Environmental Education

1. REPUBLIC ACT NO.
3571
An Act to Prohibit the Cutting, Destroying or Injuring of Planted
or Growing Trees, Flowering Plants and Shrubs or Plants of
Scenic Value Along Public Roads, in Plazas, Parks, School
Premises or in Any Other Public Pleasure Ground

2. Section 1.
In order to promote and conserve the beauty of
objects of scenic and ornamental value along public
places and help preserve cool, fresh and healthful
climate, it is the policy of the Government to cherish,
protect and conserve planted or growing trees,
flowering plants and shrubs or plants of ornamental
value along public roads, in plazas, parks, school
premises or in any other public ground.

3. Section 2.
• For the purpose of carrying out effectively the provisions of this Act, the Director of Parks
and Wildlife shall have the power to create a committee in each and every municipality in
the Philippines and shall appoint any civic conscious and well-travelled citizen as
chairman, and the municipal mayor, the municipal treasurer, the supervising school
teacher, and the municipal health officer, as ex officio members thereof. The Director of
Parks and Wildlife shall also have the power to issue and promulgate rules and
regulations as may be necessary in carrying out the provisions of this Act.
• The chairman shall receive compensation of one peso per annum to be paid out of the
funds of the city or municipality concerned, and the members shall not receive extra
compensation. The Committee shall have the power to implement the rules and
regulations issued by the Director of Parks and Wildlife under the provisions of this Act.
• The Committee shall coordinate with the Director of Parks and Wildlife in the
beautification of their respective locality and shall, under its supervision, require school
children on Arbor Day to plant trees and flowering plants of useful and scenic value in
places provided for in the preceding paragraph.

4. Section 3.
No cutting, destroying or injuring of planted or growing trees,
flowering plants and shrubs or plants of scenic value along
public roads, in plazas, parks, school premises or in any other
public ground shall be permitted save when the cutting,
destroying or injuring of same is necessary for public safety, or
such pruning of same is necessary to enhance its beauty and
only upon the recommendation of the committee mentioned in
the preceding section, and upon the approval of the Director of
Parks and Wildlife.1âшphi1 The cutting, destroying or pruning
shall be under the supervision of the committee.

5. Section 4.
Any person who shall cut, destroy or injure trees,
flowering plants and shrubs or plants of scenic value
mentioned in the preceding sections of this Act, shall
be punished by prision correccional in its minimum
period to prision mayor in its minimum period.

6. •The penalty for a violation is stiff: imprisonment from
prision correccional in its minimum period to prision
mayor in its minimum period (roughly, somewhere
between six months plus to eight years plus.)
•Not every act of cutting, destroying or injuring is
punishable, however. When the cutting is necessary for
public safety or the pruning is necessary to enhance the
tree’s beauty, no crime is committed, provided that prior
approval is given by the Director of Parks and Culture
upon recommendation of a committee headed by a civil-
conscious and well-traveled person and composed of
the locality’s mayor, treasurer, supervising school
teacher and municipal health officer.

7. •As in RA 3571, an exception is made by PD 953 of
cutting for public safety or pruning to enhance the
beauty of the tree, plant or shrub, and upon approval
“of the duly authorized representative of the head of
agency, or political subdivision having jurisdiction
therein.”
•PD 953 also drastically reduced the penalty to an
imprisonment of not more than six months but not
more than two years or a fine of not less than P500
but not more than P5,000 or both fine and
imprisonment at the discretion of the court.

8. Approved: June 21, 1963.

9. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 953
REQUIRING THE PLANTING OF TREES IN CERTAIN PLACES AND
PENALIZING UNAUTHORIZED CUTTING, DESTRUCTION, DAMAGING
AND INJURING OF CERTAIN TREES, PLANTS AND VEGETATION

10. Section 1. The following shall plant
trees:
1. Every person who owns land adjoining a river or creek, shall plant trees extending at least
five meters on his land adjoining the edge of the bank of the river or creek, except when such
land, due to its permanent improvement, cannot be planted with trees;
2. Every owner of an existing subdivision shall plant trees in the open spaces required to be
reserved for the common use and enjoyment of the owners of the lots therein as well as along
all roads and service streets. The subdivision owner shall consult the Bureau of Forest
Development as to the appropriate species of trees to be planted and the manner of planting
them; and
3. Every holder of a license agreement, lease, license or permit from the Government, involving
occupation and utilization of forest or grazing land with a river or creek therein, shall plant
trees extending at least twenty (20) meters from each edge of the bank of the river or creek.
The persons hereinabove required to plant trees shall take good care of them, and, from time
to time, remove any tree planted by them in their respective areas which has grown very old, is
diseased, or is defective, and replant with trees their respective areas whenever necessary.

11. Section 2.
• Every owner of land subdivided into residential/commercial/industrial lots
after the effectivity of this Decree shall reserve, develop and maintain not
less than thirty percent (30%) of the total area of the subdivision, exclusive
of roads, service streets and alleys, as open space for parks and
recreational areas.
• No plan for a subdivision shall be approved by the Land Registration
Commission or any office or agency of the government unless at least thirty
percent (30%) of the total area of the subdivision, exclusive of roads, service
streets and alleys, is reserved as open space for parks and recreational
areas and the owner thereof undertakes to develop such open space, within
three (3) years from the approval of the subdivision plan, in accordance with
the development plan approved by the Bureau of Forest Development and
to maintain such parks and recreational areas.

12. Section 3.
Any person who cuts, destroys, damages or injures, naturally growing or
planted trees of any kind, flowering or ornamental plants and shrubs, or
plants of scenic, aesthetic and ecological values, along public roads, in
plazas, parks other than national parks, school premises or in any other
public ground or place, or on banks of rivers or creeks, or along roads in
land subdivisions or areas therein for the common use of the owners of
lots therein, or any species of vegetation or forest cover found therein
shall, be punished with imprisonment for not less than six months and not
more than two years, or a fine of not less than five hundred pesos and
not more than five thousand pesos, or with both such imprisonment and
fine at the discretion of the court, except when the cutting, destroying,
damaging or injuring is necessary for public safety or the pruning thereof
is necessary to enhance beauty,

13. and only upon the approval of the duly authorized representative of the
head of agency or political subdivision having jurisdiction therein, or of
the Director of Forest Development in the case of trees on banks of
rivers and creeks, or of the owner of the land subdivision in the case of
trees along roads and in other areas therein for the common use of
owners of lots therein. If the offender is a corporation, partnership or
association, the penalty shall be imposed upon the officer or officers
thereof responsible for the offense, and if such officer or officers are
aliens, in addition to the penalty herein prescribed, he or they shall be
deported without further proceedings before the Commission on
Immigration and Deportation. Nothing in this Decree shall prevent the
cancellation of a license agreement, lease, license or permit from the
Government, if such cancellation is prescribed therein or in
Government regulations for such offense.

14. Section 4.
Any person who shall violate any provision of Section one
hereof, or any regulation promulgated thereunder, shall be
punished with imprisonment for not less than six months but
not more than two years, or with a fine of not less than five
hundred pesos but not more than five thousand pesos, or
with both such imprisonment than fine at the discretion of the
court. If the offender is a public officer or employee, he shall,
in addition, be dismissed from the public service and
disqualified perpetually to hold public office

15. Section 5.
Any person who shall violate the provision of Section 2 hereof, or
any regulation promulgated thereunder, shall be punished with
imprisonment for not less than two (2) years but not more than
five (5) years, or with a fine equivalent to the value, at current
valuation, of the area representing thirty percent (30%) of the
total area of the subdivision, or both such fine and imprisonment
at the discretion of the Court.

16. • Section 6. The Director of Forest Development shall issue
such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out
the purposes of this Decree.
• Section 7. All laws, rules and regulations, or parts thereof,
inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed.
• Section 8. This Decree shall take effect upon its
promulgation.
Done in the City of Manila, this 6th day of July in the year of
Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-six.

17. • FIRST DIVISION
• [ G.R. No. 158182, June 12, 2008 ]
• SESINANDO MERIDA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
This is a petition for review[1] of the Decision[2] dated 28 June 2002 and the
Resolution dated 14 May 2003 of the Court of Appeals. The 28 June 2002 Decision
affirmed the conviction of petitioner Sesinando Merida (petitioner) for violation of
Section 68,[3] Presidential Decree No. 705 (PD 705),[4] as amended by Executive
Order No. 277. The Resolution dated 14 May 2003 denied admission of petitioner's
motion for reconsideration.[5]

18. The Facts
Petitioner was charged in the Regional Trial Court of Romblon, Romblon, Branch
81 (trial court) with violation of Section 68 of PD 705, as amended, for "cut[ting],
gather[ing], collect[ing] and remov[ing]" a lone narra tree inside a private land in
Mayod, Ipil, Magdiwang, Romblon (Mayod Property) over which private
complainant Oscar M.Tansiongco (Tansiongco) claims ownership.[6]
The prosecution evidence showed that on 23 December 1998, Tansiongco
learned that petitioner cut a narra tree in the Mayod Property. Tansiongco
reported the matter to Florencio Royo (Royo), the punong barangay of Ipil. On
24 December 1998,[7] Royo summoned petitioner to a meeting with Tansiongco.
When confronted during the meeting about the felled narra tree, petitioner
admitted cutting the tree but claimed that he did so with the permission of one
Vicar Calix (Calix) who, according to petitioner, bought the Mayod Property from
Tansiongco in October 1987 under a pacto de retro sale. Petitioner showed to
Royo Calix's written authorization signed by Calix's wife.[8]

19. On 11 January 1999, Tansiongco reported the tree-cutting to the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) forester
Thelmo S. Hernandez (Hernandez) in Sibuyan, Romblon. When
Hernandez confronted petitioner about the felled tree, petitioner
reiterated his earlier claim to Royo that he cut the tree with Calix's
permission. Hernandez ordered petitioner not to convert the felled
tree trunk into lumber.
On 26 January 1999, Tansiongco informed Hernandez that petitioner
had converted the narra trunk into lumber. Hernandez, with other
DENR employees and enforcement officers, went to the Mayod
Property and saw that the narra tree had been cut into six smaller
pieces of lumber. Hernandez took custody of the lumber,[9] deposited
them for safekeeping with Royo, and issued an apprehension receipt to
petitioner. A larger portion of the felled tree remained at the Mayod
Property. The DENR subsequently conducted an investigation on the
matter.[10]

20. Tansiongco filed a complaint with the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor of Romblon (Provincial Prosecutor) charging
petitioner with violation of Section 68 of PD 705, as amended.
During the preliminary investigation, petitioner submitted a
counter-affidavit reiterating his claim that he cut the narra tree
with Calix's permission.The Provincial Prosecutor[11] found
probable cause to indict petitioner and filed the Information with
the trial court (docketed as Criminal Case No. 2207).
During the trial, the prosecution presented six witnesses including
Tansiongco, Royo, and Hernandez who testified on the events
leading to the discovery of and investigation on the tree-cutting.
Petitioner testified as the lone defense witness and claimed, for
the first time, that he had no part in the tree-cutting.

21. The Penalty Imposable on Petitioner
Violation of Section 68 of PD 705, as amended, is punishable as Qualified Theft under
Article 310 in relation to Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), thus:
Art. 310. Qualified theft. - The crime of qualified theft shall be punished by the penalties
next higher by two degrees than those respectively specified in the next preceding article x
x x.
Art. 309. Penalties. - Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by:
The penalty of prisión mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the thing
stolen is more than 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos; but if the value of the
thing stolen exceeds the latter amount, the penalty shall be the maximum period of the
one prescribed in this paragraph, and one year for each additional ten thousand pesos, but
the total of the penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such
cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the
purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prisión mayor or
reclusión temporal, as the case may be.

22. The penalty of prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the value of
the thing stolen is more than 6,000 pesos but does not exceed 12,000 pesos.
The penalty of prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of
the property stolen is more than 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos.
Arresto mayor in its medium period to prisión correccional in its minimum period, if
the value of the property stolen is over 50 pesos but does not exceed 200 pesos.
Arresto mayor to its full extent, if such value is over 5 pesos but does not
exceed 50 pesos.
Arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if such value does not
exceed 5 pesos.
Arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, if the theft is committed
under the circumstances enumerated in paragraph 3 of the next
preceding article and the value of the thing stolen does not exceed 5
pesos. If such value exceeds said amount, the provisions of any of the five
preceding subdivisions shall be made applicable.

23. Arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 50
pesos, when the value of the thing stolen is not over 5 pesos, and
the offender shall have acted under the impulse of hunger,
poverty, or the difficulty of earning a livelihood for the support of
himself or his family.
The Information filed against petitioner alleged that the six pieces
of lumber measuring 111 board feet were valued at P3,330.
However, if the value of the log left at the Mayod Property is
included, the amount increases to P20,930.40. To prove this
allegation, the prosecution relied on Hernandez's testimony that
these amounts, as stated in the apprehension receipt he issued,
are his "estimates" based on "prevailing local price."[41]

24. This evidence does not suffice. To prove the amount of the property taken for
fixing the penalty imposable against the accused under Article 309 of the RPC, the
prosecution must present more than a mere uncorroborated "estimate" of such
fact.[42] In the absence of independent and reliable corroboration of such
estimate, courts may either apply the minimum penalty under Article 309 or fix the
value of the property taken based on the attendant circumstances of the case.[43]
In People v. Dator[44] where, as here, the accused was charged with violation of
Section 68 of PD 705, as amended, for possession of lumber without permit, the
prosecution's evidence for the lumber's value consisted of an estimate made by
the apprehending authorities whose apparent lack of corroboration was
compounded by the fact that the transmittal letter for the estimate was not
presented in evidence. Accordingly, we imposed on the accused the minimum
penalty under Article 309(6)[45] of the RPC.[46]
Applying Dator in relation to Article 310 of the RPC and taking into account the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, we find it proper to impose on petitioner, under the
circumstances obtaining here, the penalty of four (4) months and one (1) day of
arresto mayor, as minimum, to three (3) years, four (4) months and twenty-one
(21) days of prision correcional, as maximum.