Republic of the
Supreme Court
FIRST DIVISION
|
SEA LION FISHING CORPORATION, |
|
G.R.
No. 172678 |
|
Petitioner, |
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VELASCO,
JR., |
|
- versus - |
|
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, |
|
|
|
PEREZ, JJ. |
|
PEOPLE OF THE |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondent. |
|
March 23, 2011 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
When
an instrument or tool used in a crime is being claimed by a third-party not
liable to the offense, such third-party must first establish its ownership over
the same.
This
is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the January 10, 2006 Decision[1] of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 91270 which denied the Petition for Certiorari
and Mandamus[2]
questioning the twin Sentences[3] both dated
May 16, 2005 and the Order[4] dated
August 4, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Puerto Princesa City,
Branch 52 in Criminal Case Nos. 18965 and 19422. Likewise assailed is the May 5, 2006
Resolution[5] of the
CA denying the Motion for Reconsideration[6] thereto.
Factual
Antecedents
In response to fishermen’s report of
poaching off
Various charges were thereafter
filed as follows: (1) Violation of Section 97[7] of
Republic Act (RA) No. 8550[8] against
all those arrested, docketed as I.S. No. 2004-032; (2) Violation of Section 90[9] of the
same law against the captain of F/V Sea Lion, the Chief Engineer, and the
President of the corporation which owned said vessel, docketed as I.S. No.
2004-061; and (3) Violation of Section 27(a) and (f)[10] of RA
9147[11] and of
Section 87[12]
of RA 8550 against all those arrested and the President of the corporation which
owned the vessel, respectively docketed as I.S. Nos. 2004-68, 2004-69, and 2004-70.
Ruling of the
Provincial Prosecutor
While
the Provincial Prosecutor of Palawan dismissed I.S. Nos. 2004-61, 2004-68 and
2004-69, he nevertheless found probable cause for the remaining charges[13] but
only against the 17 Chinese fishermen.[14] This was after it was found out that the crew
of F/V Sea Lion did not assent to the illegal acts of said 17 Chinese fishermen
who were rescued by the crew of the F/V Sea Lion from a distressed Chinese
vessel. The prosecutor concluded that the
crew, unarmed, outnumbered and hampered by language barrier, acted only out of
uncontrollable fear of imminent danger to their lives and property which
hindered them from asserting their authority over these Chinese nationals. Accordingly, corresponding Informations
against the 17 Chinese fishermen were filed in court.
With
the crew of F/V Sea Lion now exculpated,
WHEREFORE, F/[V] Sea Lion is hereby recommended to be released to the
movant upon proper showing of evidence
of its ownership of the aforesaid vessel and the posting of a bond double
the value of said vessel as appraised by the MARINA, if through any court
accredited company surety, or equal to the aforesaid value[,] if by cash
bond. Said bond shall be on the
condition that [the] vessel owner shall make [the vessel] available for
inspection during the course of the trial.[17] (Emphasis supplied.)
This
Resolution was later amended through a Supplemental Resolution[18] dated
This pertains to the Resolution of the undersigned dated
25 August 2004 recommending the release of the vessel F/[V] Sea Lion. In addition to the conditions therein, the
release of the said vessel shall be with the approval of the Provincial Committee
on Illegal Entrants which has jurisdiction over all apprehended vessels
involved in poaching.[19]
Petitioner, however, failed to act
in accordance with said Resolutions.
Ruling of the
Regional Trial Court
The
case for Violation of Section 97 of RA 8550 was docketed as Criminal Case No.
18965 while that for Violation of Section 87 of the same law was docketed as
Criminal Case No. 19422. The Chinese
nationals entered separate pleas of “not guilty” for both offenses. Later,
however, in Criminal Case No. 18965, they changed their pleas from “not guilty”
to “guilty” for the lesser offense of Violation of Section 88, sub-paragraph
(3)[20] of RA
8550. Hence, they were accordingly declared
guilty of said lesser offense in a Sentence[21] issued
by the RTC of Puerto Princesa City, Branch 52 on May 16, 2005, the dispositive
portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, with the
plea of guilty of all the accused to the lesser offense, the Court hereby finds
the Seventeen (17) accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals for the
crime of Violation of Section 88, sub-par. (3) of R.A. 8550 and sentences them
to suffer an imprisonment of FIVE (5) YEARS TO SIX (6) YEARS, SIX (6) MONTHS
AND SEVEN (7) DAYS. The Fishing Vessel
F/V Sea Lion I as well as the fishing paraphernalia and equipments used by the
accused in committing the crime [are] hereby ordered confiscated in favor of
the government.
The x x x confiscated
vessel and all the fishing gadgets, paraphernalia and equipment are hereby
ordered to be placed under the [temporary] custody of the Philippine Coast
Guard. The latter is hereby directed to prepare and submit to this Court the
inventory of all confiscated items within 15 days from receipt of this
order. Further, the Commander of the
Philippine Coast Guard should observe the diligence of a good father of the
family in the preservation and maintenance of the entrusted confiscated items
until the final disposition thereof by the Court.
Having appeared
that the accused have been detained since
SO ORDERED.[22]
A
Sentence[23]
in Criminal Case No. 19422 was also issued on even date, the dispositive
portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, with the plea of guilty of all seventeen (17) accused, the
Court hereby finds them guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the
crime of Violation of Section 87 of R.A. 8550 (Poaching) and sentences them to
pay a fine of One Hundred Thousand (US$100,000.00) Dollars to be paid to the
Republic of the
The x x x confiscated vessel and all the fishing gadgets, paraphernalia
and equipment are hereby ordered to be placed under the [temporary] custody of
the Philippine Coast Guard. The latter
is hereby directed to prepare and submit to this Court the inventory of all
confiscated items within 15 days from receipt of this order. Further, the commander of the Philippine
Coast Guard should observe the diligence of a good father of the family in the
preservation and maintenance of the entrusted confiscated items until the final
disposition thereof by the Court.
The Provincial Jail Warden of
SO ORDERED.[24]
It
was only after the issuance of the above Sentences that petitioner again made
its move by filing a Motion for Reconsideration[25] on
Hence,
petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari
and Mandamus[28]
with the CA.
Ruling of the
Court of Appeals
On
January 10, 2006, the CA promulgated its assailed Decision denying the petition.[29] The CA
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 as alleged in the Informations and the penalty for violating
the laws stated therein. Necessarily, it
had the authority to seize the F/V Sea Lion which was mentioned in the said
Informations. The CA further held that
while the petitioner attempted to claim as its own the fishing vessel in its Motion
for Reconsideration dated June 24, 2005, its effort is undeserving of merit due
to failure to adduce evidence. Lastly,
the CA declared that the petitioner did not avail of the proper procedural
remedy. After the trial court recognized
its personality to intervene in the Order dated August 4, 2005, petitioner’s
recourse should have been an appeal and not certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.[30]
The
appellate court also denied petitioner’s subsequent Motion for Reconsideration[31] in its
assailed Resolution dated May 5, 2006.[32]
Thus,
petitioner filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari raising the sole
issue of whether the confiscation of F/V Sea Lion was valid.[33]
The Parties’
Arguments
Petitioner contends that F/V Sea
Lion should be released to it because it is the registered owner of said vessel
and her captain and crew members were not among those accused of and convicted
in Criminal Case Nos. 18965 and 19422. To
buttress its contention, petitioner invokes 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. (Emphasis supplied.)
Petitioner
also claims that it was denied its right to due process of law when it was not
notified of the judicial proceedings relative to the confiscation of the
fishing vessel. It argues that such notification
was necessary considering that the provincial prosecutor was duly informed of
its claim of ownership of the F/V Sea Lion.
On the other hand, respondent People
of the
The
OSG also contends that even if Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code is
applicable, still the present petition must fail due to petitioner’s failure to
present its third-party claim at the earliest opportunity. It likewise argues that petitioner was not
deprived its right to due process considering that it was given ample
opportunity to be heard particularly when its motion for release of the F/V Sea
Lion was granted by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor subject to certain
conditions. However, it opted not to
comply with the conditions imposed by the prosecutor and instead waited for the
trial court’s final disposition of the case.
Our Ruling
The petition has no merit.
We note, at the outset, that
petitioner pursued an incorrect remedy when it sought recourse before the
CA. The filing of a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court before the CA is limited only to the correction of errors of jurisdiction
or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court.[34] “A special civil action for certiorari is an independent action,
raising the question of jurisdiction where the tribunal, board or officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess
of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction.”[35] The CA did not find either lack or error of
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.
There was no jurisdictional error because based on the Informations,[36] the
offenses were committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court.
The penalties imposable under the law were also within its jurisdiction. As a necessary consequence, the trial court
had the authority to determine how the subject fishing vessel should be
disposed of. Likewise, no grave abuse of
discretion attended the issuance of the trial court’s order to confiscate F/V
Sea Lion considering the absence of
evidence showing that said vessel is owned by a third party. Evidently, the
remedial relief pursued by the petitioner was infirm and improper.
We
also agree with the CA’s observation that the trial court impliedly recognized
petitioner’s right to intervene when it pronounced that petitioner failed to
exercise its right to claim ownership of the F/V Sea Lion. This being the case, petitioner should have
filed an appeal instead of a petition for certiorari
before the CA. Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, certiorari is unavailing when an appeal
is the plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.[37] “The nature of the questions intended to be
raised on appeal is of no consequence.
It may well be that those questions will treat exclusively of whether x
x x the judgment or final order was rendered without or in excess of
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion x x x. This is immaterial. The remedy, to repeat, is appeal, not certiorari as a special civil action.”[38] The jurisdiction of a court is not affected
by its erroneous decision.[39] The orders and rulings of a court on all
controversies pertaining to the case cannot be corrected by certiorari if the court has jurisdiction
over the subject matter and over the person.[40] Thus, we agree with the CA’s dismissal of the
petition.
Even assuming that the CA may
resolve an error of procedure or judgment, there was none committed in this
particular case.
Petitioner’s claim of ownership of
F/V Sea Lion is not supported by any proof on record. The only document on record that is relevant
in this regard is a request for the release of the F/V Sea Lion based on petitioner’s
alleged ownership filed with the Provincial Prosecutor. While the latter authorized the release of
said fishing vessel, this was conditioned upon petitioner’s submission of a
proof of ownership and the filing of a bond, with which petitioner failed to
comply. Even when judicial proceedings commenced, nothing was heard from the
petitioner. No motion for intervention
or any manifestation came from petitioner’s end during the period of
arraignment up to the rendition of sentence.
While petitioner later explained before the CA that its inaction was brought
about by its inability to put up the required bond due to financial
difficulties, same is still not a sufficient justification for it to
deliberately not act at all.
It
was only after the trial court ordered the confiscation of F/V Sea Lion in its
assailed twin Sentences that petitioner was heard from again. This time, it filed a Motion for
Reconsideration dated June 24, 2005[41] to which was attached a copy of an alleged
Certificate of Registration issued by the Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA).[42] However, as correctly observed by the CA:
Significantly, the lack of any factual basis for the
third-party claim of ownership was not cured at all when the petitioner filed
its motion for reconsideration before the trial court. At that point, evidence should have been adduced
to support the petitioner’s claim (so that a new trial or reopening of the
trial on the confiscation aspect should have been prayed for, rather than a
mere motion for reconsideration.) There
is firstly the factual issue - to be proved by proper evidence in order to be
properly considered by the court - that the vessel is owned by a third party
other than the accused. Article 45
required too that proof be adduced that the third party is not liable for the
offense. After the admission by the accused through their guilty plea that the
vessel had been used in the commission of a crime, we believe and so hold
that this additional Article 45 requirement cannot be simply inferred from the
mere fact that the alleged owner is not charged in the same case before the
court.[43]
Accordingly, petitioner’s recourse
to a motion for reconsideration was not proper.
Although it attached a copy of an alleged Certificate of Registration,
the same cannot be considered by the trial court because it has not been
formally offered, pursuant to Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. As suggested by the CA, petitioner should
have instead moved for a new trial or reopening of the trial on the
confiscation aspect, rather than a mere motion for reconsideration.[44]
Finally,
petitioner’s contention that it was deprived of its right to due process in the
confiscation of F/V Sea Lion has no factual basis. As correctly pointed out by the CA:
That the trial
court concluded that no denial of due process occurred is likewise legally
correct, perhaps not in the exact way expressed in the assailed order, but for
what the reason articulated in the assailed order directly implies. As we discussed above, the petitioner did not
intervene before the trial court to claim ownership of the fishing vessel, nor
were there records before the court showing a third-party claim of ownership of
the vessel; the formal introduction of evidence that would have formally
brought the third-party ownership of the vessel to light was prevented by the
plea of guilt of the accused. There was
therefore no third-party property right sought to be protected when the trial
court ordered the confiscation of the vessel.
Significantly, the
lack of any factual basis for the third-party claim of ownership was not cured
at all when the petitioner filed its motion for reconsideration before the
trial court. At that point, evidence
should have been adduced to support the petitioner’s claim (so that a new trial
or reopening of the trial on the confiscation aspect should have been prayed
for, rather than a mere motion for reconsideration.) There is firstly the factual issue - to be
proved by proper evidence in order to be properly considered by the court -
that the vessel is owned by a third party other than the accused. Article 45 required too that proof be adduced
that the third party is not liable for the offense. After
the admission by the accused through their guilty plea that the vessel had been
used in the commission of a crime, we believe and so hold that this
additional Article 45 requirement cannot be simply inferred from the mere fact
that the alleged owner is not charged in the same case before the court.
It was under this
legal situation that the trial court issued its assailed order that correctly
concluded that there had been no denial of due process. Given the absence of any admissible evidence
of third-party ownership and the failure to comply with the additional Article
45 requirement, the court’s order to confiscate the F/V Sea Lion pursuant to
Article 87 of R.A. No. 8550 cannot be incorrect to the point of being an act in
grave abuse of discretion.[45]
In fine, it has been established
beyond reasonable doubt that F/V Sea Lion was used by the 17 Chinese fishermen
in the commission of the crimes. On the
other hand, petitioner presented no evidence at all to support its claim of
ownership of F/V Sea Lion. Therefore,
the forfeiture of F/V Sea Lion in favor of the government was proper.
WHEREFORE, the
petition is DENIED. The Decision
dated
SO
ORDERED.
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
JOSE
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13,
Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions
in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief
Justice
[1] CA
rollo, pp. 114-126; penned by
Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion (now a Member of this Court) and concurred in
by Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes and Mariflor Punzalan Castillo.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] 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.
[8] Otherwise
known as “The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998.”
[9] Section 90. Use of Active Gear in the Municipal Waters and Bays and Other
Fishery Management Areas. -
It shall be unlawful to engage in fishing in municipal waters and in all
bays as well as other fishery management areas using active fishing gears as
defined in this Code.
Violators of the above prohibitions shall suffer the
following penalties:
(1) The boat captain and master fisherman of the
vessels who participated in the violation shall suffer the penalty of
imprisonment from two (2) years to six (6) years;
(2) The owner/operator of the vessel shall be fined
from Two thousand pesos (P2,000.00) to Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00)
upon the discretion of the court.
If the owner/operator is a corporation, the penalty
shall be imposed on the chief executive officer of the Corporation.
If the owner/operator is a partnership the penalty
shall be imposed on the managing partner.
(3) The catch shall be confiscated and forfeited.
[10] 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.
x x x x
(f) collecting, hunting or possessing wildlife, their
by-products and derivatives;
[11] Otherwise
known as “Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act.”
[12] 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.
[13] Except
for I.S. No. 2004-61. Here, the
Provincial Prosecutor dismissed the case against F/V Sea Lion’s Owner, Captain
and Chief Engineer but owing to reports that the 17 Chinese nationals made use
of active fishing gears, he ordered that a subpoena be issued against them to
afford them their right to a preliminary investigation. See the Concurring Resolution of Provincial
Prosecutor Alen Ross B. Rodriguez, CA rollo,
pp. 32-38.
[14]
[15] As
mentioned in the August 25, 2004 Resolution of the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor, id. at 47-49.
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20] Section
88. Fishing Through Explosives,
Noxious or Poisonous Substance, and/or Electricity. -
x x x x
(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.
[21] CA
rollo, pp. 54-56.
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33] Rollo,
p. 13.
[34] Borromeo Bros. Estate, Inc. v. Garcia,
G.R. Nos. 139594-95, February 26, 2008, 546 SCRA 543, 551.
[35]
[36] CA
rollo, pp. 41-44.
[37] 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.
x x x x
[38] Herrera, Remedial Law, Volume III, 1999
Ed., p. 220, citing Pan Realty
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 249 Phil. 521, 530-531 (1988).
[39] Estrada v. Sto. Domingo, 139 Phil. 158,
187-188. (1969).
[40] Paramount Insurance Corporation v. Judge
Luna, 232 Phil. 526, 534 (1987).
[41] CA
rollo, pp. 59-64.
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]