Argoncillo vs. Court of Appeals

The presence in a fishing boat of fish caught or killed by explosives creates a prima facie, rebuttable presumption of illegal fishing with explosives under Section 33 of Presidential Decree No. 704, as amended; a random sample examination of the catch may suffice to establish the presumption, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law is mandatory where the special-law offense is punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year.

Presidential Decree No. 704, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1058, prohibits catching, taking, or gathering fish in Philippine waters with explosives and creates a statutory presumption of illegal fishing from the discovery of explosives or fish killed by explosives in a fishing boat. Section 38 of the decree punishes illegal fishing with explosives by imprisonment ranging from twenty years to life imprisonment. Petitioners Santiago Argoncillo, Richardo Balbona, and Policarpio Umiten were the individuals prosecuted, while the People of the Philippines and the Court of Appeals are respondents.

On May 7, 1990, due to reports of rampant illegal fishing at Barangay Basiao, Ivisan, Capiz, personnel from the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Bureau of Fisheries, Barangay Captain Persinefles U. Oabe, and local policemen formed a team to conduct surveillance within Ivisan Bay. Around 5:30 in the afternoon, the team rode in two pumpboats from the Barangay Basiao wharf. One pumpboat carried Oabe, Rolando Amoroso, Pat. Rafael Tupaz, and Remegio Unasin as pilot; the other carried Joey de la Cruz, Pat. Reggie Uadan, and Enido Baldesimo. The team stopped and listened for possible illegal fishing in the vicinity.

Around 6:30 in the evening, while standing by with their engines off in a place facing Barangay Culasi, the team heard an explosion. Sensing it was caused by dynamite, they proceeded to the area about five hundred meters away. After ten minutes of navigation, they arrived near an islet and surrounded the area. At a distance of around ten meters, Joey de la Cruz saw three persons diving into the water, surfacing, and throwing their catch of fish to an unmotorized banca about four meters long nearby. On the seashore of the islet, around three to four meters away from these three persons floating in the water, were three other persons standing on the rocky portions around three meters apart. The six persons tried to escape, but Rolando Amoroso advised them not to do so and introduced themselves as law enforcers. The team found fish of four kinds locally known as "vulgan," "bulawis," "pacol," and "bag-angan." Joey de la Cruz gathered seven fish samples from the banca, while Rolando Amoroso inspected the islet but found no explosive or paraphernalia used in dynamite fishing on the seashore or on the banca. Oabe identified the three persons retrieving fish from the water as Policarpio Umiten, Santiago Argoncillo, and Richard Balbona, and the other three standing on the rocky portions as Johnson Sucgang, Elvis Villar, and Efren Alvaro.

The team apprehended the six accused and brought them to the fish cage of the barangay captain located within the same barangay. While on their way, Joey de la Cruz externally examined the fish samples. Upon arrival at the fish cage, another external examination was conducted by Joey de la Cruz and Rolando Amoroso. In both external examinations, the two found that the fishes were caught with the use of explosives because blood was oozing from their operculums and their eyes were protruding. An on-the-spot investigation was conducted, but the accused denied any culpability. They were then released on the strength of their promise to report to the local police the following day. The fish samples were placed in a plastic bag filled with ice at the house of Barangay Captain Persinefles U. Oabe that evening. In the morning, Joey de la Cruz and Rolando Amoroso brought the fish samples to their office in Roxas City where they conducted an internal examination. The examination revealed that the fish samples were caught with the use of explosives because their air bladders were ruptured and deeply stained with blood; the vertebral columns were broken but with bloodstains; their ribs were broken; and there were blood clots in their abdomens. Joey de la Cruz and Rolando Amoroso rendered a written report of their internal examination to the Provincial Agricultural Officer. Their testimonies were corroborated by Pat. Rafael Tupaz. Sgt. Sergio Ordales testified that while on duty in the morning of May 8, 1990, the six accused arrived at the police station, said they were told to report, and he learned they were arrested for illegal fishing with the use of explosives.

The defense presented a different account. Policarpio Umiten, Santiago Argoncillo, and Richard O. Balbona alleged that around 4:00 in the afternoon of May 7, 1990, they dropped a fishnet about two hundred armslength and one meter wide at the scene where they were apprehended, a method locally called "patuloy" requiring retrieval every hour. They returned around 6:30 in the evening to collect their catch. Before they could collect all their catch, the team of law enforcers arrived. They were asked whether they heard an explosion; after they denied hearing any, Barangay Captain Oabe told them to go with them. The team got seven pieces of fish samples. The accused left around one and one-half kilos of fish they had gathered. They were brought to the fish cage owned by Oabe. They claimed the seven fish samples were the catch of their patuloy fishnet. Elvis Villar testified that he and Efren Alvaro went to the islet in an unmotorized banca to gather shells locally called "suso" and "butlogan" for viand. They started gathering shells under the stones around 5:30 in the afternoon. While preparing to go home around 6:30 in the evening, the team of law enforcers arrived, asked whether they heard an explosion, and after they denied hearing any, told them to board their pumpboats. They were brought to the fish cage. Johnson Sucgang admitted his presence in the islet but testified that he went there to look for "pulutan" requested by his customer, Wilfredo Arcangeles. As operator and manager of Virgen Beach Resort located at Sitio Manangkalan, he left between 5:00 and 5:30 in the afternoon in a banca, paddled to the islet, saw two persons at the bank and three in the water, and went ashore. Later, the barangay captain and his companions arrived, asked if he heard an explosion, and after he denied hearing any, told him to go with them. Wilfredo Arcangeles corroborated Sucgang's claim and affirmed that Sucgang had no dynamite with him.

The trial court gave credence to the testimonies of Joey de la Cruz and Rolando Amoroso, finding that the seven fish samples had been caught with the use of explosives and that the accused's bare denial that they caught them by a fishnet was insufficient to disprove the finding. It noted that De la Cruz was an agricultural technologist and a graduate of Bachelor of Science in Fishery, and that both examiners had undergone training in fishery laws and actual demonstrations; no ulterior motive was shown, and no evidence was introduced to impeach their credibility.

• Absence of Explosives: Petitioners pointed out that neither explosives nor related paraphernalia were found in their possession, which they claimed indicated innocence.
• Incomplete Examination of Catch: Petitioners argued that because not all their catch was examined, there could be no conclusive proof that the fish were killed with explosives.
• Credibility and Immediate Arrest: Petitioners questioned the credibility of prosecution witnesses, arguing that if Joey de la Cruz truly found the fish killed by dynamite, it was unnatural for the team not to arrest them on the spot.
• Shallow Waters and Deep-Sea Fish: Petitioners maintained that they could not have been dynamite fishing in shallow waters because the fish used as evidence were described as deep-sea fishes; they were fishing in shallow waters about 1.5 meters deep with a fishnet 200 armslength long and 1 meter wide, and the three acquitted accused were standing on the seashore, making dynamite fishing near the shore unnatural.
• Non-Motorized Banca: Petitioners contended that if they were engaged in illegal fishing, it would be unnatural for them to use a boat that made escape difficult from law enforcers riding motorized boats.
• Non-Flight: Petitioners averred that they did not flee when law enforcers arrived and voluntarily reported to the Ivisan Police Station the following morning, which should strengthen their claim of innocence.

• Statutory Presumption / Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the presence of fish caught or killed by explosives in petitioners' banca, despite the absence of explosives or paraphernalia, established illegal fishing with explosives under Section 33 of Presidential Decree No. 704, as amended.
• Random Sampling: Whether the examination of only seven fish samples, rather than the entire catch, was sufficient to prove that the fish were killed with explosives.
• Credibility and Immediate Arrest: Whether the patrol team's failure to immediately arrest or deliver petitioners to the municipal jail diminished the credibility of prosecution witnesses.
• Shallow Waters and Non-Motorized Banca: Whether petitioners' fishing in shallow waters with a non-motorized banca made the charge of dynamite fishing improbable.
• Non-Flight: Whether petitioners' non-flight and voluntary report to the police indicated innocence.
• Penalty: Whether the straight penalty of twenty years imprisonment imposed by the trial court was proper under Presidential Decree No. 704, as amended, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

• Statutory Presumption / Sufficiency of Evidence: Yes. The fish found in petitioners' banca had been caught or killed by explosives, triggering the prima facie presumption under Section 33 of Presidential Decree No. 704, as amended; the absence of explosives did not negate the offense because they could have been dumped into the sea.
• Random Sampling: Yes. A random sample of the catch may be examined and found to have been killed with explosives; requiring examination of all fish would be impractical.
• Credibility and Immediate Arrest: No. The failure to immediately deliver petitioners to jail did not diminish the witnesses' credibility, as the barangay captain explained the lack of available transportation.
• Shallow Waters and Non-Motorized Banca: No. The fish were bottom feeders, not deep-sea fishes, and the law does not require a motorized boat for illegal fishing with explosives.
• Non-Flight: No. There is no established doctrine that non-flight in every instance indicates innocence; petitioners could not have eluded the law enforcers and had already been identified.
• Penalty: No. The straight penalty was erroneous; the Indeterminate Sentence Law is mandatory for this special-law offense, and the penalty was modified to twenty years minimum to twenty-five years maximum.

• Statutory Presumption / Sufficiency of Evidence: Section 33, Presidential Decree No. 704, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1058, makes it unlawful to catch, take, or gather fish with explosives. Its last paragraph provides that discovery in any fishing boat of fish caught or killed by explosives creates a presumption that the owner, operator, or fisherman were fishing with explosives. Hizon vs. Court of Appeals established that this provision creates a presumption that illegal fishing has been committed when fish caught or killed with explosives are found in a fishing boat. Here, the fish found in petitioners' banca were caught or killed by explosives. The absence of dynamite or paraphernalia did not exculpate petitioners because it was probable they dumped these materials into the sea while the raiding party approached. The presumption is merely prima facie and may be rebutted, but petitioners failed to discharge that burden.
• Random Sampling: The argument that all fish should have been examined was rejected. It is ridiculous to expect that all fish found in the accused's fishing boat would be subjected to examination. A random sample examined and found to have been killed with explosives is sufficient; a patent impracticality would result if the law required otherwise.
• Credibility and Immediate Arrest: The failure to immediately deliver the accused to the municipal jail did not diminish the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Barangay Captain Oabe explained that they released the six persons because they had no available transportation to the municipality of Ivisan, as they were only riding in a single motor vehicle. The dearth of law enforcement facilities, especially in the provinces, was a matter of judicial notice. The trial court's assessment of the credibility of Joey de la Cruz and Rolando Amoroso was accorded great respect because trial courts have the advantage of examining witnesses' testimonies and observing their demeanor firsthand. No evidence was introduced to impeach their credibility or discredit their persons, and no ill motive was shown; the presumption of regular performance of public duty applied.
• Shallow Waters and Non-Motorized Banca: The claim that the fish were deep-sea fishes was rejected. The fishes were locally known as "vulgan," "bulawis," "pacol," and "bag-angan" and were generally described as "isda sa bato" or "bottom feeders." The term "deep sea fishes" arose from the trial court's erroneous translation of "isda sa bato." The law punishing illegal fishing does not require the use of a motorized banca or boat. Although a motorized banca could better serve those engaged in illegal fishing for eluding law enforcers, not everyone can financially afford to fit a motor in his banca; petitioner Argoncillo admitted that their banca was leased.
• Non-Flight: The contention that non-flight strengthened innocence was rejected. There is no established doctrine that, in every instance, non-flight is an indication of innocence. Even if petitioners wanted to flee, they could not have possibly eluded the law enforcers who were in two pump boats, and attempts to flee would have been useless since they were already identified by the barrio captain. The inquiry whether they heard an explosion was part of the investigative process to ascertain probable cause.
• Penalty: Section 38(a)(1), Presidential Decree No. 704, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1058, punishes illegal fishing if explosive is actually used with imprisonment ranging from twenty years to life imprisonment. The Indeterminate Sentence Law provides that if the offense is punished by a law other than the Revised Penal Code, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. The trial court erred in imposing a straight penalty of twenty years. Spouses Jose and Trinidad Bacar vs. Judge Salvador P. de Guzman, Jr. held that it was erroneous to impose a straight penalty and that application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is mandatory where imprisonment exceeds one year, except in enumerated cases not applicable here. The proper penalty was therefore indeterminate, twenty years as minimum to twenty-five years as maximum.

• Statutory presumption in illegal fishing with explosives — Under Section 33 of Presidential Decree No. 704, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1058, the discovery of dynamite, other explosives, chemical compounds, obnoxious or poisonous substances, or electric fishing equipment in any fishing boat or in the possession of a fisherman creates a presumption that the same were used for fishing in violation of the decree. The discovery in any fishing boat of fish caught or killed by explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substances, or electricity creates a presumption that the owner, operator, or fisherman were fishing with explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substances, or electricity. The presumption is prima facie and rebuttable. Applied: the fish in petitioners' banca were killed by explosives, triggering the presumption, which petitioners failed to rebut.
• Random sampling of fish catch — Not all fish in the accused's boat need be examined to prove illegal fishing with explosives; a random sample found to have been killed by explosives is sufficient. Requiring examination of the entire catch would result in patent impracticality. Applied: the seven fish samples examined sufficed.
• Non-flight as evidence of innocence — There is no established doctrine that non-flight in every instance indicates innocence. Applied: petitioners' non-flight and voluntary report did not overcome the evidence of guilt.
• Credibility of prosecution witnesses and trial court deference — Findings of the trial court on witness credibility are accorded great respect because trial courts observe demeanor firsthand; absent ill motive, public officers are presumed to have regularly performed their duties. Applied: the trial court's crediting of De la Cruz and Amoroso was sustained.
• Mandatory Indeterminate Sentence Law for special laws — Where an offense is punished by a special law and the imprisonment exceeds one year, the Indeterminate Sentence Law is mandatory; the court must impose an indeterminate sentence with a minimum and maximum term within the range fixed by law. A straight penalty is erroneous. Applied: the penalty was modified to twenty years minimum to twenty-five years maximum.
• Use of non-motorized banca not an element — The crime of illegal fishing with explosives does not require the use of a motorized banca or boat. Applied: petitioners' use of a non-motorized banca did not negate the offense.

• "The discovery of dynamite, other explosives and chemical compounds containing combustible elements, or obnoxious or poisonous substance, or equipment or device for electric fishing in any fishing boat or in the possession of a fisherman shall constitute a presumption that the same were used for fishing in violation of this Decree, the discovery in any fishing boat of fish caught or killed by the use of explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substance or by electricity shall constitute a presumption that the owner, operator or fisherman were fishing with the use of explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substance or electricity." — This passage states the statutory presumption under Section 33 of Presidential Decree No. 704, as amended, which the Court applied to petitioners' banca.
• "In Hizon vs. Court of Appeals, this Court held that the law, as contained in the last paragraph of Section 33, creates a presumption that illegal fishing has been committed when fish caught or killed with the use of explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substances or by electricity are found in a fishing boat." — This passage applies the controlling precedent on the statutory presumption, anchoring the conviction on the presence of fish killed by explosives in the fishing boat.
• "It is ridiculous to have expected that all the fish found in the accused's fishing boat would be subjected to an examination. It is sufficient that, as in the case at bar, a random sample of the accused's catch was examined and found to have been killed with the use of explosives. A patent impracticality would result if the law required otherwise." — This passage defines the Court's rule that a random sample of the catch may suffice to prove illegal fishing with explosives.
• "There is no established doctrine to the effect that, in every instance, non-flight is an indication of innocence." — This passage rejects petitioners' claim that their non-flight and voluntary report to the police strengthened their innocence.

• Hizon vs. Court of Appeals, 265 SCRA 517 (1996) — Controlling precedent cited for the rule that the last paragraph of Section 33, Presidential Decree No. 704, as amended, creates a presumption that illegal fishing has been committed when fish caught or killed with explosives are found in a fishing boat.
• Spouses Jose and Trinidad Bacar vs. Judge Salvador P. de Guzman, Jr., 271 SCRA 328 (1997) — Cited for the rule that imposing a straight penalty is erroneous and that the Indeterminate Sentence Law is mandatory where imprisonment exceeds one year, except in enumerated cases; relied on to modify the penalty.
• People vs. Inocencio, 229 SCRA 517 (1994) — Cited for the rule that there is no established doctrine that non-flight in every instance indicates innocence.
• People vs. Pajaro, 265 SCRA 668 (1996); People vs. Perez, 265 SCRA 506 (1996); People vs. Balisnomo, 265 SCRA 98 (1996); People vs. Leoterio, 264 SCRA 608 (1996); People vs. Paredes, 264 SCRA 578 (1996); People vs. De Gracia, 264 SCRA 200 (1996) — Cited for the rule that trial court findings on witness credibility are accorded great respect by appellate tribunals.

• Section 33, Presidential Decree No. 704, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1058 — Defines illegal fishing with explosives and creates the statutory presumption from the discovery of explosives or fish caught or killed by explosives in a fishing boat. Applied because the fish in petitioners' banca were found to have been killed by explosives, triggering the presumption.
• Section 38(a)(1), Presidential Decree No. 704, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1058 — Punishes illegal fishing with explosives with imprisonment ranging from twenty years to life imprisonment. Applied as the penalty range for the offense.
• Section 1, Act No. 4103, as amended by Act No. 4225 (Indeterminate Sentence Law) — Requires an indeterminate sentence for offenses punished by laws other than the Revised Penal Code where imprisonment exceeds one year, with the maximum not exceeding the maximum fixed by law and the minimum not less than the minimum prescribed. Applied to modify the straight penalty to twenty years minimum to twenty-five years maximum.
• Section 3(l), (m), and (d), Presidential Decree No. 704, as amended — Define fishing with the use of explosives, fishing with obnoxious or poisonous substances, and electro fishing. Cited in relation to Section 33's prohibition.

Narvasa, C.J.; Romero, J.; and Purisima, J., concurred.