[Syllabus]

SECONDDIVISION

[G.R.No.119619.December13,1996]

RICHARD HIZON, SILVERIO GARGAR, ERNESTO ANDAYA, NEMESIO GABO,

RODRIGO ABRERA, CHEUNG TAI FOOK, SHEK CHOR LUK, EFREN DELA
PENA, JONEL AURELIO, GODOFREDO VILLAVERDE, ANGELITO
DUMAYBAG, DEOMEDES ROSIL, AMADO VILLANUEVA, FRANCISCO
ESTREMOS, ANGEL VILLAVERDE, NEMESIO CASAMPOL, RICHARD
ESTREMOS, JORNIE DELA PENA, JESUS MACTAN, MARLON
CAMPORAZO, FERNANDO BIRING, MENDRITO CARPO, LUIS DUARTE,
JOSEPH AURELIO, RONNIE JUEZAN, BERNARDO VILLACARLOS,
RICARDO SALES, MARLON ABELLA, TEODORO DELOS REYES, IGNACIO
ABELLA, JOSEPH MAYONADO, JANAIRO LANGUYOD, DODONG DELOS
REYES, JOLLY CABALLERO and ROPLANDO ARCENAS, petitioners, vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,respondents.

DECISION
PUNO,J.:

ThisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CRNo.
15417 affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 52, Palawan in Criminal Case No.
10429 convicting petitioners of the offense of illegal fishing with the use of obnoxious or poisonous
substancepenalizedunderPresidentialDecree(P.D.)No.704,theFisheriesDecreeof1975.
InanInformationdatedOctober15,1992, petitioners were charged with a violation of P.D. 704
committedasfollows:

Thatonoraboutthe30thdayofSeptember1992,atBrgy.SanRafael,PuertoPrincesaCity,Philippinesand
withinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccusedcrewmembersandfishermenofF/B
RobinsonownedbyFirstFishermenFishingIndustries,Inc.,representedbyRichardHizon,adomestic
corporationdulyorganizedunderthelawsofthePhilippines,beingthentheowner,crewmembersand
fishermenofF/BRobinsonandwiththeuseofsaidfishingboat,didthenandtherewilfully,unlawfullyand
feloniouslythesaidaccusedconspiringandconfederatingtogetherandmutuallyhelpingoneanothercatch,take
orgatherorcausetobecaught,takenorgatheredfishorfisheryaquaticproductsinthecoastalwatersofPuerto
PrincesaCity,Palawan,withtheuseofobnoxiousorpoisonoussubstance(sodiumcyanide),ofmoreorlessone
(1)tonofassortedlivefisheswhichwereillegallycaughtthrutheuseofobnoxious/poisonoussubstance
[1]
(sodiumcyanide).

The following facts were established by the prosecution: In September 1992, the Philippine
NationalPolice(PNP)MaritimeCommandofPuertoPrincesaCity,Palawanreceivedreportsofillegal
fishing operations in the coastal waters of the city. In response to these reports, the city mayor
organizedTaskForceBantayDagattoassistthepoliceinthedetectionandapprehensionofviolators
ofthelawsonfishing.
 OnSeptember30,1992atabout2:00intheafternoon,theTaskForceBantayDagatreportedto
thePNPMaritimeCommandthataboatandseveralsmallcraftswerefishingbymuroamiwithinthe
shorelineofBarangaySanRafaelofPuertoPrincesa.Thepolice,headedbySPO3RomuloEnriquez,
andmembersoftheTaskForceBantayDagat,headedbyBenitoMarcelo,Jr.,immediatelyproceeded
totheareaandfoundseveralmenfishinginmotorizedsampansandabigfishingboatidentifiedas
F/B Robinson within the sevenkilometer shoreline of the city. They boarded the F/B Robinson and
inspectedtheboatwiththeacquiescenceoftheboatcaptain,SilverioGargar.Inthecourseoftheir
inspection, the police saw two foreigners in the captains deck. SPO3 Enriquez examined their
passportsandfoundthemtobemerephotocopies.Thepolicealsodiscoveredalargeaquariumfullof
[2]
live lapulapu and assorted fish weighing approximately one ton at the bottom of the boat. They
checkedthelicenseoftheboatanditsfishermenandfoundthemtobeinorder.Nonetheless,SPO3
Enriquez brought the boat captain, the crew and the fishermen to Puerto Princesa for further
investigation.
Atthecityharbor,membersoftheMaritimeCommandwereorderedbySPO3Enriqueztoguard
the F/B Robinson. The boat captain and the two foreigners were again interrogated at the PNP
MaritimeCommandoffice.Thereafter,anInspection/ApprehensionReportwaspreparedandtheboat,
itscrewandfishermenwerechargedwiththefollowingviolations:
1.ConductingfishingoperationswithinPuertoPrincesacoastalwaterswithoutmayorspermit
2.Employingexcessfishermenonboard(Authorized26Onboard36)
[3]
3.Two(2)Hongkongnationalsonboardwithoutoriginalpassports.
The following day, October 1, 1992, SPO3 Enriquez directed the boat captain to get random
samplesoffishfromthefishcageofF/BRobinsonforlaboratoryexamination.Asinstructed,theboat
engineer,petitionerErnestoAndaya,deliveredtotheMaritimeOfficefour(4)livelapulapufishinside
aplasticshoppingbagfilledwithwater.SPO3Enriquezreceivedthefishandinthepresenceofthe
boat engineer and captain, placed them inside a large transparent plastic bag without water. He
[4]
sealedtheplasticwithheatfromalighter.
ThespecimenswerebroughttotheNationalBureauofInvestigation(NBI)subofficeinthecityfor
[5]
examinationtodeterminethemethodofcatchingthesameforrecordorevidentiarypurposes. They
were received at the NBI office at 8:00 in the evening of the same day. The receiving clerk, Edna
Capicio, noted that the fish were dead and she placed the plastic bag with the fish inside the office
freezertopreservethem.Twodayslater,onOctober3,1992, the chief of the NBI suboffice, Onos
Mangotara,certifiedthespecimensforlaboratoryexaminationattheNBIHeadOfficeinManila.The
fishsamplesweretobepersonallytransportedbyEdnaCapiciowhowasthenscheduledtoleavefor
[6]
ManilaforherboardexaminationinCriminology. OnOctober4,1992,Ms.Capicio,inthepresence
ofherchief,tooktheplasticwiththespecimensfromthefreezerandplacedtheminsidetwoshopping
bags and sealed them with masking tape. She proceeded to her ship where she placed the
specimensintheshipsfreezer.
Capicio arrived in Manila the following day, October 5, 1992 and immediately brought the
specimens to the NBI Head Office. On October 7, 1992, NBI Forensic Chemist Emilia Rosaldes
conductedtwotestsonthefishsamplesandfoundthattheycontainedsodiumcyanide,thus:

FINDINGS:

WeightofSpecimen1.870kilogramsExaminationsmadeontheabovementionedspecimengavePOSITIVE
RESULTStothetestforthepresenceofSODIUMCYANIDExxx

REMARKS:
[7]
SodiumCyanideisaviolentpoison.
 Inlightofthesefindings,thePNPMaritimeCommandofPuertoPrincesaCityfiledthecomplaint
at bar against the owner and operator of the F/B Robinson, the First Fishermen Fishing Industries,
Inc., represented by herein petitioner Richard Hizon, the boat captain, Silverio Gargar, the boat
engineer,ErnestoAndaya,twoothercrewmembers,thetwoHongkongnationalsand28fishermenof
thesaidboat.
Petitionerswerearraignedandtheyplednotguiltytothecharge.Asdefense,theyclaimedthat
theyarelegitimatefishermenoftheFirstFishermenIndustries,Inc.,adomesticcorporationlicensed
toengageinfishing.Theyallegedthattheycatchfishbythehookandlinemethodandthattheyhad
used this method for one month and a half in the waters of Cuyo Island. They related that on
September 30, 1992 at about 7:00 A.M., they anchored the F/B Robinson in the east of Podiado
Island in Puerto Princesa City. The boat captain and the fishermen took out and boarded their
sampanstofishfortheirfood.Theywerestillfishingintheirsampansat4:00P.M.whenarubberboat
containing members of the PNP Maritime Command and the Task Force Bantay Dagat approached
them and boarded the F/B Robinson. The policemen were in uniform while the Bantay Dagat
personnelwereincivilianclothes.Theywereallarmedwithguns.OneoftheBantayDagatpersonnel
introducedhimselfasCommanderJunMarceloandheinspectedtheboatandtheboatsdocuments.
Marcelosawthetwoforeignersandaskedfortheirpassports.Astheirpassportswerephotocopies,
Marcelodemandedfortheiroriginal.Thecaptainexplainedthattheoriginalpassportswerewiththe
companys head office in Manila. Marcelo angrily insisted for the originals and threatened to arrest
everybody.Hethenorderedthecaptain,hiscrewandthefishermentofollowhimtoPuertoPrincesa.
He held the magazine of his gun and warned the captain Sige, huwag kang tatakas, kung hindi
[8]
babarilinkokayo! ThecaptainherdedallhismenintotheboatandfollowedMarceloandthepolice
toPuertoPrincesa.
Theyarrivedatthecityharborat7:45intheeveningandweremetbymembersofthemedia.As
instructed by Marcelo, the members of the media interviewed and took pictures of the boat and the
[9]
fishermen.
The following day, October 1, 1992, at 8:00 in the morning, Amado Villanueva, one of the
fishermenattheF/BRobinson,wasinstructedbyapolicemenguardingtheboattogetfive(5)fish
samplesfromthefishcageandbringthemtothepier.Villanuevainquiredwhetherthecaptainknew
abouttheorderbuttheguardrepliedhewastakingresponsibilityforit.Villanuevascoopedfivepieces
of lapulapu, placed them inside a plastic bag filled with water and brought the bag to the pier. The
boat engineer, Ernesto Andaya, received the fish and delivered them to the PNP Maritime Office.
NobodywasintheofficeandAndayawaitedfortheapprehendingofficersandtheboatcaptain.Later,
one of the policemen in the office instructed him to leave the bag and hang it on a nail in the wall.
[10]
Andayadidashewastoldandreturnedtotheboatat10:00A.M.
Intheafternoonofthesameday,theboatcaptainarrivedattheMaritimeoffice.Hebroughtalong
a representative from their head office in Manila who showed the police and the Bantay Dagat
personneltheoriginalpassportsoftheHongkongnationalsandotherpertinentdocumentsoftheF/B
Robinson and its crew. Finding the documents in order, Marcelo approached the captain and
whisperedtohimTandaanmoito,kapitan,kungmakakaaliskadito,magkikitaparinulitayosadagat,
kunghindikayolulubogaypalulutanginkokayo!ItwasthenthatSPO3Enriquezinformedthecaptain
thatsomemembers of the Maritime Command, acting under his instructions,hadjusttakenfive(5)
piecesoflapulapufromtheboat.SPO3Enriquezshowedthecaptainthefishsamples.Althoughthe
[11]
captain saw only four (4) pieces of lapulapu, he did not utter a word of protest. UnderMarcelos
[12]
threat,hesignedtheCertificationthathereceivedonlyfour(4)piecesoffish.
Twoweekslater,theinformationwasfiledagainstpetitioners.Thecasewasprosecutedagainst
thirtyone(31)ofthethirtyfive(35)accused.RichardHizonremainedatlargewhilethewhereabouts
ofRichardEstremos,MarlonCamporazoandJosephAureliowereunknown.
 OnJuly9,1993,thetrialcourtfoundthethirtyone(31)petitionersguiltyandsentencedthemto
imprisonmentforaminimumofeight(8)yearsandone(1)daytoamaximumofnine(9)yearsand
four(4)months. The court also ordered the confiscation and forfeiture of the F/B Robinson, the 28
sampansandthetonofassortedlivefishesasinstrumentsandproceedsoftheoffense,thus:

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,judgmentisherebyrenderedfindingtheaccusedSILVERIO
GARGAR,ERNESTOANDAYA,NEMESIOGABO,RODRIGOABRERA,CHEUNGTAIFOOK,
SHEKCHORLUK,EFRENDELAPENA,JONELAURELIO,GODOFREDOVILLAVERDE,
ANGELITODUMAYBAG,DEOMEDESROSIL,AMADOVILLANUEVA,FRANCISCOESTREMOS,
ARNELVILLAVERDE,NEMESIOCASAMPOL,JORNIEDELACRUZ,JESUSMACTAN,
FERNANDOBIRING,MENDRITOCARPO,LUISDUARTE,RONNIEJUEZAN,BERNARDO
VILLACARLOS,RICARDOSALES,MARLONABELLA,TEODORODELOSREYES,IGNACIO
ABELLA,JOSEPHMAYONADO,JANAIROLANGUYOD,DODONGDELOSREYES,ROLANDO
ARCENASandJOLLYCABALLEROguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeofIllegalFishingwith
theuseofobnoxiousorpoisonoussubstancecommonlyknownassodiumcyanide,committedinviolation
ofsection33andpenalizedinsection38ofPresidentialDecreeNo.704,asamended,andtherebeing
neithermitigatingnoraggravatingcircumstancesappreciatedandapplyingtheprovisionsofthe
IndeterminateSentenceLaw,eachoftheaforenamedaccusedissentencedtoanindeterminatepenaltyof
imprisonmentrangingfromaminimumofEIGHT(8)YEARSandONE(1)DAYtoamaximumofNINE
(9)YEARSandFOUR(4)MONTHSandtopaythecosts.

PursuanttotheprovisionsofArticle45,inrelationtothesecondsentenceofArticle10oftheRevised
PenalCode,asamended:

a)FishingBoat(F/B)Robinson

b)The28motorizedfiberglasssampansand

c)ThelivefishesinthefishcagesinstalledintheF/BRobinson,allofwhichhavebeenrespectively
showntobetoolsorinstrumentsandproceedsoftheoffense,areherebyorderedconfiscatedand
declaredforfeitedinfavorofthegovernment.
[13]
SOORDERED.

Onappeal,theCourtofAppealsaffirmedthedecisionofthetrialcourt.Hence,thispetition.
Petitionerscontendthat:
I

THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSERREDINHOLDINGTHATTHEMEREPOSITIVE
RESULTSTOTHETESTFORTHEPRESENCEOFSODIUMCYANIDEINTHEFISHSPECIMEN,
ALBEITILLEGALLYSEIZEDONTHEOCCASIONOFAWARRANTLESSSEARCHAND
ARREST,ISADMISSIBLEANDSUFFICIENTBASISFORTHEPETITIONERSCONVICTIONOF
THECRIMEOFILLEGALFISHING.

II

THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSERREDINNOTHOLDINGTHATTHESTATUTORY
PRESUMPTIONOFGUILTUNDERSEC.33OFPRESIDENTIALDECREENO.704CANNOT
PREVAILAGAINSTTHECONSTITUTIONALPRESUMPTIONOFINNOCENCE,SUCHTHATTHE
GRAVAMENOFTHEOFFENSEOFILLEGALFISHINGMUSTSTILLBEPROVEDBEYOND
REASONABLEDOUBT.

III
 THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSERREDINNOTREVERSINGTHEJUDGMENTOFTHE
[14]
TRIALCOURTANDACQUITTINGTHEPETITIONERS.

The Solicitor General submitted a Manifestation in Lieu of Comment praying for petitioners
[15]
acquittal.
Thepetitioners,withtheconcurrenceoftheSolicitorGeneral,primarilyquestiontheadmissibility
of the evidence against petitioners in view of the warrantless search of the fishing boat and the
subsequentarrestofpetitioners.Moreconcretely,theycontendthattheNBIfindingofsodiumcyanide
in the fish specimens should not have been admitted and considered by the trial court because the
fishsampleswereseizedfromtheF/BRobinsonwithoutasearchwarrant.
Our constitution proscribes search and seizure and the arrest of persons without a judicial
[16]
warrant. Asageneralrule,anyevidenceobtainedwithoutajudicialwarrantisinadmissibleforany
[17]
purposeinanyproceeding.Theruleis,however,subjecttocertainexceptions.Someoftheseare:
[18]
(1)asearchincidenttoalawfularrest (2)seizureofevidenceinplainview(3)searchofamoving
[19] [20]
motorvehicle and(4)searchinviolationofcustomslaws.
Searchandseizurewithoutsearchwarrantofvesselsandaircraftsforviolationsofcustomslaws
havebeenthetraditionalexceptiontotheconstitutionalrequirementofasearchwarrant.Itisrooted
ontherecognitionthatavesselandanaircraft,likemotorvehicles,canbequicklymovedoutofthe
localityorjurisdictioninwhichthesearchwarrantmustbesoughtandsecured.Yieldingtothisreality,
judicialauthoritieshavenotrequiredasearchwarrantofvesselsandaircraftsbeforetheirsearchand
[21]
seizurecanbeconstitutionallyeffected.
Thesameexceptionoughttoapplytoseizuresoffishingvesselsandboatsbreachingourfishery
laws.Thesevesselsarenormallypoweredbyhighspeedmotorsthatenablethemtoeludearresting
shipsofthePhilippineNavy,theCoastGuardandothergovernmentauthoritiesenforcingourfishery
[22]
laws.
We thus hold as valid the warrantless search on the F/B Robinson, a fishing boat suspected of
havingengagedinillegalfishing.Thefishandotherevidenceseizedinthecourseofthesearchwere
properly admitted by the trial court. Moreover, petitioners failed to raise the issue during trial and
hence, waived their right to question any irregularity that may have attended the said search and
[23]
seizure.
Given the evidence admitted by the trial court, the next question now is whether petitioners are
guilty of the offense of illegal fishing with the use of poisonous substances. Again, the petitioners,
joinedbytheSolicitorGeneral,submitthattheprosecutionevidencecannotconvictthem.
Weagree.
[24]
Petitioners were charged with illegal fishing penalized under sections 33 and 38 of P.D. 704
whichprovideasfollows:

Sec.33.Illegalfishing,illegalpossessionofexplosivesintendedforillegalfishingdealinginillegally
caughtfishorfishery/aquaticproducts.Itshallbeunlawfulforanypersontocatch,takeorgatheror
causetobecaught,takenorgatheredfishorfishery/aquaticproductsinPhilippinewaterswiththeuseof
explosives,obnoxiousorpoisonoussubstance,orbytheuseofelectricityasdefinedinparagraphs(l),
(m)and(d),respectively,ofsection3hereof:Provided,Thatmerepossessionofsuchexplosiveswith
intenttousethesameforillegalfishingashereindefinedshallbepunishableashereinafterprovided:
Provided,ThattheSecretarymay,uponrecommendationoftheDirectorandsubjecttosuchsafeguards
andconditionshedeemsnecessary,allowforresearch,educationalorscientificpurposesonly,theuseof
explosives,obnoxiousorpoisonoussubstanceorelectricitytocatch,takeorgatherfishorfishery/aquatic
 productsinthespecifiedarea:Provided,further,Thattheuseofchemicalstoeradicatepredatorsin
fishpondsinaccordancewithacceptedscientificfisherypracticeswithoutcausingdeleteriouseffectsin
neighboringwatersshallnotbeconstruedastheuseofobnoxiousorpoisonoussubstancewithinthe
meaningofthissection:Provided,finally,Thattheuseofmechanicalbombsforkillingwhales,
crocodiles,sharksorotherlargedangerousfishes,maybeallowed,subjecttotheapprovalofthe
Secretary.

Itshall,likewise,beunlawfulforanypersonknowinglytopossess,dealin,sellorinanymannerdispose
of,forprofit,anyfishorfishery/aquaticproductswhichhavebeenillegallycaught,takenorgathered.

Thediscoveryofdynamite,otherexplosivesandchemicalcompoundscontainingcombustibleelements,
orobnoxiousorpoisonoussubstance,orequipmentordeviceforelectricfishinginanyfishingboatorin
thepossessionofafishermanshallconstituteapresumptionthatthesamewereusedforfishingin
violationofthisDecree,andthediscoveryinanyfishingboatoffishcaughtorkilledbytheuseof
explosives,obnoxiousorpoisonoussubstanceorbyelectricityshallconstituteapresumptionthatthe
owner,operatororfishermanwerefishingwiththeuseofexplosives,obnoxiousorpoisonoussubstance
orelectricity.

xxxxxxxxx

Sec.38.Penalties.(a)Forillegalfishinganddealinginillegallycaughtfishorfishery/aquatic
products.ViolationofSection33hereofshallbepunishedasfollows:

xxxxxxxxx

(2)Byimprisonmentfromeight(8)toten(10)years,ifobnoxiousorpoisonoussubstancesareused:
Provided,Thatiftheuseofsuchsubstancesresults1)inphysicalinjurytoanyperson,thepenaltyshall
beimprisonmentfromten(10)totwelve(12)years,or2)inthelossofhumanlife,thenthepenaltyshall
beimprisonmentfromtwenty(20)yearstolifeordeath
[25]
xxxxxxxxx.
Theoffenseofillegalfishingiscommittedwhenapersoncatches,takesorgathersorcausesto
be caught, taken or gathered fish, fishery or aquatic products in Philippine waters with the use of
explosives,electricity,obnoxiousorpoisonoussubstances.Thelawcreatesapresumptionthatillegal
fishinghasbeencommittedwhen:(a)explosives,obnoxiousorpoisonoussubstancesorequipment
or device for electric fishing are found in a fishing boat or in the possession of a fisherman or (b)
when fish caught or killed with the use of explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substances or by
electricityarefoundinafishingboat.Under these instances, the boat owner, operator or fishermen
arepresumedtohaveengagedinillegalfishing.
Petitioners contend that this presumption of guilt under the Fisheries Decree violates the
[26]
presumptionofinnocenceguaranteedbytheConstitution. Asearlyas1916,thisCourthasrejected
[27]
thisargumentbyholdingthat:

InsomeStates,aswellasinEngland,thereexistswhatareknownascommonlawoffenses.Inthe
PhilippineIslandsnoactisacrimeunlessitismadesobystatute.Thestatehavingtherighttodeclare
whatactsarecriminal,withincertainwelldefinedlimitations,hastherighttospecifywhatactoracts
shallconstituteacrime,aswellaswhatproofshallconstituteprimafacieevidenceofguilt,andthento
putuponthedefendanttheburdenofshowingthatsuchactoractsareinnocentandarenotcommitted
[28]
withanycriminalintentorintention.

Thevalidityoflawsestablishingpresumptionsincriminalcasesisasettledmatter.Itisgenerally
concededthatthelegislaturehasthepowertoprovidethatproofofcertainfactscanconstituteprima
facieevidenceoftheguiltoftheaccusedandthenshifttheburdenofprooftotheaccusedprovided
[29]
there is a rational connection between the facts proved and the ultimate fact presumed. To avoid
any constitutional infirmity, the inference of one from proof of the other must not be arbitrary and
[30]
unreasonable. Infine,thepresumptionmustbebasedonfactsandthesefactsmustbepartofthe
[31]
crimewhencommitted.
The third paragraph of section 33 of P.D. 704 creates a presumption of guilt based on facts
proved and hence is not constitutionally impermissible. It makes the discovery of obnoxious or
poisonous substances, explosives, or devices for electric fishing, or of fish caught or killed with the
use of obnoxious and poisonous substances, explosives or electricity in any fishing boat or in the
possessionofafishermanevidencethattheownerandoperatorofthefishingboatorthefisherman
hadusedsuchsubstancesincatchingfish.Theultimatefactpresumedisthattheownerandoperator
oftheboatorthefishermanwereengagedinillegalfishingandthispresumptionwasmadetoarise
fromthediscoveryofthesubstancesandthecontaminatedfishinthepossessionofthefishermanin
[32]
thefishingboat.Thefactpresumedisanaturalinferencefromthefactproved.
[33]
Westress,however,thatthestatutorypresumptionismerelyprimafacie. Itcannot,underthe
guiseofregulatingthepresentationofevidence,operatetoprecludetheaccusedfrompresentinghis
[34]
defense to rebut the main fact presumed. At no instance can the accused be denied the right to
[35]
rebutthepresumption, thus:

Theinferenceofguiltisoneoffactandrestsuponthecommonexperienceofmen.Buttheexperienceof
menhastaughtthemthatanapparentlyguiltypossessionmaybeexplainedsoastorebutsuchan
inferenceandanaccusedpersonmaythereforeputwitnessesonthestandorgoonthewitnessstand
himselftoexplainhispossession,andanyreasonableexplanationofhispossession,inconsistentwithhis
guiltyconnectionwiththecommissionofthecrime,willrebuttheinferenceastohisguiltwhichthe
[36]
prosecutionseekstohavedrawnfromhisguiltypossessionofthestolengoods.

We now review the evidence to determine whether petitioners have successfully rebutted this
presumption.ThefactsshowthatonNovember13,1992,aftertheinformationwasfiledincourtand
petitioners granted bail, petitioners moved that the fish specimens taken from the F/B Robinson be
[37] [38]
reexamined. The trial court granted the motion. As prayed for, a member of the PNP Maritime
CommandofPuertoPrincesa,inthepresenceofauthorizedrepresentativesoftheF/BRobinson,the
NBIandthelocalFisheriesOffice,tookatrandomfive(5)livelapulapufromthefishcageoftheboat.
Thespecimenswerepackedintheusualmanneroftransportinglivefish,takenaboardacommercial
flight and delivered by the same representatives to the NBI Head Office in Manila for chemical
analysis.
OnNovember23,1992,SaludRosales,anotherforensicchemistoftheNBIinManilaconducted
[39]
three(3)testsonthespecimensandfoundthefishnegativeforthepresenceofsodiumcyanide,
thus:

Grossweightofspecimen=3.849kg.

ExaminationmadeontheabovementionedspecimensgaveNEGATIVERESULTStothetestsforthe
[40]
presenceofSODIUMCYANIDE.

The Information charged petitioners with illegal fishing with the use of obnoxious or poisonous
substance(sodiumcyanide),ofmoreorlessone(1)tonofassortedlivefishes.There was more or
less one ton of fishes in the F/B Robinsons fish cage.It was from this fish cage that the four dead
specimens examined on October 7, 1992 and the five live specimens examined on November 23,
1992weretaken.Thoughallthespecimenscamefromthesamesourceallegedlytaintedwithsodium
cyanide, the two tests resulted in conflicting findings. We note that after its apprehension, the F/B
RobinsonneverleftthecustodyofthePNPMaritimeCommand.Thefishingboatwasanchorednear
[41]
thecityharborandwasguardedbymembersoftheMaritimeCommand. Itwaslaterturnedoverto
[42]
thecustodyofthePhilippineCoastGuardCommanderofPuertoPrincesaCity.
Theprosecutionfailedtoexplainthecontradictoryfindingsonthefishsamplesandthisomission
raisesareasonabledoubtthattheonetonoffishesinthecagewerecaughtwiththeuseofsodium
cyanide.
Theabsenceofcyanideinthesecondsetoffishspecimenssupportspetitionersclaimthatthey
didnotusethepoisoninfishing.Accordingtothem,theycaughtthefishesbytheordinaryandlegal
way, i.e., by hook and line on board their sampans. This claim is buttressed by the prosecution
evidenceitself.The apprehending officers saw petitioners fishing by hook and line when they came
upontheminthewatersofBarangaySanRafael.Oneoftheapprehendingofficers,SPO1Demetrio
Saballuca,testifiedasfollows:
ATTY.TORREFRANCAONCROSSEXAMINATION:
Q:Igetyourpointtherefore,thattheillegalfishingsupposedlyconductedatSanRafaelisamoroami
typeoffishing[that]occurredintoyourmindandthatwasmadetounderstandbytheBantay
Dagatpersonnel?
A:Yes,sir.
Q:Uponreachingtheplace,youandthepumpboat,togetherwiththetwoBantayDagatpersonnel
wereSPO3RomuloEnriquezandMr.BenitoMarceloandSPO1Marzan,youdidnotwitnessthat
kindofmoroamifishing,correct?
A:None,sir.
Q:Inotherwords,therewasnegativeactivityofmoroamitypeoffishingonSeptember30,1992at
4:00intheafternoonatSanRafael?
A:Yes,sir.
Q:Andwhatyousawwere5motorizedSampanswithfishermeneachdoingahookandlinefishing
type?
A:Yes,sir.Moreorlesstheywerefive.
Q:Anddespitethefactyouhadnegativeknowledgeofthismoroamitypeoffishing,SPO3Enriquez
togetherwithMr.Marceloboardedthevesseljustthesame?
A:Yes,sir.
[43]
xxxxxxxxx.

Theapprehendingofficerswhoboardedandsearchedtheboatdidnotfindanysodiumcyanidenor
anypoisonousorobnoxioussubstance.Neitherdidtheyfindanytraceofthepoisoninthepossession
ofthefishermenorinthefishcageitself.AnInventorywaspreparedbytheapprehendingofficers
andonlythefollowingitemswerefoundonboardtheboat:

ITEMSQUANTITYREMARKS

F/BRobinson(1)unitoperating

engine(1)unitICE900BHP

sampans28unitsfiberglass

outboardmotors28unitsoperating
 assortedfishesmoreorless1tonlive

hooksandlinesassorted
[44]
xxx.

Wecannotoverlookthefactthattheapprehendingofficersfoundintheboatassortedhooksand
[45]
lines for catching fish. For this obvious reason, the Inspection/Apprehension Report prepared by
theapprehendingofficersimmediatelyafterthesearchdidnotchargepetitionerswithillegalfishing,
[46]
muchlessillegalfishingwiththeuseofpoisonoranyobnoxioussubstance.
The only basis for the charge of fishing with poisonous substance is the result of the first NBI
laboratorytestonthefourfishspecimens.Underthecircumstancesofthecase,however,thisfinding
doesnotwarranttheinfallibleconclusionthatthefishesintheF/BRobinson,oreventhesamefour
specimens,werecaughtwiththeuseofsodiumcyanide.
Prosecution witness SPO1 Bernardino Visto testified that for the first laboratory test , boat
engineerErnestoAndayadidnotonlygetfour(4)samplesoffishbutactuallygotfive(5)fromthefish
[47]
cage of the F/B Robinson. This Certification that four (4) fish samples were taken from the boat
showsonitsfacethenumberofpiecesasoriginallyfive(5)butthiswaserasedwithcorrectionfluid
[48]
andfour(4)writtenoverit. Thespecimensweretaken,sealedinsidetheplasticbagandbroughtto
Manilabythepoliceauthoritiesintheabsenceofpetitionersortheirrepresentative.SPO2 Enriquez
testifiedthatthesameplasticbagcontainingthefourspecimenswasmerelysealedwithheatfroma
[49]
lighter. EmiliaRosaldes,theNBIforensicchemistwhoexaminedthesamples,testifiedthatwhen
[50]
she opened the package, she found two ends of the same plastic bag knotted. These
circumstances as well as the time interval from the taking of the fish samples and their actual
[51]
examination failtoassuretheimpartialmindthattheintegrityofthespecimenshadbeenproperly
safeguarded.
Apparently,themembersofthePNPMaritimeCommandandtheTaskForceBantayDagatwere
the ones engaged in an illegal fishing expedition.As sharply observed by the Solicitor General, the
reportreceivedbytheTaskForceBantayDagatwasthatafishingboatwasfishingillegallythrough
muroamionthewatersofSanRafael.MuroamiaccordingtoSPO1Saballucaismadewiththeuse
ofabignetwithsinkerstomakethenetsubmergeinthewaterwiththefishermensurround[ing]the
[52]
net.
[53]
Thismethodoffishingneedsapproximatelytwohundred(200)fishermentoexecute. Whatthe
apprehending officers instead discovered were twenty eight (28) fishermen in their discovered were
twentyeight(28)fishermenintheirsampansfishingbyhookandline.The authorities found nothing
ontheboatthatwouldhaveindicatedanyformofillegalfishing.Allthedocumentsoftheboatandthe
fishermen were in order. It was only after the fish specimens were tested, albeit under suspicious
circumstances,thatpetitionerswerechargedwithillegalfishingwiththeuseofpoisonoussubstances.
INVIEWWHEREOF,thepetitionisgrantedandthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.
CRNo.15417isreversedandsetaside.Petitionersareacquittedofthecrimeofillegalfishingwith
theuseofpoisonoussubstancesdefinedundertheSection33ofRepublicActNo.704,theFisheries
Decreeof1975.Nocosts.
SOORDERED.
Regalado(Chairman),Romero,Mendoza,andTorres,Jr.,JJ.,concur.

[1]
Information,Records,pp.12.
[2]
TSNofFebruary1,1993,pp.1622.
[3]
ExhibitC,C5".
[4]
ExhibitFTSNofFebruary1,1993,pp.3940TSNofFebruary2,1993,pp.1316.
[5]
ExhibitG".
[6]
ExhibitN,Exhibit8TSNofMarch11,1993,p.9.
[7]
ExhibitI,I7.
[8]
TSNofApril25,1993,pp.419TSNofApril22,1993,pp.1416
[9]
TSNofMarch23,1993,pp.1516TSNofApril22,1993,p.17TSNofApril25,1993,pp.1923.
[10]
TSNofMarch23,1993,pp.1921TSNofMarch24,1993,pp.312.
[11]
TSNofApril25,1993,pp.2531.
[12]
Id.,pp.3031ExhibitFandExhibit4.
[13]
Decision,pp.2122,Records,pp.264265.
[14]
Petition,p.8Rollo,p.16.
[15]
Manifestation,pp.1320,Rollo,pp.8087.
[16]
ArticleIII,Sections2and3[2].
[17]
Peoplev.LoHoWing,193SCRA122,128[1991]Manipon,Jr.v.Sandiganbayan,143SCRA267,276[1986].
[18]
1985RulesonCriminalProcedure,Rule113,section5.
[19]
Peoplev.Bagista,214SCRA63,69[1992]Peoplev.LoHoWing,supra,at126128.
[20]
Roldanv. Arca, 65 SCRA 336 [1975] Magoncia v. Palacio, 80 Phil. 770, 774 [1948] Papa v. Mago, 22 SCRA 857,
871874[1968].
[21]
Papav.Mago,supra,at873.
[22]
Roldan,Jr.v.Arca,supra,at348.
[23]
Peoplev.Exala,221SCRA494,499[1993]andDemaisipv.CourtofAppeals,193SCRA373,382[1991]onwaiver
ofobjectiontothelegalityofthesearchandtheadmissibilityofevidenceobtainedinawarrantlesssearchPeople
v.Lopez,Jr.,245SCRA95,105[1995]Peoplev.Rivera,245SCRA421,430[1995]andPeoplev.Codilla,224
SCRA104,117[1993]onwaiverofobjectiontothewarrantlessarrest.
[24]
asamendedbyP.D.1058.
[25]
Emphasissupplied.
[26]
ArticleIII,section14(2).
[27]
UnitedStatesv.Luling,34Phil.725,reiteratingandexpoundingtherulinginUnitedStatesv.Tria,17Phil.303[1910]
Cooley,TreatiseonConstitutionalLimitations,vol.1,639641[1927]seealsoPeoplev.Mingoa,92Phil.857,858
[1953].
[28]
UnitedStatesv.Luling,supra,at728.
[29]
Underhill,ATreatiseontheLawofCriminalEvidence,vol.1,pp.7677{1956]seealsoWigmore,ATreatiseonthe
AngloAmericanSystemofEvidenceinTrialsatCommonLaw,vol.9,pp.423424[1940].
[30]
Underhill,supra
[31]
Underhill,supra,at76,citingPeoplev.Marcello,25N,Y.S.2d533Peoplev.Mingoa,92Phil.857,859.
[32]
Peoplev.Mingoa,supraUnitedStatesv.Catimbang,35Phil.367,371372[1916].
[33]
Conclusivestatutorypresumptionsaregenerallyheldunconstitutional(Underhill,supra,at76citingStatev.Kelly,218
Minn. 247, 15 N.W. 2d 554, 162 A.L.R. 477 Kellogg v. Murphy, 349 Mo. 1165, 164 S.W. 2d 285 Miller v.
Commonwealth,172Va.639,2S.E.2d343).
[34]
Underhill,supra.
[35]
Peoplev.Mingoa,supra,at859.
[36]
United States v. Catimbang, supra, at 371372 This case involved stolen cattle found in the possession of the
accused.
[37]
Records,pp.6769.
[38]
Id.,pp.7173Exhibit14.
[39]
TSNofMarch26,1993,pp.22,28.
[40]
Exhibit16.
[41]
TSNofMarch10,1993,pp.6364.
[42]
Records,p.79.
[43]
TSNofMarch10,1993,pp.2931.
[44]
ExhibitD.
[45]
TSNofFebruary1,1993,pp.2223.
[46]
ExhibitC.
[47]
TSNofMarch9,1993,p.9.
[48]
ExhibitF,F3Exhibit4.
[49]
TSNofFebruary2,1993,p.14.
[50]
TSNofFebruary3,1993,pp.4546.
[51]
Sixdays.
[52]
TSNofMarch10,1993,p.26TSNofFebruary1,1993,p.66.
Fisheries Administrative Order No. 163, Series of 1986, Prohibiting the Operation of MuroAmi and Kayakas in all
PhilippineWatersdefinesmuroamias:
Sec. 1 (a). Muroami or driveinnet means a Japanese fishing gear used in reef fishing which consists of a movable
bagnetandtwodetachablewingseffectingthecaptureoffishbayspreadingthenetinanarcformaroundreefsor
shoals and with the aid of scaring devices, a cordon of fishermen drive the fish from the reefs toward the bag
portionofthewholenet.(82O.G.No.48,5052Dec.1,1986).
[53]
TSNofMarch10,1993,p.28.