THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RENERIO P. VERGARA, ERNESTO T. CUESTA, JR., PEDRO G. DAGAÑO AND BERNARDO P. CUESTA, ACCUSED.  RENERIO P. VERGARA, ACCUSED-…

People versus Vergara

The Case

This is People versus Vergara, a criminal appeal decided by the Supreme Court in April 1997. The accused, Renerio Vergara, was charged with illegal fishing under Section 33 of Presidential Decree Number 704, as amended by Presidential Decree Number 1058, for catching anchovies locally called bolinao with a bottled explosive known as a badil. The case matters because it fixes the penalty for dynamite fishing when the explosive is actually used, and because it restates the deference appellate courts give to a trial court's assessment of witness credibility.

Procedural History

Vergara was charged together with three co-accused before the Regional Trial Court, Eighth Judicial Region, Branch 7, in Tacloban City. Only Vergara was arraigned and brought to trial, because his co-accused escaped and remained at large. After the parties submitted their evidence, the trial court, in a decision dated 10 February 1993, found Vergara guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to twenty years to life imprisonment, and ordered the confiscation of the fishing boat and its equipment as instruments of the crime. Vergara appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the trial court's disregard of a defense witness, its reliance on allegedly biased and inconsistent prosecution witnesses, and its supposed bias against the accused.

Facts

At about seven thirty in the morning of 4 July 1992, a patrol team was on board a pumpboat called Bantay Dagat, conducting a preventive patrol along the municipal waters fronting barangays Baras and Candahug in Palo, Leyte. The team was composed of deputized Fish Warden Jesus Bindoy, Police Officers Casimiro Villas and Diosdado Moron, Fish Wardens Mario Castillote and Estanislao Cabreros, and Fish Examiner Nestor Aldas of the Department of Agriculture. They chanced upon a blue fishing boat about thirty feet long, some two hundred meters away, on a parallel course toward Samar, with Vergara and his three co-accused on board.

The team saw Vergara throw into the sea a bottle known as a badil, filled with ammonium nitrate and topped with a blasting cap. About three seconds later, an explosion occurred. Vergara and Bernardo Cuesta then dove into the sea with their gear, while Pedro Dagaño and Ernesto Cuesta, Junior, stayed on board to tend the air hose for the divers.

The team approached the boat. Officer Villas boarded it while Warden Bindoy held on to one end. Shortly after, Vergara and Cuesta surfaced, each carrying a sibot, a fishnet, filled with about a kilo of bolinao. The four were apprehended and taken to the Bantay Dagat station and later to the police station in Palo, Leyte. The boat, its paraphernalia, and the two fishnets were impounded, though the accused refused to sign the corresponding receipts. Fish Examiner Aldas examined the samples and found ruptured capillaries, a ruptured and blooded abdominal portion, and crushed internal organs, indicating that explosives were indeed used.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in disregarding the testimony of the defense witness Emilio Linde.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving weight to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses alleged to be biased and glaringly inconsistent.
• Whether or not the trial court showed bias against the accused during the trial.
• Whether or not the evidence established Vergara's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for illegal fishing with the use of explosives.

Applicable Provisions

Section 33 of Presidential Decree Number 704, as amended by Presidential Decree Number 1058, defines the offense:

It shall be unlawful for any person to catch, take or gather or cause to be caught, taken or gathered fish or fishery/aquatic products in Philippine waters with the use of explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substance, or by the use of electricity as defined in paragraphs (1), (m) and (d), respectively, of section 3 hereof: Provided, That mere possession of such explosives with intent to use the same for illegal fishing as herein defined shall be punishable as hereinafter provided.

This is the very act charged against Vergara, who was caught throwing an explosive into the sea to gather fish.

Section 38 of the same decree, as amended, fixes the penalty:

By the penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years to twenty-five (25) years in the case of mere possession of explosives intended for illegal fishing; by imprisonment ranging from twenty (20) years to life imprisonment, if the explosive is actually used.

Because the explosive was actually used, the higher range applies, and this supports the penalty imposed by the trial court.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court correctly rejected the testimony of Emilio Linde. Linde sought to corroborate the claim that another unidentified group of fishermen threw the explosive, but it was obvious that he had not been on board the fishing boat with the accused at the time of the incident, and even the lengthy counter-affidavit of the four accused never mentioned him.

On the second and third issues, the Court restated the settled rule that trial courts are tasked to initially rule on the credibility of witnesses for both the prosecution and the defense, and that appellate courts seldom substitute their own findings for those of trial courts, which have the good vantage point of observing those who take the witness stand. The Court nevertheless perused the transcript to satisfy itself that the records supported the trial court's conclusions, and found that they did. Warden Bindoy gave a detailed and consistent account of the incident, and Fish Examiner Aldas confirmed the use of explosives from the condition of the fish samples.

On the fourth issue, the Court was convinced that the trial court acted correctly in finding Vergara guilty of the offense charged, since the elements of catching fish with the use of explosives, and the actual use of the explosive, were both established.

Doctrine

First, illegal fishing under Section 33 of Presidential Decree Number 704, as amended, is committed by catching, taking, or gathering fish in Philippine waters with the use of explosives. Second, under Section 38 of the same decree, as amended, the penalty depends on whether the explosive is merely possessed or actually used: mere possession carries twelve years to twenty-five years, while actual use carries twenty years to life imprisonment. Third, the findings of a trial court on the credibility of witnesses are generally respected on appeal, because the trial court has the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses, although the appellate court may review the transcript to confirm that the records support those findings.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court in its entirety, with costs against the accused-appellant.

Remember This

Memorize the rule that actual use of an explosive in illegal fishing carries twenty years to life imprisonment, while mere possession carries twelve years to twenty-five years. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between possession and actual use under the fishery law, and the deference given to trial court findings on credibility.