SEA LION FISHING

CORPORATION VS. PEOPLE

G . R. N O. 1 7 2 6 7 8 M A RC H 2 3 , 2 0 1 1
Arias, Maria Kristina Isabelle D.

*not the actual F/V Sea Lion

FACTS

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:
1. Violation of Sec. 97 of RA 8550 (Fishing or Taking of Rare,
Threatened or Endangered Species) against all who were
arrested;
2. 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; and
3. Violation 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.

FACTS
It 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.

FACTS
The 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.

ISSUE
Whether the confiscation of F/V Sea Lion was
valid.

APPLICABLE LAWS

From 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 ARGUMENTS
Petitioner 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 ARGUMENTS
Respondent 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.

RULING
The 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.

RULING
The 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.

RULING
The 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.

RULING
Finally, 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.

CONCLUSION
It 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.