[G.R. No. 110249.

August 21, 1997] More appropriately, the petition is, and shall be treated as, a
special civil action for certiorari and prohibition.
ALFREDO TANO, BALDOMERO TANO, DANILO TANO,
ROMUALDO TANO, TEOCENES MIDELLO, ANGEL DE MESA, The following is petitioners summary of the factual antecedents
EULOGIO TREMOCHA, FELIPE ONGONION, JR., ANDRES LINIJAN, giving rise to the petition:
ROBERT LIM, VIRGINIA LIM, FELIMON DE MESA, GENEROSO
ARAGON, TEODORICO ANDRE, ROMULO DEL ROSARIO, CHOLITO 1. On December 15, 1992, the Sangguniang Panlungsod
ANDRE, ERICK MONTANO, ANDRES OLIVA, VITTORIO SALVADOR, ng Puerto Princesa City enacted Ordinance No. 15-92 which took
LEOPOLDO ARAGON, RAFAEL RIBA, ALEJANDRO LEONILA, JOSE effect on January 1, 1993 entitled: AN ORDINANCE BANNING
DAMACINTO, RAMIRO MANAEG, RUBEN MARGATE, ROBERTO THE SHIPMENT OF ALL LIVE FISH AND LOBSTER OUTSIDE PUERTO
REYES, DANILO PANGARUTAN, NOE GOLPAN,ESTANISLAO PRINCESA CITY FROM JANUARY 1, 1993 TO JANUARY 1, 1998
ROMERO, NICANOR DOMINGO, ROLDAN TABANG, AND PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS, PENALTIES AND FOR OTHER
PANGANIBAN, ADRIANO TABANG, FREDDIE SACAMAY, MIGUEL PURPOSES THEREOF, the full text of which reads as follows:
TRIMOCHA, PACENCIO LABABIT, PABLO H. OMPAD, CELESTINO
A. ABANO, ALLAN ALMODAL, BILLY D. BARTOLAY, ALBINO D.
Section 1. Title of the Ordinance. - This Ordinance is entitled: AN
LIQUE, MELCHOR J. LAYSON, MELANI AMANTE, CLARO E. YATOC,
ORDINANCE BANNING THE SHIPMENT OF ALL LIVE FISH AND
MERGELDO B. BALDEO, EDGAR M. ALMASET A., JOSELITO
LOBSTER OUTSIDE PUERTO PRINCESA CITY FROM JANUARY 1,
MANAEG, LIBERATO ANDRADA, JR., ROBERTO BERRY, RONALD
1993 TO JANUARY 1, 1998 AND PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS,
VILLANUEVA, EDUARDO VALMORIA, WILDREDO MENDOZA,
PENALTIES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES THEREOF.
NAPOLEON BABANGA, ROBERTO TADEPA, RUBEN ASINGUA,
SILVERIO GABO, JERRY ROMERO, DAVID PANGAGARUTAN,
DANIEL PANGGARUTAN, ROMEO AGAWIN, FERNANDO EQUIZ, Section 2. Purpose, Scope and Coverage. - To effectively free our
DITO LEQUIZ, RONILO ODERABLE, BENEDICTO TORRES, ROSITO City Sea Waters from Cyanide and other Obnoxious substance,
A. VALDEZ, CRESENCIO A. SAYANG, NICOMEDES S. ACOSTA, and shall cover all persons and/or entities operating within and
ERENEO A. SEGARINO, JR., WILDREDO A. RAUTO, DIOSDADO A. outside the City of Puerto Princesa who is are [sic] directly or
ACOSTA, BONIFACIO G. SISMO, TACIO ALUBA, DANIEL B. indirectly in the business or shipment of live fish and lobster
BATERZAL, ELISEO YBAEZ, DIOSDADO E. HANCHIC, EDDIE outside the City.
ESCALICAS, ELEAZAR B. BATERZAL, DOMINADOR HALICHIC,
ROOSEVELT RISMO-AN, ROBERT C. MERCADER, TIRSO Section 3. Definition of terms. - For purpose of this Ordinance
ARESGADO, DANIEL CHAVEZ, DANILO CHAVEZ, VICTOR the following are hereby defined:
VILLAROEL, ERNESTO C. YABANEZ, ARMANDO T. SANTILLAN,
RUDY S. SANTILLAN, JODJEN ILUSTRISIMO, NESTOR A. SEA BASS - A kind of fish under the family of Centropomidae,
SALANGRON, ALBERTO SALANGRON, ROGER L. ROXAS, better known as APAHAP;
FRANCISCO T. ANTICANO, PASTOR SALANGRON, BIENVENIDO
SANTILLAN, GILBUENA LADDY, FIDEL BENJAMIN JOVELITO
BELGANO, HONEY PARIOL, ANTONIO SALANGRON, NICASIO B. CATFISH - A kind of fish under the family of Plotosidae, better
SALANGRON, & AIRLINE SHIPPERS ASSOCIATION OF PALAWAN, known as HITO-HITO;
petitioners, vs. GOV. SALVADOR P. SOCRATES, MEMBERS OF
SANGGUNIAN PANLALAWIGAN OF PALAWAN, namely, VICE- C. MUDFISH - A kind of fish under the family of Orphicaphalisae
GOVERNOR JOEL T. REYES, JOSE D. ZABALA, ROSALINO R. better known as DALAG
ACOSTA, JOSELITO A. CADLAON, ANDRES R. BAACO, NELSON P.
PENEYRA, CIPRIANO C. BARROMA, CLARO E. ORDINARIO, D. ALL LIVE FISH - All alive, breathing not necessarily moving of
ERNESTO A. LLACUN, RODOLFO C. FLORDELIZA, GILBERT S. all specie[s] use for food and for aquarium purposes.
BAACO, WINSTON G. ARZAGA, NAPOLEON F. ORDONEZ and GIL
P. ACOSTA, CITY MAYOR EDWARD HAGEDORN, MEMBERS OF
E. LIVE LOBSTER - Several relatively, large marine crustaceans of
SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD NG PUERTO PRINCESA, ALL
the genus Homarus that are alive and breathing not necessarily
MEMBERS OF BANTAY DAGAT, MEMBERS OF PHILIPPINE
moving.
NATIONAL POLICE OF PALAWAN, PROVINCIAL AND CITY
PROSECUTORS OF PALAWAN and PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, and
ALL JUDGES OF PALAWAN, REGIONAL, MUNICIPAL AND Section 4. It shall be unlawful [for] any person or any business
METROPOLITAN, respondents. enterprise or company to ship out from Puerto Princesa City to
any point of destination either via aircraft or seacraft of any live
fish and lobster except SEA BASS, CATFISH, MUDFISH, AND
DECISION
MILKFISH FRIES.

DAVIDE, JR., J.:

Section 5. Penalty Clause. - Any person/s and or business entity
violating this Ordinance shall be penalized with a fine of not
Petitioners caption their petition as one for Certiorari, Injunction more than P5,000.00 or imprisonment of not more than twelve
With Preliminary Mandatory Injunction,with Prayer for (12) months, cancellation of their permit to do business in the
Temporary Restraining Order and pray that this Court: (1) City of Puerto Princesa or all of the herein stated penalties, upon
declare as unconstitutional: (a) Ordinance No. 15-92, dated 15 the discretion of the court.
December 1992, of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Puerto
Princesa; (b) Office Order No. 23, Series of 1993, dated 22
Section 6. If the owner and/or operator of the establishment
January 1993, issued by Acting City Mayor Amado L. Lucero of
found vilating the provisions of this ordinance is a corporation or
Puerto Princesa City; and (c) Resolution No. 33, Ordinance No. 2,
a partnership, the penalty prescribed in Section 5 hereof shall be
Series of 1993, dated 19 February 1993, of the Sangguniang
imposed upon its president and/or General Manager or
Panlalawigan of Palawan; (2) enjoin the enforcement thereof;
Managing Partner and/or Manager, as the case maybe [sic].
and (3) restrain respondents Provincial and City Prosecutors of
Palawan and Puerto Princesa City and Judges of Regional Trial
Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courtsi[1] and Municipal Circuit Trial Section 7. Any existing ordinance or any provision of any
Courts in Palawan from assuming jurisdiction over and hearing ordinance inconsistent to [sic] this ordinance is deemed
cases concerning the violation of the Ordinances and of the repealed.
Office Order.
Section 8. This Ordinance shall take effect on January 1, 1993.
SO ORDAINED. WHEREAS, there is an imperative and urgent need to protect and
preserve the existence of the remaining excellent corals and
xxx allow the devastated ones to reinvigorate and regenerate
themselves into vitality within the span of five (5) years;
2. To implement said city ordinance, then Acting City
Mayor Amado L. Lucero issued Office Order No. 23, Series of WHEREAS, Sec. 468, Par. 1, Sub-Par. VI of the [sic] R.A. 7160
1993 dated January 22, 1993 which reads as follows: otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991
empowers the Sangguniang Panlalawigan to protect the
environment and impose appropriate penalties [upon] acts
In the interest of public service and for purposes of City
which endanger the environment such as dynamite fishing and
Ordinance No. PD426-14-74, otherwise known as AN
other forms of destructive fishing, among others.
ORDINANCE REQUIRING ANY PERSON ENGAGED OR INTENDING
TO ENGAGE IN ANY BUSINESS, TRADE, OCCUPATION, CALLING
OR PROFESSION OR HAVING IN HIS POSSESSION ANY OF THE NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Kagawad Nelson P. Peneyra
ARTICLES FOR WHICH A PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO BE HAD, TO and upon unanimous decision of all the members present;
OBTAIN FIRST A MAYORS PERMIT and City Ordinance No. 15-92,
AN ORDINANCE BANNING THE SHIPMENT OF ALL LIVE FISH AND Be it resolved as it is hereby resolved, to approve Resolution No.
LOBSTER OUTSIDE PUERTO PRINCESA CITY FROM JANUARY 1, 33, Series of 1993 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and to enact
1993 TO JANUARY 1, 1998, you are hereby authorized and Ordinance No. 2 for the purpose, to wit:
directed to check or conduct necessary inspections on cargoes
containing live fish and lobster being shipped out from the ORDINANCE NO. 2
Puerto Princesa Airport, Puerto Princesa Wharf or at any port Series of 1993
within the jurisdiction of the City to any point of destinations [sic]
either via aircraft or seacraft.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN IN
SESSION ASSEMBLED:
The purpose of the inspection is to ascertain whether the shipper
possessed the required Mayors Permit issued by this Office and
Section 1. TITLE - This Ordinance shall be known as an Ordinance
the shipment is covered by invoice or clearance issued by the
Prohibiting the catching, gathering, possessing, buying, selling
local office of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources and
and shipment of live marine coral dwelling aquatic organisms, to
as to compliance with all other existing rules and regulations on
wit: 1. Family: Scaridae (Mameng), 2. Epinephelus Fasciatus
the matter.
(Suno), 3. Cromileptes altivelis (Panther or Senorita), lobster
below 200 grams and spawning), 4. Tridacna Gigas (Taklobo), 5.
Any cargo containing live fish and lobster without the required Pinctada Margaretefera (Mother Pearl, Oysters, Giant Clams and
documents as stated herein must be held for proper disposition. other species), 6. Penaeus Monodon (Tiger Prawn-breeder size
or mother), 7. Epinephelus Suillus (Loba or Green Grouper) and
In the pursuit of this Order, you are hereby authorized to 8. Family: Balistidae (Topical Aquarium Fishes) for a period of five
coordinate with the PAL Manager, the PPA Manager, the local (5) years in and coming from Palawan Waters.
PNP Station and other offices concerned for the needed support
and cooperation. Further, that the usual courtesy and diplomacy Section II. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
must be observed at all times in the conduct of the inspection.
1. Sec. 2-A (Rep. Act 7160). It is hereby declared, the policy of the
Please be guided accordingly. state that the territorial and political subdivisions of the State
shall enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable
xxx them to attain their fullest development as self reliant
communities and make them more effective partners in the
3. On February 19, 1993, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, attainment of national goals. Toward this end, the State shall
Provincial Government of Palawan enacted Resolution No. 33 provide for [a] more responsive and accountable local
entitled: A RESOLUTION PROHIBITING THE CATCHING, government structure instituted through a system of
GATHERING, POSSESSING, BUYING, SELLING AND SHIPMENT OF decentralization whereby local government units shall be given
LIVE MARINE CORAL DWELLING AQUATIC ORGANISMS, TO WIT: more powers, authority, responsibilities and resources.
FAMILY: SCARIDAE (MAMENG), EPINE PHELUS FASCIATUS
(SUNO). CROMILEPTES ALTIVELIS (PANTHER OR SENORITA), 2. Sec. 5-A (R.A. 7160). Any provision on a power of [a] local
LOBSTER BELOW 200 GRAMS AND SPAWNING, TRADACNA Government Unit shall be liberaly interpreted in its favor, and in
GIGAS (TAKLOBO), PINCTADA MARGARITEFERA (MOTHER case of doubt, any question thereon shall be resolved in favor of
PEARL, OYSTERS, GIANT CLAMS AND OTHER SPECIES), PENAEUS devolution of powers and of the lower government units. Any
MONODON (TIGER PRAWN-BREEDER SIZE OR MOTHER), fair and reasonable doubts as to the existence of the power shall
EPINEPHELUS SUILLUS (LOBA OR GREEN GROUPER) AND be interpreted in favor of the Local Government Unit concerned.
FAMILY: BALISTIDAE (TROPICAL AQUARIUM FISHES) FOR A
PERIOD FIVE (5) YEARS IN AND COMING FROM PALAWAN 3. Sec. 5-C (R.A. 7160). The general welfare provisions in this
WATERS, the full text of which reads as follows: Code shall be liberally interpreted to give more powers to local
government units in accelerating economic development and
WHEREAS, scientific and factual researches [sic] and studies upgrading the quality of life for the people in the community.
disclose that only five (5) percent of the corals of our province
remain to be in excellent condition as [a] habitat of marine coral 4. Sec. 16 (R.A. 7160). General Welfare. - Every local government
dwelling aquatic organisms; unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those
necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary,
WHEREAS, it cannot be gainsaid that the destruction and appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective
devastation of the corals of our province were principally due to governance; and those which are essential to the promotion of
illegal fishing activities like dynamite fishing, sodium cyanide the general welfare.
fishing, use of other obnoxious substances and other related
activities; Section III. DECLARATION OF POLICY. - It is hereby declared to be
the policy of the Province of Palawan to protect and conserve
the marine resources of Palawan not only for the greatest good and shipping of live marine coral dwelling organisms, without
of the majority of the present generation but with [the] proper any distinction whether it was caught or gathered through lawful
perspective and consideration of [sic] their prosperity, and to fishing method, the Ordinance took away the right of
attain this end, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan henceforth petitioners-fishermen to earn their livelihood in lawful ways; and
declares that is [sic] shall be unlawful for any person or any insofar as petitioners-members of Airline Shippers Association
business entity to engage in catching, gathering, possessing, are concerned, they were unduly prevented from pursuing their
buying, selling and shipment of live marine coral dwelling aquatic vocation and entering into contracts which are proper,
organisms as enumerated in Section 1 hereof in and coming out necessary, and essential to carry out their business endeavors to
of Palawan Waters for a period of five (5) years; a successful conclusion.

Section IV. PENALTY CLAUSE. - Any person and/or business entity Finally, as Ordinance No. 2 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan is
violating this Ordinance shall be penalized with a fine of not null and void, the criminal cases based thereon against
more than Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), Philippine petitioners Tano and the others have to be dismissed.
Currency, and/or imprisonment of six (6) months to twelve (12)
months and confiscation and forfeiture of paraphernalias [sic] In the Resolution of 15 June 1993 we required respondents to
and equipment in favor of the government at the discretion of comment on the petition, and furnished the Office of the
the Court; Solicitor General with a copy thereof.

Section V. SEPARABILITY CLAUSE. - If for any reason, a Section or In their comment filed on 13 August 1993, public respondents
provision of this Ordinance shall be held as unconditional [sic] or Governor Socrates and Members of the Sangguniang
invalid, it shall not affect the other provisions hereof. Panlalawigan of Palawan defended the validity of Ordinance
No.2, Series of 1993, as a valid exercise of the Provincial
Section VI. REPEALING CLAUSE. - Any existing Ordinance or a Governments power under the general welfare clause (Section
provision of any ordinance inconsistent herewith is deemed 16 of the Local Government Code of 1991 [hereafter, LGC]), and
modified, amended or repealed. its specific power to protect the environment and impose
appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the environment,
Section VII. EFFECTIVITY. - This Ordinance shall take effect ten such as dynamite fishing and other forms of destructive fishing
(10) days after its publication. under Section 447 (a) (1) (vi), Section 458 (a) (1) (vi), and Section
468 (a) (1) (vi), of the LGC. They claimed that in the exercise of
such powers, the Province of Palawan had the right and
SO ORDAINED.
responsibilty to insure that the remaining coral reefs, where fish
dwells [sic], within its territory remain healthy for the future
xxx generation. The Ordinance, they further asserted, covered only
live marine coral dwelling aquatic organisms which were
4. The respondents implemented the said ordinances, enumerated in the ordinance and excluded other kinds of live
Annexes A and C hereof thereby depriving all the fishermen of marine aquatic organisms not dwelling in coral reefs; besides the
the whole province of Palawan and the City of Puerto Princesa prohibition was for only five (5) years to protect and preserve
of their only means of livelihood and the petitioners Airline the pristine coral and allow those damaged to regenerate.
Shippers Association of Palawan and other marine merchants
from performing their lawful occupation and trade; Aforementioned respondents likewise maintained that there
was no violation of due process and equal protection clauses of
5. Petitioners Alfredo Tano, Baldomero Tano, Teocenes the Constitution. As to the former, public hearings were
Midello, Angel de Mesa, Eulogio Tremocha, and Felipe conducted before the enactment of the Ordinance which,
Ongonion, Jr. were even charged criminally under criminal case undoubtedly, had a lawful purpose and employed reasonable
no. 93-05-C in the 1st Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Cuyo- means; while as to the latter, a substantial distinction existed
Agutaya-Magsaysay, an original carbon copy of the criminal between a fisherman who catches live fish with the intention of
complaint dated April 12, 1993 is hereto attached as Annex D; selling it live, and a fisherman who catches live fish with no
while xerox copies are attached as Annex D to the copies of the intention at all of selling it live, i.e., the former uses sodium
petition; cyanide while the latter does not. Further, the Ordinance applied
equally to all those belonging to one class.
6. Petitioners Robert Lim and Virginia Lim, on the other
hand, were charged by the respondent PNP with the respondent On 25 October 1993 petitioners filed an Urgent Plea for the
City Prosecutor of Puerto Princesa City, a xerox copy of the Immediate Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order claiming
complaint is hereto attached as Annex E; that despite the pendency of this case, Branch 50 of the Regional
Trial Court of Palawan was bent on proceeding with Criminal
Without seeking redress from the concerned local government Case No. 11223 against petitioners Danilo Tano, Alfredo Tano,
units, prosecutors office and courts, petitioners directly invoked Eulogio Tremocha, Romualdo Tano, Baldomero Tano, Andres
our original jurisdiction by filing this petition on 4 June 1993. In Lemihan and Angel de Mesa for violation of Ordinance No. 2 of
sum, petitioners contend that: the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan. Acting on said plea,
we issued on 11 November 1993 a temporary restraining order
directing Judge Angel Miclat of said court to cease and desist
First, the Ordinances deprived them of due process of law, their from proceeding with the arraignment and pre-trial of Criminal
livelihood, and unduly restricted them from the practice of their Case No. 11223.
trade, in violation of Section 2, Article XII and Sections 2 and 7 of
Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution.
On 12 July 1994, we excused the Office of the Solicitor General
from filing a comment, considering that as claimed by said office
Second, Office Order No. 23 contained no regulation nor in its Manifestation of 28 June 1994, respondents were already
condition under which the Mayors permit could be granted or represented by counsel.
denied; in other words, the Mayor had the absolute authority to
determine whether or not to issue permit.
The rest of the respondents did not file any comment on the
petition.
Third, as Ordinance No. 2 of the Province of Palawan altogether
prohibited the catching, gathering, possession, buying, selling
In the resolution of 15 September 1994, we resolved to consider denial may be the subject of a special civil action for certiorari, a
the comment on the petition as the Answer, gave due course to motion for reconsideration must have to be filed to allow the
the petition and required the parties to submit their respective court concerned an opportunity to correct its errors, unless such
memoranda.ii[2] motion may be dispensed with because of existing exceptional
circumstances.viii[8] Finally, even if a motion for reconsideration
On 22 April 1997 we ordered impleaded as party respondents has been filed and denied, the remedy under Rule 65 is still
the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Fisheries and unavailable absent any showing of the grounds provided for in
Aquatic Resources and required the Office of the Solicitor Section 1 thereof.ix[9] For obvious reasons, the petition at bar
General to comment on their behalf. But in light of the latters does not, and could not have , alleged any of such grounds.
motion of 9 July 1997 for an extension of time to file the
comment which would only result in further delay, we dispensed As to the second set of petitioners, the instant petition is
with said comment. obviously one for DECLARATORY RELIEF, i.e., for a declaration
that the Ordinances in question are a nullity ... for being
After due deliberation on the pleadings filed, we resolved to unconstitutional.x[10] As such, their petition must likewise fail,
dismiss this petition for want of merit, on 22 July 1997, and as this Court is not possessed of original jurisdiction over
assigned it to the ponente for the writing of the opinion of the petitions for declaratory relief even if only questions of law are
Court. involved,xi[11] it being settled that the Court merely exercises
appellate jurisdiction over such petitions.xii[12]
I
II
There are actually two sets of petitioners in this case. The first is
composed of Alfredo Tano, Baldomero Tano, Danilo Tano, Even granting arguendo that the first set of petitioners have a
Romualdo Tano, Teocenes Midello, Angel de Mesa, Eulogio cause of action ripe for the extraordinary writ of certiorari, there
Tremocha, Felipe Ongonion, Jr., Andres Linijan, and Felimon de is here a clear disregard of the hierarchy of courts, and no special
Mesa, who were criminally charged with violating Sangguniang and important reason or exceptional or compelling circumstance
Panlalawigan Resolution No. 33 and Ordinance No. 2, Series of has been adduced why direct recourse to us should be allowed.
1993, of the Province of Palawan, in Criminal Case No. 93-05-C While we have concurrent jurisdiction with Regional Trial courts
of the 1st Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Palawan;iii[3] and with the Court of Appeals to issue writs of certiorari,
and Robert Lim and Virginia Lim who were charged with violating prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and
City Ordinance No. 15-92 of Puerto Princesa City and Ordinance injunction, such concurrence gives petitioners no unrestricted
No. 2, Series of 1993, of the Province of Palawan before the freedom of choice of court forum, so we held in People v.
Office of the City Prosecutor of Puerto Princesa.iv[4] All of them, Cuaresma:xiii[13]
with the exception of Teocenes Midello, Felipe Ongonion, Jr.,
Felimon de Mesa, Robert Lim and Virginia Lim, are likewise the This concurrence of jurisdiction is not to be taken as according
accused in Criminal Case No. 11223 for the violation of to parties seeking any of the writs an absolute unrestrained
Ordinance No. 2 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Palawan, freedom of choice of the court to which application therefor will
pending before Branch 50 of the Regional Trial Court of be directed. There is after all hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy
Palawan.v[5] is determinative of the venue of appeals, and should also serve
as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions
The second set of petitioners is composed of the rest of the for the extraordinary writs. A becoming regard for that judicial
petitioners numbering seventy-seven (77), all of whom, except hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance
the Airline Shippers Association of Palawan -- an alleged private of extraordinary writs against first level (inferior) courts should
association of several marine merchants -- are natural persons be filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the
who claim to be fishermen. latter, with the Court of Appeals. A direct invocation of the
Supreme Courts original jurisdiction to issue these writs should
be allowed only when there are special and important reasons
The primary interest of the first set of petitioners is, of course,
therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. This is
to prevent the prosecution, trial and determination of the
established policy. It is a policy necessary to prevent inordinate
criminal cases until the constitutionality or legality of the
demands upon the Courts time and attention which are better
Ordinances they allegedly violated shall have been resolved. The
devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to
second set of petitioners merely claim that they being fishermen
prevent further over-crowding of the Courts docket.
or marine merchants, they would be adversely affected by the
ordinances.
The Court feels the need to reaffirm that policy at this time, and
to enjoin strict adherence thereto in the light of what it perceives
As to the first set of petitioners, this special civil for certiorari
to be a growing tendency on the part of litigants and lawyers to
must fail on the ground of prematurity amounting to a lack of
have their applications for the so-called extraordinary writs, and
cause of action. There is no showing that the said petitioners, as
sometimes even their appeals, passed upon and adjudicated
the accused in the criminal cases, have filed motions to quash
directly and immediately by the highest tribunal of the land.
the informations therein and that the same were denied. The
ground available for such motions is that the facts charged
therein do not constitute an offense because the ordinances in In Santiago v. Vasquez,xiv[14] this Court forcefully expressed
question are unconstitutional.vi[6] It cannot then be said that that the propensity of litigants and lawyers to disregard the
the lower courts acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with hierarchy of courts must be put to a halt, not only because of the
grave abuse of discretion to justify recourse to the extraordinary imposition upon the precious time of this Court, but also because
remedy of certiorari or prohibition. It must further be stressed of the inevitable and resultant delay, intended or otherwise, in
that even if the petitioners did file motions to quash, the denial the adjudication of the case which often has to be remanded or
thereof would not forthwith give rise to a cause of action under referred to the lower court, the proper forum under the rules of
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The general rule is that where a procedure, or as better equipped to resolve the issues since this
motion to quash is denied, the remedy therefrom is not Court is not a trier of facts. We reiterated the judicial policy that
certiorari, but for the party aggrieved thereby to go to trial this Court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress
without prejudice to reiterating special defenses involved in said desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts or where
motion, and if, after trial on the merits of adverse decision is exceptional and compelling circumstances justify availment of a
rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by remedy within and calling for the exercise of [its] primary
law.vii[7] And , even where in an exceptional circumstance such jurisdiction.
III a private association composed of Marine Merchants;
petitioners Robert Lim and Virginia Lim, as merchants; while the
Notwithstanding the foregoing procedural obstacles against the rest of the petitioners claim to be fishermen, without any
first set of petitioners, we opt to resolve this case on its merits qualification, however, as to their status.
considering that the lifetime of the challenged Ordinances is
about to end. Ordinance No. 15-92 of the City of Puerto Princesa Since the Constitution does not specifically provide a definition
is effective only up to 1 January 1998, while Ordinance No. 2 of of the terms subsistence or marginal fishermen,xviii[18] they
the Province of Palawan, enacted on 19 February 1993, is should be construed in their general and ordinary sense. A
effective for only five (5) years. Besides, these Ordinances were marginal fisherman is an individual engaged in fishing whose
undoubtedly enacted in the exercise of powers under the new margin of return or reward in his harvest of fish as measured by
LGC relative to the protection and preservation of the existing price levels is barely sufficient to yield a profit or cover
environment and are thus novel and of paramount importance. the cost of gathering the fish,xix[19] while a subsistence
No further delay then may be allowed in the resolution of the fisherman is one whose catch yields but the irreducible minimum
issues raised. for his livelihood.xx[20] Section 131(p) of the LGC (R.A. No. 7160)
defines a marginal farmer or fisherman as an individual engaged
It is of course settled that laws (including ordinances enacted by in subsistence farming or fishing which shall be limited to the
local government units) enjoy the presumption of sale, barter or exchange of agricultural or marine products
constitutionality.xv[15] To overthrow this presumption, there produced by himself and his immediate family. It bears repeating
must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not that nothing in the record supports a finding that any petitioner
merely a doubtful or argumentative contradiction. In short, the falls within these definitions.
conflict with the Constitution must be shown beyond reasonable
doubt.xvi[16] Where doubt exists, even if well founded, there Besides, Section 2 of Article XII aims primarily not to bestow any
can be no finding of unconstitutionality. To doubt is to right to subsistence fishermen, but to lay stress on the duty of
sustain.xvii[17] the State to protect the nations marine wealth. What the
provision merely recognizes is that the State may allow, by law,
After a scrunity of the challenged Ordinances and the provisions cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence fishermen
of the Constitution petitioners claim to have been violated, we and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons. Our survey of
find petitioners contentions baseless and so hold that the former the statute books reveals that the only provision of law which
do not suffer from any infirmity, both under the Constitution and speaks of the preferential right of marginal fishermen is Section
applicable laws. 149 of the LGC of 1991 which pertinently provides:

Petitioners specifically point to Section 2, Article XII and Sections SEC. 149. Fishery Rentals, Fees and Charges. -- x x x
2 and 7, Article XIII of the Constitution as having been
transgressed by the Ordinances. (b) The sangguniang bayan may:

The pertinent portion of Section 2 of Article XII reads: (1) Grant fishery privileges to erect fish corrals, oyster, mussels
or other aquatic beds or bangus fry areas, within a definite zone
SEC. 2. xxx of the municipal waters, as determined by it: Provided, however,
That duly registered organizations and cooperatives of marginal
fishermen shall have preferential right to such fishery privileges
The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its
....
archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone,
and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.
In a Joint Administrative Order No. 3, dated 25 April 1996, the
Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and the Secretary of
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural
the Department of Interior and Local Government prescribed the
resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming,
guidelines on the preferential treatment of small fisherfolk
with priority to subsistence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers,
relative to the fishery right mentioned in Section 149. This case,
lakes, bays, and lagoons.
however, does not involve such fishery right.

Sections 2 and 7 of Article XIII provide:

Anent Section 7 of Article XIII, it speaks not only of the use of
communal marine and fishing resources, but of their protection,
Sec. 2. The promotion of social justice shall include the development, and conservation. As hereafter shown, the
commitment to create economic opportunities based on ordinances in question are meant precisely to protect and
freedom of initiative and self-reliance. conserve our marine resources to the end that their enjoyment
by the people may be guaranteed not only for the present
xxx generation, but also for the generations to come.

SEC. 7. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence The so-called preferential right of subsistence or marginal
fishermen, especially of local communities, to the preferential fishermen to the use of marine resources is not at all absolute.
use of the communal marine and fishing resources, both inland In accordance with the Regalian Doctrine, marine resources
and offshore. It shall provide support to such fishermen through belong to the State, and, pursuant to the first paragraph of
appropriate technology and research, adequate financial, Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution, their exploration,
production, and marketing assistance, and other services. The development and utilization ... shall be under the full control and
State shall also protect, develop, and conserve such resources. supervision of the State. Moreover, their mandated protection,
The protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of development, and conservation as necessarily recognized by the
subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. Fishworkers framers of the Constitution, imply certain restrictions on
shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of whatever right of enjoyment there may be in favor of anyone.
marine and fishing resources. Thus, as to the curtailment of the preferential treatment of
marginal fisherman, the following exchange between
There is absolutely no showing that any of the petitioners Commissioner Francisco Rodrigo and Commissioner Jose F.S.
qualifies as a subsistence or marginal fisherman. In their petition, Bengzon, Jr., took place at the plenary session of the
petitioner Airline Shippers Association of Palawan is described as Constitutional Commission:
MR. RODRIGO: The LGC provisions invoked by private respondents merely seek
to give flesh and blood to the right of the people to a balanced
Let us discuss the implementation of this because I and healthful ecology. In fact, the General Welfare Clause,
would not raise the hopes of our people, and expressly mentions this right:
afterwards fail in the implementation. How will this
be implemented? Will there be a licensing or giving SEC. 16. General Welfare.-- Every local government unit shall
of permits so that government officials will know exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied
that one is really a marginal fisherman? Or if therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or
policeman say that a person is not a marginal incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those
fisherman, he can show his permit, to prove that which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare.
indeed he is one. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local government
units shall ensure and support, among other things, the
MR. BENGZON: preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and
safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology,
encourage and support the development of appropriate and
Certainly, there will be some mode of licensing
self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve
insofar as this is concerned and this particular
public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice,
question could be tackled when we discuss the
promote full employment among their residents, maintain peace
Article on Local Governments -- whether we will
and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their
leave to the local governments or to Congress on
inhabitants. (underscoring supplied).
how these things will be implemented. But certainly,
I think our Congressmen and our local officials will
not be bereft of ideas on how to implement this Moreover, Section 5(c) of the LGC explicitly mandates that the
mandate. general welfare provisions of the LGC shall be liberally
interpreted to give more powers to the local government units
in accelerating economic development and upgrading the
xxx
quality of life for the people of the community.

MR. RODRIGO:
The LGC vests municipalities with the power to grant fishery
privileges in municipal waters and to impose rentals, fees or
So, once one is licensed as a marginal fisherman, he charges therefor; to penalize, by appropriate ordinances, the use
can go anywhere in the Philippines and fish in any of explosives, noxious or poisonous substances, electricity,
fishing grounds. muro-ami, and other deleterious methods of fishing; and to
prosecute any violation of the provisions of applicable fishery
MR. BENGZON: laws.xxiv[24] Further, the sangguniang bayan, the sangguniang
panlungsod and the sangguniang panlalawigan are directed to
Subject to whatever rules and regulations and local enact ordinances for the general welfare of the municipality and
laws that may be passed, may be existing or will be its inhabitants, which shall include, inter alia, ordinances that
passed.xxi[21] (underscoring supplied for [p]rotect the environment and impose appropriate penalties for
emphasis). acts which endanger the environment such as dynamite fishing
and other forms of destructive fishing ... and such other activities
which result in pollution, acceleration of eutrophication of rivers
What must likewise be borne in mind is the state policy and lakes or of ecological imbalance.xxv[25]
enshrined in the Constitution regarding the duty of the State to
protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of Finally, the centerpiece of LGC is the system of
nature.xxii[22] On this score, in Oposa v. Factoran,xxiii[23] this decentralizationxxvi[26] as expressly mandated by the
Court declared: Constitution.xxvii[27] Indispensable thereto is devolution and
the LGC expressly provides that [a]ny provision on a power of a
local government unit shall be liberally interpreted in its favor,
While the right to balanced and healthful ecology is to be found and in case of doubt, any question thereon shall be resolved in
under the Declaration of Principles the State Policies and not favor of devolution of powers and of the lower local government
under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less important unit. Any fair and reasonable doubt as to the existence of the
than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. power shall be interpreted in favor of the local government unit
Such a right belongs to a different category of rights altogether concerned,xxviii[28] Devolution refers to the act by which the
for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self- National Government confers power and authority upon the
perpetuation - aptly and fittingly stressed by the petitioners - the various local government units to perform specific functions and
advancement of which may even be said to predate all responsibilities.xxix[29]
governments and constitutions. As a matter of fact, these basic
rights need not even be written in the Constitution for they are
assumed to exist from the inception of humankind. If they are One of the devolved powers enumerated in the section of the
now explicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is LGC on devolution is the enforcement of fishery laws in
because of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless the municipal waters including the conservation of
rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mangroves.xxx[30] This necessarily includes enactment of
mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby ordinances to effectively carry out such fishery laws within the
highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the municipal waters.
state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and
advance the second , the day would not be too far when all else The term municipal waters, in turn, include not only streams,
would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for lakes, and tidal waters within the municipality, not being the
those to come - generations which stand to inherit nothing but subject of private ownership and not comprised within the
parched earth incapable of sustaining life. national parks, public forest, timber lands, forest reserves, or
fishery reserves, but also marine waters included between two
The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it a lines drawn perpendicularly to the general coastline from points
correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment ... where the boundary lines of the municipality or city touch the
sea at low tide and a third line parallel with the general coastline
and fifteen kilometers from it.xxxi[31] Under P.D. No. 704, the
marine waters included in municipal waters is limited to three species of fish or aquatic animals covered therein for a period of
nautical miles from the general coastline using the above five years, and (2) to protect the corals of the marine waters of
perpendicular lines and a third parallel line. the City of Puerto Princesa and the Province of Palawan from
further destruction due to illegal fishing activities.
These fishery laws which local government units may enforce
under Section 17(b), (2), (i) in municipal waters include: (1) P.D. The accomplishment of the first objective is well within the
No. 704; (2) P.D. No. 1015 which, inter alia, authorizes the devolved power to enforce fishery laws in municipal waters, such
establishment of a closed season in any Philippine water if as P.D. No. 1015, which allows the establishment of closed
necessary for conservation or ecological purposes; (3) P.D. No. seasons. The devolution of such power has been expressly
1219 which provides for the exploration, exploitation, utilization, confirmed in the Memorandum of Agreement of 5 April 1994
and conservation of coral resources; (4) R.A. No. 5474, as between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of
amended by B.P. Blg. 58, which makes it unlawful for any person, Interior and Local Government.
association, or corporation to catch or cause to be caught, sell,
offer to sell, purchase, or have in possession any of the fish The realization of the second objective falls within both the
specie called gobiidae or ipon during closed season; and (5) R.A. general welfare clause of the LGC and the express mandate
No. 6451 which prohibits and punishes electrofishing, as well as thereunder to cities and provinces to protect the environment
various issuances of the BFAR. and impose appropriate penalties for acts which endanger the
environment.xxxiii[33]
To those specifically devolved insofar as the control and
regulation of fishing in municipal waters and the protection of its The destruction of the coral reefs results in serious, if not
marine environment are concerned, must be added the irreparable, ecological imbalance, for coral reefs are among the
following: natures life-support systems.xxxiv[34] They collect, retain, and
recycle nutrients for adjacent nearshore areas such as
1. Issuance of permits to construct fish cages within mangroves, seagrass beds, and reef flats; provide food for
municipal waters; marine plants and animals; and serve as a protective shelter for
2. Issuance of permits to gather aquatic organisms.xxxv[35] It is said that [e]cologically, the reefs
aquarium fishes within municipal waters; are to the oceans what forests are to continents: they are shelter
3. Issuance of permits to gather kapis and breeding grounds for fish and plant species that will
shells within municipal waters; disappear without them.xxxvi[36]
4. Issuance of permits to gather/culture
shelled mollusks within municipal waters; The prohibition against catching live fish stems, in part, from the
5. Issuance of licenses to establish modern phenomenon of live-fish trade which entails the
seaweed farms within municipal waters; catching of so-called exotic tropical species of fish not only for
6. Issuance of licenses to establish aquarium use in the West, but also for the market for live
culture pearls within municipal waters; banquet fish [which] is virtually insatiable in ever more affluent
7. Issuance of auxiliary invoice to Asia.xxxvii[37] These exotic species are coral-dwellers, and
transport fish and fishery products; and fishermen catch them by diving in shallow water with corraline
8. Establishment of closed season in municipal waters. habitats and squirting sodium cyanide poison at passing fish
directly or onto coral crevices; once affected the fish are
These functions are covered in the Memorandum of Agreement immobilized [merely stunned] and then scooped by
of 5 April 1994 between the Department of Agriculture and the hand.xxxviii[38] The diver then surfaces and dumps his catch into
Department of Interior and Local Government. a submerged net attached to the skiff . Twenty minutes later, the
fish can swim normally. Back on shore, they are placed in holding
In light then of the principles of decentralization and devolution pens, and within a few weeks, they expel the cyanide from their
enshrined in the LGC and the powers granted to local system and are ready to be hauled. Then they are placed in
government units under Section 16 (the General Welfare saltwater tanks or packaged in plastic bags filled with seawater
Clause), and under Sections 149, 447 (a) (1) (vi), 458 (a) (1) (vi) for shipment by air freight to major markets for live food
and 468 (a) (1) (vi), which unquestionably involve the exercise of fish.xxxix[39] While the fish are meant to survive, the opposite
police power, the validity of the questioned Ordinances cannot holds true for their former home as [a]fter the fisherman squirts
be doubted. the cyanide, the first thing to perish is the reef algae, on which
fish feed. Days later, the living coral starts to expire. Soon the
reef loses its function as habitat for the fish, which eat both the
Parenthetically, we wish to add that these Ordinances find full
algae and invertebrates that cling to the coral. The reef becomes
support under R.A. No. 7611, otherwise known as the Strategic
an underwater graveyard, its skeletal remains brittle, bleached
Environmental Plan (SEP) for Palawan Act, approved on 19 July
of all color and vulnerable to erosion from the pounding of the
1992. This statute adopts a comprehensive framework for the
waves.xl[40] It has been found that cyanide fishing kills most
sustainable development of Palawan compatible with protecting
hard and soft corals within three months of repeated
and enhancing the natural resources and endangered
application.xli[41]
environment of the province, which shall serve to guide the local
government of Palawan and the government agencies
concerned in the formulation and implementation of plans, The nexus then between the activities barred by Ordinance No.
programs and projects affecting said province.xxxii[32] 15-92 of the City of Puerto Princesa and the prohibited acts
provided in Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1993 of the Province of
Palawan, on one hand, and the use of sodium cyanide, on the
At this time then, it would be appropriate to determine the
other, is painfully obvious. In sum, the public purpose and
relation between the assailed Ordinances and the aforesaid
reasonableness of the Ordinances may not then be
powers of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the City of Puerto
controverted.
Princesa and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of
Palawan to protect the environment. To begin, we ascertain the
purpose of the Ordinances as set forth in the statement of As to Office Order No. 23, Series of 1993, issued by Acting City
purposes or declaration of policies quoted earlier. Mayor Amado L. Lucero of the City of Puerto Princesa, we find
nothing therein violative of any constitutional or statutory
provision. The Order refers to the implementation of the
It is clear to the Court that both Ordinances have two principal
challenged ordinance and is not the Mayors Permit.
objectives or purposes: (1) to establish a closed season for the
The dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Josue N. Bellosillo relies ordinances affecting fishing and fisheries in municipal waters has
upon the lack of authority on the part of the Sangguniang been dispensed with in view of the following reasons:
Panlungsod of Puerto Princesa to enact Ordinance No. 15, Series
of 1992, on the theory that the subject thereof is within the (1) Section 534 (Repealing Clause) of the LGC expressly
jurisdiction and responsibility of the Bureau of Fisheries and repeals or amends Section 16 and 29 of P.D. No. 704xlv[45]
Aquatic Resources (BFAR) under P.D. No. 704, otherwise known insofar that they are inconsistent with the provisions of the LGC.
as the Fisheries Decree of 1975; and that, in any event, the
Ordinance is unenforceable for lack of approval by the Secretary
(2) As discussed earlier, under the general welfare clause
of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), likewise in
of the LGC, local government units have the power, inter alia, to
accordance with P.D. No. 704.
enact ordinances to enhance the right of the people to a
balanced ecology. It likewise specifically vests municipalities
The majority is unable to accommodate this view. The with the power to grant fishery privileges in municipal waters,
jurisdiction and responsibility of the BFAR under P. D. no. 704, and impose rentals, fees or charges therefor; to penalize, by
over the management, conservation, development, protection, appropriate ordinances, the use of explosives, noxious or
utilization and disposition of all fishery and aquatic resources of poisonous substances, electricity, muro-ami, and other
the country is not all-encompassing. First, Section 4 thereof deleterious methods of fishing; and to prosecute other methods
excludes from such jurisdiction and responsibility municipal of fishing; and to prosecute any violation of the provisions of
waters, which shall be under the municipal or city government applicable fishing laws.xlvi[46] Finally, it imposes upon the
concerned, except insofar as fishpens and seaweed culture in sangguniang bayan, the sangguniang panlungsod, and the
municipal in municipal centers are concerned. This section sangguniang panlalawigan the duty to enact ordinances to
provides, however, that all municipal or city ordinances and [p]rotect the environment and impose appropriate penalties for
resolutions affecting fishing and fisheries and any disposition acts which endanger the environment such as dynamite fishing
thereunder shall be submitted to the Secretary of the and other forms of destructive fishing and such other activities
Department of Natural Resources for appropriate action and which result in pollution, acceleration of eutrophication of rivers
shall have full force and effect only upon his approval.xlii[42] and lakes or of ecological imbalance.xlvii[47]

Second, it must at once be pointed out that the BFAR is no longer In closing, we commend the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the City
under the Department of Natural Resources (now Department of Puerto Princesa and Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the
of Environment and Natural Resources). Executive Order No. 967 Province of Palawan for exercising the requisite political will to
of 30 June 1984 transferred the BFAR from the control and enact urgently needed legislation to protect and enhance the
supervision of the Minister (formerly Secretary) of Natural marine environment, thereby sharing in the herculean task of
Resources to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food (MAF) and arresting the tide of ecological destruction. We hope that other
converted it into a mere staff agency thereof, integrating its local government units shall now be roused from their lethargy
functions with the regional offices of the MAF. and adopt a more vigilant stand in the battle against the
decimation of our legacy to future generations. At this time, the
In Executive Order No. 116 of 30 January 1987, which repercussions of any further delay in their response may prove
reorganized the MAF, the BFAR was retained as an attached disastrous, if not, irreversible.
agency of the MAF. And under the Administrative Code of
1987,xliii[43] the BFAR is placed under the Title concerning the WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit
Department of Agriculture.xliv[44] and the temporary restraining order issued on 11 November
1993 is LIFTED.
Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the challenged Ordinance of
the City of Puerto Princesa is invalid or unenforceable because it No pronouncement as to costs.
was not approved by the Secretary of the DENR. If at all, the
approval that should be sought would be that of the Secretary of
SO ORDERED.
the Department of Agriculture (not DENR) of municipal
 illegally caught thru the use of obnoxious/poisonous
substance (sodium cyanide).v[1]

The following facts were established by the

prosecution: In September 1992, the Philippine
National Police (PNP) Maritime Command of Puerto
Princesa City, Palawan received reports of illegal
[G.R. No. 119619. December 13, 1996] fishing operations in the coastal waters of the city. In
response to these reports, the city mayor organized
RICHARD HIZON, SILVERIO GARGAR, ERNESTO Task Force Bantay Dagat to assist the police in the
ANDAYA, NEMESIO GABO, RODRIGO ABRERA, detection and apprehension of violators of the laws
CHEUNG TAI FOOK, SHEK CHOR LUK, EFREN DELA on fishing.
PENA, JONEL AURELIO, GODOFREDO VILLAVERDE,
ANGELITO DUMAYBAG, DEOMEDES ROSIL, AMADO On September 30, 1992 at about 2:00 in the
VILLANUEVA, FRANCISCO ESTREMOS, ANGEL afternoon, the Task Force Bantay Dagat reported to
VILLAVERDE, NEMESIO CASAMPOL, RICHARD the PNP Maritime Command that a boat and several
ESTREMOS, JORNIE DELA PENA, JESUS MACTAN, small crafts were fishing by muro ami within the
MARLON CAMPORAZO, FERNANDO BIRING, shoreline of Barangay San Rafael of Puerto Princesa.
MENDRITO CARPO, LUIS DUARTE, JOSEPH AURELIO, The police, headed by SPO3 Romulo Enriquez, and
RONNIE JUEZAN, BERNARDO VILLACARLOS, members of the Task Force Bantay Dagat, headed by
RICARDO SALES, MARLON ABELLA, TEODORO DELOS Benito Marcelo, Jr., immediately proceeded to the
REYES, IGNACIO ABELLA, JOSEPH MAYONADO, area and found several men fishing in motorized
JANAIRO LANGUYOD, DODONG DELOS REYES, JOLLY sampans and a big fishing boat identified as F/B
CABALLERO and ROPLANDO ARCENAS, petitioners, Robinson within the seven-kilometer shoreline of
vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE the city. They boarded the F/B Robinson and
OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. inspected the boat with the acquiescence of the boat
captain, Silverio Gargar. In the course of their
DECISION inspection, the police saw two foreigners in the
captains deck. SPO3 Enriquez examined their
PUNO, J.: passports and found them to be mere photocopies.
The police also discovered a large aquarium full of
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the live lapu-lapu and assorted fish weighing
decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. approximately one ton at the bottom of the boat.v[2]
15417 affirming the decision of the Regional Trial They checked the license of the boat and its
Court, Branch 52, Palawan in Criminal Case No. fishermen and found them to be in order.
10429 convicting petitioners of the offense of illegal Nonetheless, SPO3 Enriquez brought the boat
fishing with the use of obnoxious or poisonous captain, the crew and the fishermen to Puerto
substance penalized under Presidential Decree (P.D.) Princesa for further investigation.
No. 704, the Fisheries Decree of 1975.
At the city harbor, members of the Maritime
In an Information dated October 15, 1992, Command were ordered by SPO3 Enriquez to guard
petitioners were charged with a violation of P.D. 704 the F/B Robinson. The boat captain and the two
committed as follows: foreigners were again interrogated at the PNP
Maritime Command office. Thereafter, an
That on or about the 30th day of September 1992, at Inspection/Apprehension Report was prepared and
Brgy. San Rafael, Puerto Princesa City, Philippines the boat, its crew and fishermen were charged with
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the following violations:
the above-named accused crew members and
fishermen of F/B Robinson owned by First Fishermen 1. Conducting fishing operations within Puerto
Fishing Industries, Inc., represented by Richard Princesa coastal waters without mayors permit;
Hizon, a domestic corporation duly organized under
the laws of the Philippines, being then the owner, 2. Employing excess fishermen on board
crew members and fishermen of F/B Robinson and (Authorized--26; On board--36);
with the use of said fishing boat, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously the said accused 3. Two (2) Hongkong nationals on board
conspiring and confederating together and mutually without original passports.v[3]
helping one another catch, take or gather or cause to
be caught, taken or gathered fish or fishery aquatic The following day, October 1, 1992, SPO3 Enriquez
products in the coastal waters of Puerto Princesa directed the boat captain to get random samples of
City, Palawan, with the use of obnoxious or fish from the fish cage of F/B Robinson for laboratory
poisonous substance (sodium cyanide), of more or examination. As instructed, the boat engineer,
less one (1) ton of assorted live fishes which were
 Industries, Inc., a domestic corporation licensed to
petitioner Ernesto Andaya, delivered to the Maritime engage in fishing. They alleged that they catch fish by
Office four (4) live lapu-lapu fish inside a plastic the hook and line method and that they had used
shopping bag filled with water. SPO3 Enriquez this method for one month and a half in the waters
received the fish and in the presence of the boat of Cuyo Island. They related that on September 30,
engineer and captain, placed them inside a large 1992 at about 7:00 A.M., they anchored the F/B
transparent plastic bag without water. He sealed the Robinson in the east of Podiado Island in Puerto
plastic with heat from a lighter.v[4] Princesa City. The boat captain and the fishermen
took out and boarded their sampans to fish for their
The specimens were brought to the National Bureau food. They were still fishing in their sampans at 4:00
of Investigation (NBI) sub-office in the city for P.M. when a rubber boat containing members of the
examination to determine the method of catching PNP Maritime Command and the Task Force Bantay
the same for record or evidentiary purposes.v[5] Dagat approached them and boarded the F/B
They were received at the NBI office at 8:00 in the Robinson. The policemen were in uniform while the
evening of the same day. The receiving clerk, Edna Bantay Dagat personnel were in civilian clothes. They
Capicio, noted that the fish were dead and she were all armed with guns. One of the Bantay Dagat
placed the plastic bag with the fish inside the office personnel introduced himself as Commander Jun
freezer to preserve them. Two days later, on October Marcelo and he inspected the boat and the boats
3, 1992, the chief of the NBI sub-office, Onos documents. Marcelo saw the two foreigners and
Mangotara, certified the specimens for laboratory asked for their passports. As their passports were
examination at the NBI Head Office in Manila. The photocopies, Marcelo demanded for their original.
fish samples were to be personally transported by The captain explained that the original passports
Edna Capicio who was then scheduled to leave for were with the companys head office in Manila.
Manila for her board examination in Marcelo angrily insisted for the originals and
Criminology.v[6] On October 4, 1992, Ms. Capicio, in threatened to arrest everybody. He then ordered the
the presence of her chief, took the plastic with the captain, his crew and the fishermen to follow him to
specimens from the freezer and placed them inside Puerto Princesa. He held the magazine of his gun and
two shopping bags and sealed them with masking warned the captain Sige, huwag kang tatakas, kung
tape. She proceeded to her ship where she placed hindi babarilin ko kayo!v[8] The captain herded all his
the specimens in the ships freezer. men into the boat and followed Marcelo and the
police to Puerto Princesa.
Capicio arrived in Manila the following day, October
5, 1992 and immediately brought the specimens to They arrived at the city harbor at 7:45 in the evening
the NBI Head Office. On October 7, 1992, NBI and were met by members of the media. As
Forensic Chemist Emilia Rosaldes conducted two instructed by Marcelo, the members of the media
tests on the fish samples and found that they interviewed and took pictures of the boat and the
contained sodium cyanide, thus: fishermen.v[9]

FINDINGS: The following day, October 1, 1992, at 8:00 in the

morning, Amado Villanueva, one of the fishermen at
Weight of Specimen 1.870 kilograms Examinations the F/B Robinson, was instructed by a policemen
made on the above-mentioned specimen gave guarding the boat to get five (5) fish samples from
POSITIVE RESULTS to the test for the presence of the fish cage and bring them to the pier. Villanueva
SODIUM CYANIDE x x x inquired whether the captain knew about the order
but the guard replied he was taking responsibility for
REMARKS: it. Villanueva scooped five pieces of lapu-lapu, placed
them inside a plastic bag filled with water and
Sodium Cyanide is a violent poison.v[7] brought the bag to the pier. The boat engineer,
Ernesto Andaya, received the fish and delivered
In light of these findings, the PNP Maritime them to the PNP Maritime Office. Nobody was in the
Command of Puerto Princesa City filed the complaint office and Andaya waited for the apprehending
at bar against the owner and operator of the F/B officers and the boat captain. Later, one of the
Robinson, the First Fishermen Fishing Industries, Inc., policemen in the office instructed him to leave the
represented by herein petitioner Richard Hizon, the bag and hang it on a nail in the wall. Andaya did as
boat captain, Silverio Gargar, the boat engineer, he was told and returned to the boat at 10:00
Ernesto Andaya, two other crew members, the two A.M.v[10]
Hongkong nationals and 28 fishermen of the said
boat. In the afternoon of the same day, the boat captain
arrived at the Maritime office. He brought along a
Petitioners were arraigned and they pled not guilty representative from their head office in Manila who
to the charge. As defense, they claimed that they are showed the police and the Bantay Dagat personnel
legitimate fishermen of the First Fishermen
 ranging from a minimum of EIGHT (8) YEARS
the original passports of the Hongkong nationals and and ONE (1) DAY to a maximum of NINE (9)
other pertinent documents of the F/B Robinson and YEARS and FOUR (4) MONTHS and to pay the
its crew. Finding the documents in order, Marcelo costs.
approached the captain and whispered to him
Tandaan mo ito, kapitan, kung makakaalis ka dito, Pursuant to the provisions of Article 45, in
magkikita pa rin uli tayo sa dagat, kung hindi kayo relation to the second sentence of Article 10 of
lulubog ay palulutangin ko kayo! It was then that the Revised Penal Code, as amended:
SPO3 Enriquez informed the captain that some
members of the Maritime Command, acting under a) Fishing Boat (F/B) Robinson;
his instructions, had just taken five (5) pieces of lapu-
lapu from the boat. SPO3 Enriquez showed the b) The 28 motorized fiberglass
captain the fish samples. Although the captain saw sampans; and
only four (4) pieces of lapu-lapu, he did not utter a
word of protest.v[11] Under Marcelos threat, he c) The live fishes in the fish cages
signed the Certification that he received only four (4) installed in the F/B Robinson, all of which
pieces of fish.v[12] have been respectively shown to be tools
or instruments and proceeds of the
Two weeks later, the information was filed against offense, are hereby ordered confiscated
petitioners. The case was prosecuted against thirty- and declared forfeited in favor of the
one (31) of the thirty-five (35) accused. Richard Hizon government.
remained at large while the whereabouts of Richard
Estremos, Marlon Camporazo and Joseph Aurelio SO ORDERED.v[13]
were unknown.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
On July 9, 1993, the trial court found the thirty one decision of the trial court. Hence, this petition.
(31) petitioners guilty and sentenced them to
imprisonment for a minimum of eight (8) years and Petitioners contend that:
one (1) day to a maximum of nine (9) years and four
(4) months. The court also ordered the confiscation I
and forfeiture of the F/B Robinson, the 28 sampans
and the ton of assorted live fishes as instruments and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED
proceeds of the offense, thus: IN HOLDING THAT THE MERE POSITIVE
RESULTS TO THE TEST FOR THE PRESENCE OF
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment SODIUM CYANIDE IN THE FISH SPECIMEN,
is hereby rendered finding the accused ALBEIT ILLEGALLY SEIZED ON THE OCCASION
SILVERIO GARGAR, ERNESTO ANDAYA, OF A WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND ARREST, IS
NEMESIO GABO, RODRIGO ABRERA, CHEUNG ADMISSIBLE AND SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR THE
TAI FOOK, SHEK CHOR LUK, EFREN DELA PENA, PETITIONERS CONVICTION OF THE CRIME OF
JONEL AURELIO, GODOFREDO VILLAVERDE, ILLEGAL FISHING.
ANGELITO DUMAYBAG, DEOMEDES ROSIL,
AMADO VILLANUEVA, FRANCISCO ESTREMOS, II
ARNEL VILLAVERDE, NEMESIO CASAMPOL,
JORNIE DELACRUZ, JESUS MACTAN, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED
FERNANDO BIRING, MENDRITO CARPO, LUIS IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE STATUTORY
DUARTE, RONNIE JUEZAN, BERNARDO PRESUMPTION OF GUILT UNDER SEC. 33 OF
VILLACARLOS, RICARDO SALES, MARLON PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 704 CANNOT
ABELLA, TEODORO DELOS REYES, IGNACIO PREVAIL AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONAL
ABELLA, JOSEPH MAYONADO, JANAIRO PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, SUCH THAT
LANGUYOD, DODONG DELOS REYES, THE GRAVAMEN OF THE OFFENSE OF ILLEGAL
ROLANDO ARCENAS and JOLLY CABALLERO FISHING MUST STILL BE PROVED BEYOND
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of REASONABLE DOUBT.
Illegal Fishing with the use of obnoxious or
poisonous substance commonly known as III
sodium cyanide, committed in violation of
section 33 and penalized in section 38 of
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED
Presidential Decree No. 704, as amended, and
IN NOT REVERSING THE JUDGMENT OF THE
there being neither mitigating nor aggravating
TRIAL COURT AND ACQUITTING THE
circumstances appreciated and applying the
PETITIONERS.v[14]
provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
each of the aforenamed accused is sentenced
to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment
 We agree.
The Solicitor General submitted a Manifestation in
Lieu of Comment praying for petitioners Petitioners were charged with illegal fishing
acquittal.v[15] penalized under sections 33 and 38 of P.D. 704v[24]
which provide as follows:
The petitioners, with the concurrence of the Solicitor
General, primarily question the admissibility of the Sec. 33. Illegal fishing, illegal possession of
evidence against petitioners in view of the explosives intended for illegal fishing;
warrantless search of the fishing boat and the dealing in illegally caught fish or
subsequent arrest of petitioners. More concretely, fishery/aquatic products. -- It shall be
they contend that the NBI finding of sodium cyanide unlawful for any person to catch, take or
in the fish specimens should not have been admitted gather or cause to be caught, taken or
and considered by the trial court because the fish gathered fish or fishery/aquatic products in
samples were seized from the F/B Robinson without Philippine waters with the use of explosives,
a search warrant. obnoxious or poisonous substance, or by the
use of electricity as defined in paragraphs (l),
Our constitution proscribes search and seizure and (m) and (d), respectively, of section 3 hereof:
the arrest of persons without a judicial warrant.v[16] Provided, That mere possession of such
As a general rule, any evidence obtained without a explosives with intent to use the same for
judicial warrant is inadmissible for any purpose in illegal fishing as herein defined shall be
any proceeding. The rule is, however, subject to punishable as hereinafter provided:
certain exceptions. Some of these are:v[17] (1) a Provided, That the Secretary may, upon
search incident to a lawful arrest;v[18] (2) seizure of recommendation of the Director and subject
evidence in plain view; (3) search of a moving motor to such safeguards and conditions he deems
vehicle;v[19] and (4) search in violation of customs necessary, allow for research, educational or
laws.v[20] scientific purposes only, the use of
explosives, obnoxious or poisonous
Search and seizure without search warrant of vessels substance or electricity to catch, take or
and aircrafts for violations of customs laws have gather fish or fishery/aquatic products in the
been the traditional exception to the constitutional specified area: Provided, further, That the
requirement of a search warrant. It is rooted on the use of chemicals to eradicate predators in
recognition that a vessel and an aircraft, like motor fishponds in accordance with accepted
vehicles, can be quickly moved out of the locality or scientific fishery practices without causing
jurisdiction in which the search warrant must be deleterious effects in neighboring waters
sought and secured. Yielding to this reality, judicial shall not be construed as the use of
authorities have not required a search warrant of obnoxious or poisonous substance within
vessels and aircrafts before their search and seizure the meaning of this section: Provided, finally,
can be constitutionally effected.v[21] That the use of mechanical bombs for killing
whales, crocodiles, sharks or other large
The same exception ought to apply to seizures of dangerous fishes, may be allowed, subject to
fishing vessels and boats breaching our fishery laws. the approval of the Secretary.
These vessels are normally powered by high-speed
motors that enable them to elude arresting ships of It shall, likewise, be unlawful for any person
the Philippine Navy, the Coast Guard and other knowingly to possess, deal in, sell or in any
government authorities enforcing our fishery manner dispose of, for profit, any fish or
laws.v[22] fishery/aquatic products which have been
illegally caught, taken or gathered.
We thus hold as valid the warrantless search on the
F/B Robinson, a fishing boat suspected of having The discovery of dynamite, other explosives
engaged in illegal fishing. The fish and other evidence and chemical compounds containing
seized in the course of the search were properly combustible elements, or obnoxious or
admitted by the trial court. Moreover, petitioners poisonous substance, or equipment or
failed to raise the issue during trial and hence, device for electric fishing in any fishing boat
waived their right to question any irregularity that or in the possession of a fisherman shall
may have attended the said search and seizure.v[23] constitute a presumption that the same
were used for fishing in violation of this
Given the evidence admitted by the trial court, the Decree, and the discovery in any fishing boat
next question now is whether petitioners are guilty of fish caught or killed by the use of
of the offense of illegal fishing with the use of explosives, obnoxious or poisonous
poisonous substances. Again, the petitioners, joined substance or by electricity shall constitute a
by the Solicitor General, submit that the prosecution presumption that the owner, operator or
evidence cannot convict them.
 committed with any criminal intent or
fisherman were fishing with the use of intention.v[28]
explosives, obnoxious or poisonous
substance or electricity. The validity of laws establishing presumptions in
criminal cases is a settled matter. It is generally
xxx xxx xxx conceded that the legislature has the power to
provide that proof of certain facts can constitute
Sec. 38. Penalties. -- (a) For illegal fishing prima facie evidence of the guilt of the accused and
and dealing in illegally caught fish or then shift the burden of proof to the accused
fishery/aquatic products.-- Violation of provided there is a rational connection between the
Section 33 hereof shall be punished as facts proved and the ultimate fact presumed.v[29]
follows: To avoid any constitutional infirmity, the inference of
one from proof of the other must not be arbitrary
xxx xxx xxx and unreasonable.v[30] In fine, the presumption
must be based on facts and these facts must be part
(2) By imprisonment from eight (8) to of the crime when committed.v[31]
ten (10) years, if obnoxious or poisonous
substances are used: Provided, That if the The third paragraph of section 33 of P.D. 704 creates
use of such substances results 1) in physical a presumption of guilt based on facts proved and
injury to any person, the penalty shall be hence is not constitutionally impermissible. It makes
imprisonment from ten (10) to twelve (12) the discovery of obnoxious or poisonous substances,
years, or 2) in the loss of human life, then the explosives, or devices for electric fishing, or of fish
penalty shall be imprisonment from twenty caught or killed with the use of obnoxious and
(20) years to life or death; poisonous substances, explosives or electricity in any
fishing boat or in the possession of a fisherman
xxx xxx x x x.v[25] evidence that the owner and operator of the fishing
boat or the fisherman had used such substances in
The offense of illegal fishing is committed when a catching fish. The ultimate fact presumed is that the
person catches, takes or gathers or causes to be owner and operator of the boat or the fisherman
caught, taken or gathered fish, fishery or aquatic were engaged in illegal fishing and this presumption
products in Philippine waters with the use of was made to arise from the discovery of the
explosives, electricity, obnoxious or poisonous substances and the contaminated fish in the
substances. The law creates a presumption that possession of the fisherman in the fishing boat. The
illegal fishing has been committed when: (a) fact presumed is a natural inference from the fact
explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substances or proved.v[32]
equipment or device for electric fishing are found in
a fishing boat or in the possession of a fisherman; or We stress, however, that the statutory presumption
(b) when fish caught or killed with the use of is merely prima facie.v[33] It can not, under the guise
explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substances or by of regulating the presentation of evidence, operate
electricity are found in a fishing boat. Under these to preclude the accused from presenting his defense
instances, the boat owner, operator or fishermen are to rebut the main fact presumed.v[34] At no instance
presumed to have engaged in illegal fishing. can the accused be denied the right to rebut the
presumption,v[35] thus:
Petitioners contend that this presumption of guilt
under the Fisheries Decree violates the presumption The inference of guilt is one of fact and rests
of innocence guaranteed by the Constitution.v[26] upon the common experience of men. But
As early as 1916, this Court has rejected this the experience of men has taught them that
argument by holding that:v[27] an apparently guilty possession may be
explained so as to rebut such an inference
In some States, as well as in England, there and an accused person may therefore put
exists what are known as common law witnesses on the stand or go on the witness
offenses. In the Philippine Islands no act is a stand himself to explain his possession, and
crime unless it is made so by statute. The any reasonable explanation of his
state having the right to declare what acts possession, inconsistent with his guilty
are criminal, within certain well-defined connection with the commission of the
limitations, has the right to specify what act crime, will rebut the inference as to his guilt
or acts shall constitute a crime, as well as which the prosecution seeks to have drawn
what proof shall constitute prima facie from his guilty possession of the stolen
evidence of guilt, and then to put upon the goods.v[36]
defendant the burden of showing that such
act or acts are innocent and are not
 apprehending officers saw petitioners fishing by
We now review the evidence to determine whether hook and line when they came upon them in the
petitioners have successfully rebutted this waters of Barangay San Rafael. One of the
presumption. The facts show that on November 13, apprehending officers, SPO1 Demetrio Saballuca,
1992, after the information was filed in court and testified as follows:
petitioners granted bail, petitioners moved that the
fish specimens taken from the F/B Robinson be ATTY. TORREFRANCA ON CROSS-EXAMINATION:
reexamined.v[37] The trial court granted the
motion.v[38] As prayed for, a member of the PNP Q : I get your point therefore, that the
Maritime Command of Puerto Princesa, in the illegal fishing supposedly conducted at San Rafael is
presence of authorized representatives of the F/B a moro ami type of fishing [that] occurred into your
Robinson, the NBI and the local Fisheries Office, took mind and that was made to understand by the
at random five (5) live lapu-lapu from the fish cage of Bantay Dagat personnel?
the boat. The specimens were packed in the usual
manner of transporting live fish, taken aboard a A : Yes, sir.
commercial flight and delivered by the same
representatives to the NBI Head Office in Manila for Q : Upon reaching the place, you and
chemical analysis. the pumpboat, together with the two Bantay Dagat
personnel were SPO3 Romulo Enriquez and Mr.
On November 23, 1992, Salud Rosales, another Benito Marcelo and SPO1 Marzan, you did not
forensic chemist of the NBI in Manila conducted witness that kind of moro ami fishing, correct?
three (3) tests on the specimens and found the fish
negative for the presence of sodium cyanide,v[39] A : None, sir.
thus:
Q :In other words, there was negative activity
Gross weight of specimen = 3.849 kg. of moro ami type of fishing on September 30, 1992
at 4:00 in the afternoon at San Rafael?
Examination made on the above-mentioned
specimens gave NEGATIVE RESULTS to the A : Yes, sir.
tests for the presence of SODIUM
CYANIDE.v[40] Q : And what you saw were 5 motorized
Sampans with fishermen each doing a hook and line
The Information charged petitioners with illegal fishing type?
fishing with the use of obnoxious or poisonous
substance (sodium cyanide), of more or less one (1) A : Yes, sir. More or less they were five.
ton of assorted live fishes. There was more or less
one ton of fishes in the F/B Robinsons fish cage. It Q : And despite the fact you had
was from this fish cage that the four dead specimens negative knowledge of this moro ami type of fishing,
examined on October 7, 1992 and the five live SPO3 Enriquez together with Mr. Marcelo boarded
specimens examined on November 23, 1992 were the vessel just the same?
taken. Though all the specimens came from the same
source allegedly tainted with sodium cyanide, the A : Yes, sir.
two tests resulted in conflicting findings. We note
that after its apprehension, the F/B Robinson never xxx xxx x x x.v[43]
left the custody of the PNP Maritime Command. The
fishing boat was anchored near the city harbor and The apprehending officers who boarded
was guarded by members of the Maritime and searched the boat did not find any
Command.v[41] It was later turned over to the sodium cyanide nor any poisonous or
custody of the Philippine Coast Guard Commander of obnoxious substance. Neither did they
Puerto Princesa City.v[42] find any trace of the poison in the
possession of the fishermen or in the fish
The prosecution failed to explain the contradictory cage itself. An Inventory was prepared
findings on the fish samples and this omission raises by the apprehending officers and only
a reasonable doubt that the one ton of fishes in the the following items were found on board
cage were caught with the use of sodium cyanide. the boat:

The absence of cyanide in the second set of fish ITEMS QUANTITY

specimens supports petitioners claim that they did REMARKS
not use the poison in fishing. According to them, they
caught the fishes by the ordinary and legal way, i.e.,
by hook and line on board their sampans. This claim
is buttressed by the prosecution evidence itself. The
 Apparently, the members of the PNP Maritime
F/B Robinson (1) unit Command and the Task Force Bantay Dagat were the
operating ones engaged in an illegal fishing expedition. As
sharply observed by the Solicitor General, the report
engine (1) unit received by the Task Force Bantay Dagat was that a
ICE-900-BHP fishing boat was fishing illegally through muro ami on
the waters of San Rafael. Muro ami according to
sampans 28 units SPO1 Saballuca is made with the use of a big net with
fiberglass sinkers to make the net submerge in the water with
the fishermen surround[ing] the net.v[52]
outboard motors 28 units
operating This method of fishing needs approximately two
hundred (200) fishermen to execute.v[53] What the
assorted fishes more or less 1 ton apprehending officers instead discovered were
live twenty eight (28) fishermen in their discovered were
twenty eight (28) fishermen in their sampans fishing
hooks and lines assorted by hook and line. The authorities found nothing on
the boat that would have indicated any form of
x x x.v[44] illegal fishing. All the documents of the boat and the
fishermen were in order. It was only after the fish
We cannot overlook the fact that the apprehending specimens were tested, albeit under suspicious
officers found in the boat assorted hooks and lines circumstances, that petitioners were charged with
for catching fish.v[45] For this obvious reason, the illegal fishing with the use of poisonous substances.
Inspection/Apprehension Report prepared by the
apprehending officers immediately after the search IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is granted and the
did not charge petitioners with illegal fishing, much decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No.
less illegal fishing with the use of poison or any 15417 is reversed and set aside. Petitioners are
obnoxious substance.v[46] acquitted of the crime of illegal fishing with the use
of poisonous substances defined under the Section
The only basis for the charge of fishing with 33 of Republic Act No. 704, the Fisheries Decree of
poisonous substance is the result of the first NBI 1975. No costs.
laboratory test on the four fish specimens. Under the
circumstances of the case, however, this finding does SO ORDERED.
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.v[47] This Certification that four (4)
fish samples were taken from the 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.v[48] The specimens were 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.v[49] Emilia Rosaldes, the NBI forensic
chemist who examined the samples, testified that
when she opened the package, she found two ends
of the same plastic bag knotted.v[50] These
circumstances as well as the time interval from the
taking of the fish samples and their actual
examinationv[51] fail to assure the impartial mind
that the integrity of the specimens had been
properly safeguarded.