit which only he possessed. The Court of
SO ORDERED.” 8
Appeals ruled that while it was Teachers’ Camp which hired
The trial court ruled that the trees cut exceeded the allowed the sawyers, petitioner had control over their acts. The Court of
number of the trees authorized to be cut. The trial court Appeals rejected petitioner’s claim that he was restrained from
taking a bolder action by his fear of Santiago because petitioner
_______________
could have informed his superiors but he did not do so. The
7 CA Rollo, pp. 11-18. Penned by Judge Salvador J. Valdez, Jr. Court of Appeals further rejected petitioner’s contention that
8 Id., at pp. 17-18. the law contemplated cutting of trees without permit, while in
56 this case there was a permit for cutting down the trees. The
5 SUPREME COURT Court of Appeals ruled that the trees which were cut by the
6 REPORTS sawyers were not covered by the permit.
ANNOTATED
_______________

4|Page
 9 Rollo, pp. 30-31. must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of
57 circumstances.12
VOL. 594, JULY 27, 57 In this case, petitioner challenges his conviction under
2009 Section 68 of PD 705.
Aquino vs. People
The Court of Appeals ruled that conspiracy was not _______________
sufficiently proven. As such, the Court of Appeals found that 10 Republic v. Heirs of Fabio, G.R. No. 159589, 23 December 2008, 575
the prosecution failed to prove Cuteng’s guilt beyond SCRA 51.
reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeals likewise acquitted 11 Id.
Santiago because he was only following orders as to which 12 Id.
58
trees to cut and he did not have a copy of the permit.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. In its 24 5 SUPREME COURT
September 2004 Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied the 8 REPORTS
motion for lack of merit. ANNOTATED
Hence, the petition before this Court. Aquino vs. People
Section 68 of PD 705 provides:
The Issue “Section 68.  Cutting, Gathering and/or Collecting Timber or
Other Forest Products Without License.—Any person who shall cut,
The only issue in this case is whether petitioner is guilty gather, collect, remove timber or other forest products from any
beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 68 of PD 705. forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or
from private land, without any authority, or possess timber or other
The Ruling of this Court forest products without the legal documents as required under
existing forest laws and regulations, shall be punished with the
The petition has merit. penalties imposed under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal
The Solicitor General alleges that the petition should be Code: Provided, that in the case of partnerships, associations, or
denied because petitioner only raises questions of facts and not corporations, the officers who ordered the cutting, gathering,
questions of law. We do not agree. collection or possession shall be liable, and if such officers are
aliens, they shall, in addition to the penalty, be deported without
A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the
further proceedings on the part of the Commission on Immigration
law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of and Deportation.”
fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the There are two distinct and separate offenses punished under
alleged facts.10 For questions to be one of law, the same must Section 68 of PD 705, to wit:
not involve an examination of the probative value of the (1) Cutting, gathering, collecting and removing timber or other
evidence presented by the litigants. 11 The resolution of the issue forest products from any forest land, or timber from alienable or

5|Page
disposable public land, or from private land without any authority; association, or corporation who ordered the cutting, gathering,
and or collection, or is in possession of the pine trees.
(2) Possession of timber or other forest products without the WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE
legal documents required under existing forest laws and regulations.
13
the 5 June 1997 Decision and 24 September 2004 Resolution of
The provision clearly punishes anyone who shall cut, the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 17534. Petitioner
gather, collect or remove timber or other forest products from Ernesto Aquino is ACQUITTED of the charge of violation of
any forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705. Costs de officio.
land, or from private land, without any authority. In this case, SO ORDERED.
petitioner was charged by CENRO to supervise the  Puno (C.J., Chairperson), Corona, Leonardo-de
implementation of the permit. He was not the one who cut, Castro and Bersamin, JJ.,  concur.
gathered, collected or removed the pine trees within the Petition granted, judgment and resolution set aside.
contemplation of Section 68 of PD 705. He was not in Petitioner Ernesto Aquino acquitted.
possession of the cut trees because the lumber was used by Note.—Direct proof of previous agreement to commit an
Teachers’ Camp for repairs. Petitioner could not likewise be offense is not necessary to prove conspiracy—conspiracy may
convicted of be proven by circumstantial evidence. (Tigoy vs. Court of
_______________
Appeals, 492 SCRA 539 [2006])
——o0o——
13 Revaldo v. People, G.R. No. 170589, 16 April 2009. © Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserve
59
VOL. 594, JULY 27, 59
2009
Aquino vs. People
conspiracy to commit the offense because all his co-accused
were acquitted of the charges against them.
Petitioner may have been remiss in his duties when he
failed to restrain the sawyers from cutting trees more than what
was covered by the permit. As the Court of Appeals ruled,
petitioner could have informed his superiors if he was really
intimidated by Santiago. If at all, this could only make
petitioner administratively liable for his acts. It is not enough to
convict him under Section 68 of PD 705.
Neither could petitioner be liable under the last paragraph of
Section 68 of PD 705 as he is not an officer of a partnership,

6|Page