THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. SOTERO ANITO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

On April 15, 1953, Sotero Anito was caught in the act of fishing
with dynamite in Manjuyod Negros Oriental. In his pocket was found a
package of explosive powder with blasting cap. But he had no license
either from the Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of Constabulary.

Prosecuted for violation of Commonwealth Act No. 471 (illegal
fishing) he pleaded not guilty. In another information he was charged
with illegal possession of the explosive powder and cap in violation of
Act No. 3023. He moved for dismissal of this second information, citing
the first prosecution for illegal fishing and contended that he was
being placed in double jeopardy for one single offense. The trial judge
sustained the motion. Hence this appeal by the fiscal.

Having reviewed the papers, we find that the issue is covered by our decision in P. vs. Tinamisan, G.R. No. L-4801, promulgated January 29, 1952, the pertinent portion of which reads as follows:

“On August 1, 1949, the accused Teodoro Tinamisan
and Apolonio Bandano went out to fish in the Zamboanga sea, bringing
with them five bottles of explosives. After throwing one into the
water, they were caught and arrested, and the four bottles in the canoe
seized. Charged with the crime of illegal fishing with explosives in
Criminal case No. 586 of the Court of First Instance, they were
convicted, the four bottles having been exhibited by the prosecution.

Prosecuted
again for illegal possession of explosives in Criminal Case No. 899
of the same court, they pleaded double jeopardy, on the ground that the explosives mentioned in the information are the identical four bottles presented in the previous criminal case. After hearing both sides, the judge sustained their plea and dismissed the second case.

Hence this appeal, wherein the single issue is whether the first prosecution bars the second.

The
use of explosives in fishing—except when permitted under special
circumstances by the Secretary of Agriculture is prohibited and
penalized under Act No. 4003 as amended by Act No. 471.

The
possession of dynamite or explosives—without license from the Chief of
Constabulary—is prohibited and punished by Act No. 2225 as amended by
Act No. 3023.

One offense is distinct from the other. When a
man fishes with explosives, he violates the first mentioned law or the
second, or both, or he may commit no offense at all. No offense, if he
obtained licenses from both the Secretary of Agriculture and the Chief
of Constabulary. He infringes the first (and not the second) if he has
no license from the Agriculture Secretary, but he has license from the
Chief of Constabulary. He transgresses the second but not the first if
he holds no license from the Constabulary, but he wields a permit from
the Agriculture Secretary. He transgresses both laws as in this case,
when he exhibits no license at all.

Wherefore, one violation
of the law does not necessarily include and is not necessarily included
in the other. The double jeopardy rule does not attach.” * * *

The trial judge reasoned out that “one cannot fish by the use of
explosives without possessing the explosives to be used” and “prior to
actually committing the offense of illegal fishing the accused must be
technically liable for the offense of illegal possession.” The error in
this reasoning lies in the assumption that anyone illegally fishing
with explosives is necessarily guilty of illegal possession
of explosives. Such assumption is groundless, because as explained in
the above decision, a person may be guilty of the first, without being
guilty of the second—if he has a permit of the Chief of Constabulary.

Judgment reversed. Case remanded for further proceedings.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.