Sea Lion Fishing Corporation vs. People

G.R. No. 172678 March 23, 2011Sea Lion Fishing Corporation vs. PeopleArias, Maria Kristina Isabelle D.

*not the actual F/V Sea LionFACTS

http://www.philstar.com:8080/nation/234926/20-chinese-fishermen-arrested-palawan

A group composed of Philippine Marines, Coast Guard and barangay officials found F/V Sea Lion anchored near Mangsee Island when they conducted search and seizure operations to heed to some fishermens report that there was poaching off said island.

Aside from the fishing vessel, they also found five boats and a long fishing net spread over the water.

A total of 24 people were arrested: the vessels Filipino captain and crew composed of three Filipinos and three Chinese, and 17 Chinese fishermen aboard F/V Sea Lion.FACTS The following charges were filed:Violation of Sec. 97 of RA 8550 (Fishing or Taking of Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species) against all who were arrested;Violation of Sec. 90 (Use of Active Gear in the Municipal Waters and Bays and Other Fishery Management Areas) of the same law against F/V Sea Lions Captain, Chief Engineer, and the President of the corporation which owned the vessel; andViolation of Sec. 27(a) and (f) of RA 9147 (Illegal Acts: killing and destroying wildlife species; collecting, hunting or possessing wildlife, their by-products and derivatives) and of Sec. 87 of RA 8550 (Poaching in Philippine Waters) against all who were arrested and the President of the corporation which owned F/V Sea Lion.FACTSIt was found that the 17 Chinese fishermen were rescued from a distressed Chinese vessel by the crew of F/V Sea Lion, and that the latter did not approve of the others illegal acts. The Provincial Prosecutor of Palawan then dismissed the first case against the crew members but found probable cause for the two other charges but only against the 17 Chinese fishermen.Since F/V Sea Lions crew members were absolved, Sea Lion Fishing Corporation (petitioner) filed an Urgent Motion for Release of Evidence alleging that it owned the vessel.The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor issued a resolution recommending the release of F/V Sea Lion to Sea Lion Fishing Corporation upon proper showing of evidence of its ownership of the vessel, and the posting of a bond. The Resolution was subsequently amended to add that the release shall be with the approval of the Provincial Committee on Illegal Entrants, but Sea Lion Fishing Corp. failed to act accordingly.

FACTSThe Chinese fishermen first pled not guilty for violating Sec. 97 of RA 8550 but later changed their plea to guilty for the lesser offense of violating Sec. 88 of the same law (Actual use of explosives, noxious or poisonous substances or electrofishing devices for illegal fishing), and were declared thus in a Sentence issued by the RTC of Puerto Princesa Branch 52.They were also found guilty for violating Sec. 88 of RA 8550 and were sentenced to pay a fine of 100,000 USD. The court also ordered the confiscation of F/V Sea Lion and the fishing paraphernalia and equipment used by the accused in favor of the government.After the Sentences were issued, the petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration where it prayed for the deletion of the confiscation of F/V Sea Lion from the Sentences. The motion was denied by the RTC.Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA, which ruled that there was no lack of jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court since it had jurisdiction over the crimes, so it had the authority to seize F/V Sea Lion.ISSUEWhether the confiscation of F/V Sea Lion was valid.Applicable LawsFrom RA 8550:Section 97.Fishing Or Taking of Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species.- It shall be unlawful to fish or take rare, threatened or endangered species as listed in the CITES and as determined by the Department.Violation of the provision of this section shall be punished by imprisonment of twelve (12) years to twenty (20) years and/or a fine of One hundred and twenty thousand pesos (P120,000.00) and forfeiture of the catch, and the cancellation of fishing permit.Section 87. Poaching in Philippine Waters. It shall be unlawful for any foreign person, corporation or entity to fish or operate any fishing vessel in Philippine waters.The entry of any foreign fishing vessel in Philippine waters shall constitute a prima facie evidence that the vessel is engaged in fishing in Philippine waters.Violation of the above shall be punished by a fine of One hundred thousand U.S. Dollars (US$100,000.00), in addition to the confiscation of its catch, fishing equipment and fishing vessel: Provided, That the Department is empowered to impose an administrative fine of not less than Fifty thousand U.S. Dollars (US$50,000.00) but not more than Two hundred thousand U.S. Dollars (US$200,000.00) or its equivalent in the Philippine Currency.Section 88.Fishing Through Explosives, Noxious or Poisonous Substance, and/or Electricity.-(3) Actual use of explosives, noxious or poisonous substances or electrofishing devices for illegal fishing shall be punishable by imprisonment ranging from five (5) years to ten (10) years without prejudice to the filing of separate criminal cases when the use of the same result to physical injury or loss of human life.From RA 9147:Section 27.Illegal Acts. - Unless otherwise allowed in accordance with this Act, it shall be unlawful for any person to willfully and knowingly exploit wildlife resources and their habitats, or undertake the following acts;(a) killing and destroying wildlife species, except in the following instances;(i) when it is done as part of the religious rituals of established tribal groups or indigenous cultural communities;(ii) when the wildlife is afflicted with an incurable communicable disease;(iii) when it is deemed necessary to put an end to the misery suffered by the wildlife;(iv) when it is done to prevent an imminent danger to the life or limb of a human being; and(v) when the wildlife is killed or destroyed after it has been used in authorized research or experiments.From the Rules of Court:The pertinent portion of Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides:Section 1. Petition for certiorari. - When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.

Petitioners ArgumentsPetitioner Sea Lion Fishing Corporation contends that its fishing vessel should be released because it is the registered owner of the vessel and it was not one of the convicted in the Criminal Cases before the RTC. It invoked Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code which provides:

ART. 45.Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of the crime.- Every penalty imposed for the commission of a felony shall carry with it the forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and the instruments or tools with which it was committed.Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government,unless they be the property of a third person not liable for the offense, but those articles which are not subject of lawful commerce shall be destroyed.It also argued that it was denied its right to due process of law when it was not informed of the judicial proceedings involving its fishing vessel.OSGs ArgumentsRespondent People of the Philippines through the Office of the Solicitor General contends that since the 17 Chinese fishermen were charged under a special law, Article 45 of the RPC does not apply, in accordance of Article 10 of the same law which provides that acts punishable by special laws are not subject to the provisions of the RPC.It also argues that even if Article 45 were applicable, the petition would still fail considering that the petitioner failed to present its third party claim in at the earliest opportunity.It rebutted petitioners argument that it was deprived due process of law since it was given enough opportunity to be heard when the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor granted its motion for F/V Sea Lion to be released subject to conditions, but it did not comply to such.RULINGThe Supreme Court ruled that the petition has no merit.The Court noted that Sea Lion Fishing Corp pursued an incorrect remedy when it filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The CA correctly ruled that there was no lack nor error of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion since based on the Informations, the offenses were committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the RTC.It also upheld the CAs observation that petitioner was given the right to intervene by the trial court when it pronounced that petitioner failed to exercise its right to claim ownership over F/V Sea Lion.Thus, Sea Lion Fishing Corp. should have filed an appeal instead of a Petition for Certiorari before the CA.RULINGThe Court also pointed out that petitioners claim of ownership over the fishing vessel was not supported by any proof on record, the sole relevant document to such claim being its motion to release before the Provincial Prosecutor. However, even after said office granted the motion with the condition that it submit proof of its ownership of the vessel, petitioner failed to comply with the condition.Moreover, during the judicial proceedings, it still did not move for an intervention. It belatedly explained before the CA that its inaction was caused by its inability to produce the required bond, but it is still not sufficient reason for its failure to act.In fact, it only brought forward its claims after the trial court issued its Sentences for the cases against the Chinese fishermen. It filed a Motion for Reconsideration wherein a Certificate of Registration issued by MARINA was attached.RULINGThe Court further noted that the CA was correct in observing that the lack of factual basis for petitioners claim of ownership was still not cured when it filed the motion for reconsideration before the RTC. It should have opened a new trial or a reopening of the trial regarding the confiscation of the vessel, which should have been supported by evidence to support its claim.It further explained that it should be proven that the vessel is owned by a third party other than the accused, and that Article 45 also requires proof that such third-party is not liable for the offense. Since the accused admitted that the vessel had been used in committing the crime, it is not enough to infer that the owner of the vessel is not guilty of the offense from the mere fact that it was not charged in the same case before the court.Therefore, the motion for reconsideration was not proper. The attached copy of Certificate of Registration cannot be considered by the trial court because it was not formally offered.RULINGFinally, the Court concluded that Sea Lion Fishing Corporations claim that it was deprived of its right to due process of law had no factual basis, citing again that it did not intervene before the trial court to claim ownership of F/V Sea Lion. The records also did not show any third-party claim of ownership of the vessel, and that the formal introduction of evidence for the same was prevented by the accuseds guilty plea.Therefore, there was not third-party property right sought to be protected when the trial court ordered the confiscation of the vessel.CONCLUSIONIt is beyond reasonable doubt that F/V Sea Lion was used by the 17 Chinese fishermen when they committed the offenses. Furthermore, petitioner Sea Lion Fishing Corporation failed to present any evidence that it is the actual owner of the vessel. Therefore, the trial court was correct when it ordered the confiscation of F/V Sea Lion in favor of the government.