PD 705:
THE FORESTRY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
JURISPRUDENCE:
OLYMPIO REVALDO VS. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 170589, APRIL 16, 2009
There are two distinct and separate offenses punished under Section 68 of the Forestry Code, to wit:
(1) Cutting, gathering, collecting and removing timber or other forest products from any 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.
As the Court held in People v. Que, in the first offense, one can raise as a defense the legality of the acts of cutting, gathering, collecting, or removing timber or other forest products by presenting the authorization issued by the DENR. In the second offense, however, it is immaterial whether the cutting, gathering, collecting and removal of the forest products are legal or not. Mere possession of forest products without the proper documents consummates the crime. Whether or not the lumber comes from a legal source is immaterial because the Forestry Code is a special law which considers mere possession of timber or other forest products without the proper documentation as malum prohibitum.
REVISING PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 389, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE FORESTRY REFORM CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES:
– Cutting of timber in private land and turning to lumber in private land is a Violation of Forestry Code.
JURISPRUDENCE:
Sesinado Merida, vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 158182, June 12, 2008
The petitioner was charged with cutting trees and converting the same to lumber on private land, as violation to the forestry code.
“A violation as made under the forestry code, if the specie of tree is listed on the prohibited subject of the code, then, cutting these prohibited trees from a private land then converting it to lumber is a violation of the law. Clearly, no construction is needed when the words of the law is unambiguous and there is indication as regards a contrary legislative intent.”
Amado Taopa, vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 184098, November 25, 2008
“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 of other forest products without license as an offense as grave as and equivalent to the felony of qualified theft.”
Galo Monge, vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 170308 March 7, 2008
“Section 68 of PD 705, as amended by E.O. No. 277, criminalizes two distinct and separate offenses, namely: (a) the cutting, gathering, collecting and removing of timber or other forest products from any forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private land without any authority; and (b) the possession of timber or other forest products without the legal documents required under existing laws and regulations. DENR Administrative Order No. 59 series of 1993 specifies the documents required for the transport of timber and other forest products. Section 3 thereof materially requires for the transport of lumber be accompanied by a certificate of lumber origin duly issued by the DENR-CENRO. In the first offense, the legality of the acts of cutting, gathering, collecting or removing timber or other forest products may be proven by the authorization duly issued by the DENR. In the second offense, however, it is immaterial whether or not the cutting gathering, collecting and removal of forest products are legal precisely because mere possession of forest products without the requisite documents consummates the crime.
It is thus clear that the fact of possession by petitioner and Potencio of the subject mahogany lumber and their subsequent failure to produce the requisite legal documents, taken together, has already given rise to criminal liability under Section 69 of PD No. 705, particularly second act punished thereunder.”
THE CRIME OF LAUNDERING
(REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9160)
Purpose:
It is hereby declared the policy of the State to protect and preserve the integrity and confidentiality of bank accounts and to ensure that the Philippines shall not be used as a money laundering sit for the proceeds of any unlawful activity. Consistent with its foreign policy, the State shall extend cooperation in transnational investigations and prosecutions of persons involved in money laundering activities wherever committed.
The Anti-Money Laundering Council
- POWERS AND DUTIES
a) To require and receive covered or suspicious transaction reports from covered institutions;
b) To issue orders addressed to the appropriate Supervising Authority or the covered institutions to determine the true identity of the owner of any monetary instrument or property subject of a covered transaction or suspicious transaction report or request for assistance from a foreign State, or believed by the Council, on the basis of substantial evidence, to be, in whole or in part, wherever located, representing, involving, or related to directly or indirectly, in any manner or by any means, the proceeds of an unlawful activity.
c) To institute civil forfeiture proceedings and all other remedial proceedings through the Office of th Solicitor General;
d) To cause the filing of complaints with the Department of Justice or the Ombudsman for the prosecution of money laundering offenses;
e) To investigate suspicious transactions and covered transactions deemed suspicious after an investigation by AMLC, money laundering activities and other violations of this Act;
f) To apply before the Court of Appeals, ex parte, for the freezing of any monetary instrument or property alleged to be the proceeds of any unlawful activity as defined in Section 3(i) hereof;
g) To implement such measures as may be necessary and justified under this Act to counteract money laundering;
h) To receive and take action in respect of, any request from foreign states for assistance in their own anti-money laundering operations provided in this Act;
i) To develop educational programs on the pernicious effects of money laundering, the methods and techniques used in the money laundering, the viable means of preventing money laundering and the effective ways of prosecuting and punishing offenders;
j) To enlist the assistance of any branch, department, bureau, office, agency, or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and -controlled corporations, in undertaking any and all anti-money laundering operations, which may include the use of its personnel, facilities and resources for the more resolute prevention, detection, and investigation of money laundering offenses and prosecution of offenders; and
k) To impose administrative sanctions for the violation of laws, rules, regulations, and orders and resolutions issued pursuant thereto. (Sec. 7, RA 9160, as amended by RA 9194)
COMPOSITION OF AMLC
- Governor of the Banko Sentral ng Pilipinas as Chairman
- Commissioner of the Insurance Commission as Member
- C. Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission as Member (Sec. 7, RA 9160, as amended by RA 9194)
JURISDICTIONS OF MONEY LAUNDERING CASES.
The regional trial courts shall have jurisdiction to try all cases on money laundering. Those committed by public officers and private persons who are in conspiracy with such public officers shall be under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. (Sec. 5, RA 9160)
FREEZING OF MONETARY INSTRUMENT OR PROPERTY
The Court of Appeals, upon application ex parte by the AMLC and after determination that probable cause exists that any monetary instrument or property is in any way related to an unlawful activity as defined in Section 3(i) hereof, may issue a freeze order which shall be effective immediately. The freeze order shall be for a period of twenty (20) days unless extended by the court. (Sec. 10 of RA 9160, as amended by RA 9194)
AUTHORITY TO INQUIRE INTO BANK DEPOSITS
Notwithstanding the provisions of Republic Act No. 1405, as amended, Republic Act No. 6426, as amended, Republic Act No. 8791, and other laws, the AMLC may inquire into or examine any particular deposit or investment with any banking institution or non-bank financial institution upon order of any competent court in cases of violation of this Act, when it has been established that there is probable cause that the deposits or investments are related to an unlawful activities as defined in Section 3(I) hereof or a money laundering offense under Section 4 hereof, except that no court order shall be required in cases involving unlawful activities defined in Sections 3(I)1, (2) and (12).
To ensure compliance with this Act, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) may inquire into or examine any deposit of investment with any banking institution or non-bank financial institution when the examination is made in the course of a periodic or special examination, in accordance with the rules of examination of the BSP. (Sec. 11 of RA 9160, as amended by RA 9194)
JURISPRUDENCE:
In the case of People vs. Estrada (G.R. No. 164368, April 2, 2009) as regards the use of an alias, the Supreme Court held that “the repeated use of an alias within a single day cannot be deemed “habitual”, as it does not amooffiunt to a customary practice or use”.
In the case of Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) vs. Hon. Eugenio, the court held that: “In addition to providing for the definition and penalties for the crime of money laundering, the AMLA also authorizes certain provisional remedies that would aid the AMLC in the enforcement of the AMLA. These are the “freeze order” authorized under Sec. 10, and “the bank inquiry order” authorized under Section 11. xxx Still, even if the bank inquiry order may be availed of without need of a pre-existing case under the AMLA, it does not follow that such order may be availed for ex parte. There are several reasons why the AMLA does not generally sanction ex parte applications and issuance of the bank inquiry order.”
