SANTIAGO ARGONCILLO, RICHARDO BALBONA AND POLICARPIO UMITEN, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

Argoncillo versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the conviction of Santiago Argoncillo, Richardo Balbona, and Policarpio Umiten for illegal fishing with the use of an explosive under Presidential Decree Number 704, as amended. The case matters because it teaches how the statutory presumption in the last paragraph of Section 33 operates: the discovery in a fishing boat of fish caught or killed by explosives raises a presumption that the owner, operator, or fisherman was fishing with explosives, and that presumption, though merely prima facie, may convict when the accused offers only bare denial.

Procedural History

An Information was filed by the Provincial Fiscal of Capiz charging six persons with illegal fishing with the use of dynamite. On arraignment, all six, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty, and trial followed. The Regional Trial Court of Roxas City, Branch 15, convicted the three petitioners and sentenced each to a straight penalty of twenty years imprisonment, forfeited the fish sample in favor of the government, and acquitted the three other accused for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioners appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision in its entirety. The petitioners then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review.

Facts

Because of reports of rampant illegal fishing in Ivisan, Capiz, a team composed of Bureau of Fisheries personnel, local policemen, and the barangay captain of Basiao conducted a sea patrol in the afternoon of May 7, 1990. While their engines were off, the team heard an explosion. They proceeded toward the area, about five hundred meters away, and after ten minutes arrived near an islet. At a distance of about ten meters, a Bureau of Fisheries employee saw three persons diving, surfacing, and throwing their catch into an unmotorized banca nearby, while three other persons stood on the rocky shore of the islet.

The team introduced themselves as law enforcers and took custody of the six. The catch consisted of four kinds of fish locally known as vulgan, bulawis, pacol, and bag-angan. Seven fish samples were gathered. No dynamite or fishing paraphernalia was found on the seashore or in the banca. The fish samples were examined that evening and again the following morning in Roxas City. Both examinations showed blood oozing from the operculums, protruding eyes, ruptured air bladders deeply stained with blood, broken vertebral columns, broken ribs, and blood clots in the abdomen. The examiners concluded in a written report that the fish were caught or killed by the use of explosives.

The petitioners denied the charge. Three of them claimed they were retrieving their catch from a fishnet called patuloy, set earlier that afternoon. The other accused offered different explanations, and all six were eventually acquitted or convicted as described. The trial court gave credence to the prosecution witnesses, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

• Whether or not the absence of explosives or paraphernalia in the possession of the petitioners negates the crime of illegal fishing with the use of an explosive.
• Whether or not the presumption in the last paragraph of Section 33 of Presidential Decree Number 704, as amended, that fish caught or killed by explosives found in a fishing boat were taken by illegal fishing, was sufficiently established and not rebutted.
• Whether or not the examination of only a random sample of the catch is sufficient proof that the fish were killed by explosives.
• Whether or not the failure of the patrol team to immediately deliver the accused to the municipal jail, and the petitioners' non-flight, diminish the credibility of the prosecution or strengthen the claim of innocence.

Applicable Provisions

Section 33 of Presidential Decree Number 704, as amended by Presidential Decree Number 1058, provides:

It shall be unlawful for any person to catch, take or gather, or cause to be caught, taken or gathered fish or fishery or aquatic products in Philippine waters with the use of explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substance, or by the use of electricity as defined in paragraphs (l), (m) and (d), respectively, of Section 3 hereof.

This is the provision that defines the offense charged and supplies the presumption on which the conviction rests.

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 last paragraph is the heart of the case: it shifts to the accused the burden of overcoming a prima facie presumption once fish killed by explosives are found in the boat.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the absence of explosives or paraphernalia does not indicate innocence, because it is quite probable that the petitioners dumped these materials into the sea while the raiding party was approaching. The offense is committed by catching fish with explosives, not by possession of dynamite.

On the second issue, the Court held that the presumption was clearly established, since it could not be denied that the fish found in the petitioners' banca were caught or killed by the use of explosives, as shown by the report and the testimony of the fish examiners. The Court stressed that the presumption is merely prima facie and may be rebutted, but the petitioners' bare denial was insufficient to overcome the weight of the object evidence.

On the third issue, the Court held that it is sufficient that a random sample of the catch was examined and found to have been killed with explosives. It would be ridiculous to expect that all the fish in the boat be examined, and a patent impracticality would result if the law required otherwise.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the failure to immediately deliver the accused to the municipal jail did not diminish the credibility of the witnesses, since the barangay captain explained that there was no available transportation. The Court took judicial notice of the dearth of law enforcement facilities in the provinces. As to non-flight, the Court found no established doctrine that non-flight is, in every instance, an indication of innocence.

Doctrine

Illegal fishing with the use of explosives is committed by catching, taking, or gathering fish with explosives; possession of dynamite is not an element, and its absence does not exculpate. Under the last paragraph of Section 33 of Presidential Decree Number 704, as amended, the discovery in any fishing boat of fish caught or killed by explosives creates a prima facie presumption that the owner, operator, or fisherman was fishing with explosives. That presumption shifts the burden of evidence to the accused, who must rebut it with more than bare denial. A random sampling of the catch, examined and found to bear the signs of blast injury, is sufficient proof that the fish were killed by explosives. Credibility findings of the trial court, especially on the demeanor of witnesses, are accorded great respect on appeal.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in its entirety, so the petitioners lost and their conviction stood.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the discovery in a fishing boat of fish caught or killed by explosives raises a prima facie presumption that the fisherman was fishing with explosives, and bare denial cannot rebut it. Examiners like to use this case on the statutory presumption in illegal fishing and on the sufficiency of random sampling of the catch as object evidence.