Hizon V CA 265 Scra 517
Hizon V CA 265 Scra 517
Hizon V CA 265 Scra 517
DECISION
PUNO, J.:
That on or about the 30th day of September 1992, at Brgy. San Rafael, Puerto
Princesa City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused crew members and fishermen of F/B Robinson owned by First
Fishermen Fishing Industries, Inc., represented by Richard Hizon, a domestic
corporation duly organized under the laws of the Philippines, being then the owner,
crew members and fishermen of F/B Robinson and with the use of said fishing boat,
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously the said accused conspiring
and confederating together and mutually helping one another catch, take or gather or
cause to be caught, taken or gathered fish or fishery aquatic products in the coastal
waters of Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, with the use of obnoxious or poisonous
substance (sodium cyanide), of more or less one (1) ton of assorted live fishes which
were illegally caught thru the use of obnoxious/poisonous substance (sodium
cyanide).[1]
office at 8:00 in the evening of the same day. The receiving clerk, Edna
Capicio, noted that the fish were dead and she placed the plastic bag with the
fish inside the office freezer to preserve them. Two days later, on October 3,
1992, the chief of the NBI sub-office, Onos Mangotara, certified the
specimens for laboratory examination at the NBI Head Office in Manila. The
fish samples were to be personally transported by Edna Capicio who was then
scheduled to leave for Manila for her board examination in
Criminology. On October 4, 1992, Ms. Capicio, in the presence of her chief,
[6]
took the plastic with the specimens from the freezer and placed them inside
two shopping bags and sealed them with masking tape. She proceeded to her
ship where she placed the specimens in the ships freezer.
Capicio arrived in Manila the following day, October 5, 1992 and
immediately brought the specimens to the NBI Head Office. On October 7,
1992, NBI Forensic Chemist Emilia Rosaldes conducted two tests on the fish
samples and found that they contained sodium cyanide, thus:
FINDINGS:
REMARKS:
men into the boat and followed Marcelo and the police to Puerto Princesa.
They arrived at the city harbor at 7:45 in the evening and were met by
members of the media. As instructed by Marcelo, the members of the media
interviewed and took pictures of the boat and the fishermen. [9]
signed the Certification that he received only four (4) pieces of fish.
[12]
Two weeks later, the information was filed against petitioners. The case
was prosecuted against thirty-one (31) of the thirty-five (35) accused. Richard
Hizon remained at large while the whereabouts of Richard Estremos, Marlon
Camporazo and Joseph Aurelio were unknown.
On July 9, 1993, the trial court found the thirty one (31) petitioners guilty
and sentenced them to imprisonment for a minimum of eight (8) years and
one (1) day to a maximum of nine (9) years and four (4) months. The court
also ordered the confiscation and forfeiture of the F/B Robinson, the 28
sampans and the ton of assorted live fishes as instruments and proceeds of
the offense, thus:
c) The live fishes in the fish cages installed in the F/B Robinson, all of which
have been respectively shown to be tools or instruments and proceeds of the
offense, are hereby ordered confiscated and declared forfeited in favor of the
government.
SO ORDERED. [13]
II
III
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT REVERSING
THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT AND ACQUITTING THE
PETITIONERS. [14]
judicial warrant is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. The rule is,
however, subject to certain exceptions. Some of these are: (1) a search
[17]
incident to a lawful arrest; (2) seizure of evidence in plain view; (3) search of
[18]
Search and seizure without search warrant of vessels and aircrafts for
violations of customs laws have been the traditional exception to the
constitutional requirement of a search warrant. It is rooted on the recognition
that a vessel and an aircraft, like motor vehicles, can be quickly moved out of
the locality or jurisdiction in which the search warrant must be sought and
secured. Yielding to this reality, judicial authorities have not required a search
warrant of vessels and aircrafts before their search and seizure can be
constitutionally effected. [21]
Sec. 33. Illegal fishing, illegal possession of explosives intended for illegal
fishing; dealing in illegally caught fish or fishery/aquatic products. -- It shall be
unlawful for any person to catch, take or gather or cause to be caught, taken or
gathered fish or fishery/aquatic products in Philippine waters with the use of
explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substance, or by the use of electricity as
defined in paragraphs (l), (m) and (d), respectively, of section 3
hereof: Provided, That mere possession of such explosives with intent to use
the same for illegal fishing as herein defined shall be punishable as hereinafter
provided: Provided, That the Secretary may, upon recommendation of the
Director and subject to such safeguards and conditions he deems necessary,
allow for research, educational or scientific purposes only, the use of
explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substance or electricity to catch, take or
gather fish or fishery/aquatic products in the specified area: Provided, further,
That the use of chemicals to eradicate predators in fishponds in accordance
with accepted scientific fishery practices without causing deleterious effects in
neighboring waters shall not be construed as the use of obnoxious or poisonous
substance within the meaning of this section: Provided, finally, That the use of
mechanical bombs for killing whales, crocodiles, sharks or other large
dangerous fishes, may be allowed, subject to the approval of the Secretary.
It shall, likewise, be unlawful for any person knowingly to possess, deal in, sell
or in any manner dispose of, for profit, any fish or fishery/aquatic products
which have been illegally caught, taken or gathered.
Sec. 38. Penalties. -- (a) For illegal fishing and dealing in illegally caught fish
or fishery/aquatic products.-- Violation of Section 33 hereof shall be punished
as follows:
xxxxxxxxx
(2) By imprisonment from eight (8) to ten (10) years, if obnoxious or poisonous
substances are used: Provided, That if the use of such substances results 1) in
physical injury to any person, the penalty shall be imprisonment from ten (10)
to twelve (12) years, or 2) in the loss of human life, then the penalty shall be
imprisonment from twenty (20) years to life or death;
x x x x x x x x x. [25]
holding that:[27]
In some States, as well as in England, there exists what are known as common
law offenses. In the Philippine Islands no act is a crime unless it is made so by
statute. The state having the right to declare what acts are criminal, within
certain well-defined limitations, has the right to specify what act or acts shall
constitute a crime, as well as what proof shall constitute prima facie evidence
of guilt, and then to put upon the defendant the burden of showing that such act
or acts are innocent and are not committed with any criminal intent or
intention. [28]
proof of the other must not be arbitrary and unreasonable. In fine, the[30]
presumption must be based on facts and these facts must be part of the crime
when committed. [31]
operate to preclude the accused from presenting his defense to rebut the
main fact presumed. At no instance can the accused be denied the right to
[34]
The inference of guilt is one of fact and rests upon the common experience of
men. But the experience of men has taught them that an apparently guilty
possession may be explained so as to rebut such an inference and an accused
person may therefore put witnesses on the stand or go on the witness stand
himself to explain his possession, and any reasonable explanation of his
possession, inconsistent with his guilty connection with the commission of the
crime, will rebut the inference as to his guilt which the prosecution seeks to
have drawn from his guilty possession of the stolen goods.[36]
The Information charged petitioners with illegal fishing with the use of
obnoxious or poisonous substance (sodium cyanide), of more or less one (1)
ton of assorted live fishes. There was more or less one ton of fishes in the F/B
Robinsons fish cage. It was from this fish cage that the four dead specimens
examined on October 7, 1992 and the five live specimens examined on
November 23, 1992 were taken. Though all the specimens came from the
same source allegedly tainted with sodium cyanide, the two tests resulted in
conflicting findings. We note that after its apprehension, the F/B Robinson
never left the custody of the PNP Maritime Command. The fishing boat was
anchored near the city harbor and was guarded by members of the Maritime
Command. It was later turned over to the custody of the Philippine Coast
[41]
x x x x x x x x x.[43]
The apprehending officers who boarded and searched the boat did not find
any sodium cyanide nor any poisonous or obnoxious substance. Neither did
they find any trace of the poison in the possession of the fishermen or in the
fish cage itself. An Inventory was prepared by the apprehending officers and
only the following items were found on board the boat:
x x x. [44]
We cannot overlook the fact that the apprehending officers found in the
boat assorted hooks and lines for catching fish. For this obvious reason, the
[45]
The only basis for the charge of fishing with poisonous substance is the
result of the first NBI laboratory test on the four fish specimens. Under the
circumstances of the case, however, this finding does not warrant the infallible
conclusion that the fishes in the F/B Robinson, or even the same four
specimens, were caught with the use of sodium cyanide.
Prosecution witness SPO1 Bernardino Visto testified that for the first
laboratory test , boat engineer Ernesto Andaya did not only get four (4)
samples of fish but actually got five (5) from the fish cage of the F/B
Robinson. This Certification that four (4) fish samples were taken from the
[47]
boat shows on its face the number of pieces as originally five (5) but this was
erased with correction fluid and four (4) written over it. The specimens were
[48]
taken, sealed inside the plastic bag and brought to Manila by the police
authorities in the absence of petitioners or their representative. SPO2
Enriquez testified that the same plastic bag containing the four specimens
was merely sealed with heat from a lighter. Emilia Rosaldes, the NBI
[49]
forensic chemist who examined the samples, testified that when she opened
the package, she found two ends of the same plastic bag knotted. These [50]
circumstances as well as the time interval from the taking of the fish samples
and their actual examination fail to assure the impartial mind that the integrity
[51]
eight (28) fishermen in their discovered were twenty eight (28) fishermen in
their sampans fishing by hook and line. The authorities found nothing on the
boat that would have indicated any form of illegal fishing. All the documents of
the boat and the fishermen were in order. It was only after the fish specimens
were tested, albeit under suspicious circumstances, that petitioners were
charged with illegal fishing with the use of poisonous substances.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is granted and the decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 15417 is reversed and set aside. Petitioners
are acquitted of the crime of illegal fishing with the use of poisonous
substances defined under the Section 33 of Republic Act No. 704, the
Fisheries Decree of 1975. No costs.
SO ORDERED.