Decision 18 G.R. No. 224469 ownership of forest products grown in private lands is retained under the principle in civil law that ownership of the land includes everything found on its surface. Ownership is not an essential element of the offense as defined in Section [68] of P.D. No. 705. Thus, the failure of the information to allege the true owner of the forest products is not material, it was sufficient that it alleged that the taking was without any authority or license from the government. The concept of ownership adverted to in CFI of Quezon (Branch Vil) is the civilist notion of ownership, that is, tpe ope defined and expounded in our Civil Code. We hold that this ruling in CFJ o_fQuezon (Branch VII) remains true to the amended iterations of Section 68, now Section 77. Ownership of the land from which the timber or other forest products are taken is neither an element of the offense nor a defense to this offense - so long as timber or other forest products were cut, collected, gathered, or removed from a for est land, an alienable or disposable public land, or private land as defined in PD 705, as amended, without any authority granted by the State. As well, ownership per se of either the land or the timber or other forest products, as this right is understood in our Civil Code, does not amount to an authority granted by the State to justify the otherwise forbidden acts. The reason for this ruling is the relevant part of Section 68 that has remained unchanged in its present version - the actus reus ("cut, gather, collect, remove"), the object of the actus reus (timber or other forest products from any forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private land), and the penalties for this offense ("shall be punished with the penalties imposed under Articles 3 09 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code .... "). The role of ownership in the determination of criminal liability for this offense has not evolved. In fact, if one were to examine the original Section 68, ownership ought to have been an essential element because Section 68 was then expressly treated as a specie of qualified theft, a felony where ownership is an essential element. 61 Nonetheless, despite this penal typology of Section 68 then, ownership was not considered an element of this offense. With more reason, there having been no change in the wording of the law, on one hand, and there having been a shift in its classification into an offense distinct from qualified theft, on the other, ownership must continue to be a non-essential consideration in obtaining a conviction for this offense. 61 See e.g. People v. Mo/de, G.R. No. 228262, January 21, 2019: "The elements of qualified theft are: "(a) taking of personal property; (b) that the said property belongs to another; (c) that the said taking be done with intent to gain; (d) that it be done without the owner's consent; (e) that it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things; [and] (f) that it be done with grave abuse of confidence."