REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY ABRAHAM CAMPO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMANDER IN THE PHILIPPINE NAVY, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT VS. HON. ROMAN CANSINO, JR., AS JUDGE OF…

Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila
dismissing the petition for prohibition and injunction in this case.

On October 3, 1960, Magdayo Ramirez filed with the Municipal Court
of Manila, presided over by respondent Judge, Hon. Roman Cansino, Jr.,
a complaint (Civil Case No. 81186 of said court) for replevin against
the manager of the Royal Cold Storage, located in Aviles Street,
Manila, and Philippine Navy Commander Abraham Campo, alleging that he
(Ramirez) is the owner of 85 tubs of fish which were illegally seized
by Campo and his agents or representatives on October 1, 1960 and
impounded in the premises of said Royal Cold Storage. Upon the filing
by Ramirez of a P2,000 bond, said respondent Judge forthwith issued (on
October 3, 1960) a warrant of seizure, directing the Sheriff of Manila
to take possession of said 85 tubs of fish, keep the same for five (5)
days and, thereafter, deliver it to Ramirez.

On October 7, 1960, Commander Campo filed with said municipal court
an urgent petition for the return of said fish, upon the ground that
the same was taken from the fishing boat “tony lex I” in the waters of
Navotas, Rizal, by a unit of the Philippine Navy duly engaged in the
enforcement of our fishing laws, “after a finding by a Fishery Product
Examiner of the Bureau of Fisheries from samples taken earlier that the
fish in question had been killed or caught with the use of dynamite,
the mere possession of which” fish is a crime under Republic Act No.
428, as amended; that, as a consequence, two (2) criminal
complaints—copies of which were attached to said petition—were filed
against Ramirez with the Justice of the Peace Court of Navotas, Rizal,
one for illegal possession of dynamited fish and another for
disobedience to a person in authority; that the fish aforementioned
should not be delivered to Ramirez, at least, during the pendency of
said criminal cases, because, among other reasons, said fish is the
subject or proceeds of a crime, because, in the event of the conviction
of Ramirez, the forfeiture of the fish would be frustrated, and because
the prosecution would be deprived of a material evidence; and that
since the petition had been filed on behalf of the Republic of the
Philippines, it was unnecessary for the same to file a redelivery bond.

When the urgent petition was heard on October 8, 1960, respondent
Judge announced that, unless said redelivery bond was posted by 4:00
p.m. on October 10, 1960, he would order the Sheriff to turn the fish
over to Ramirez.

Accordingly, on October 10, 1960, Commander Campo, acting on behalf
of the Republic of the Philippines, in— stituted the present action for
prohibition and injunction in the Court of First Instance of Manila
(Case No. 44438 thereof) against respondent Judge, the Sheriff of
Manila and Ramirez, based upon the facts adverted to above, with the
prayer that a writ of preliminary injunction be issued restraining the
delivery of the fish to Ramirez and that, after trial, said writ be
made permanent. On the same date the writ of preliminary injunction
prayed for was issued. A motion filed by Ramirez, on October 12, 1960,
for the dissolution of said writ, was denied on October 14, 1960. After
service of summons, or on October 24, 1960, Ramirez filed his answer to
the complaint and a seperate motion for reconsideration of the order of
October 14, 1960. The motion was granted on November 7, 1960, on which
date the writ of preliminary in— junction was dissolved. A motion of
the Government for the reconsideration of the order of November 7,
1960, was denied on December 10, 1960. On the same date, the lower
court issued another order dismissing the petition for prohibition and
injunction. Consequently, the Government interposed this appeal
directly to the Supreme Court, only questions of law being raised
therein.

This case hinges on the applicability to the case at bar of the
second paragraph of section 4 of Republic Act No. 428, as amended by
Republic Act No. 1535, reading:

“Any officer or person mentioned in the preceding
paragraph is authorized to take from among the fishes or aquatic
animals believed to have been stupefied or killed in violation of this
Act the necessary samples, in not more than one kilo, for examination;
issuing a receipt therefor with specification of the kind and the
quality of fish or other aquatic animals taken by him as well as their
value obtaining in the market that day. If after the examination, such
fish or aquatic animals are found not to have been stupefied or Trilled
in violation of this Act, the person from whom they are taken as
samples shall be paid their value as herein stated, said payment to be
borne and defrayed by the government office or agency to which the
person or officer mentioned in the first paragraph of this section is
connected from funds appropriated for said purpose. The officer or
person in authority or agent of authority who does not submit the
sample taken for examination or does not gave the person from whom it
was taken a report of such examination within ten days shall be
punished upon conviction by a fine of not exceeding five hundred pesos,
or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or both such fine and
imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.”

The lower court held that the issue herein is controlled by this
provision; that pursuant thereto, petitioner was entitled to take
samples of the fish in question “in not more than one kilo”, and that,
accordingly, the seizure of 85 tubs of fish was illegal. It should be
noted, however, that said provision refers to “fishes * * * believed to
have been * * * killed in violation” of said Act, and that the same
authorizes the officer entertaining said belief to take “the necessary samples, in not more than one kilo, for examination of the kind and the quality of fish * * * taken by him”.

Such is not the situation obtaining in the case at bar. In
the urgent petition filed by the Government with the municipal court on
October 7, 1960, as well as in its petition for prohibition and
injunction in the present case, it is specifically alleged that, “after a finding made by a Fishery Product Examiner of the Bureau of Fisheries from samples taken earlier
that the fish in question had been killed or caught with the use of
dynamite”, the “mere possession” of which fish is “a crime” under
Republic Act No. 428, as amended by Republic Act No. 1535, said fish
was seized by agents of the law, and the corresponding criminal
complaints were filed with the Justice of the Peace Court of Navotas,
Rizal. The above quoted provision is, therefore, inapplicable to the
present case and the same is governed by the rule to the effect that
the subject of an offense and the proceeds thereof are proper objects
of seizure, particularly when—as it is in the present case—the mere
possession of the objects seized constitutes a crime, for the holder of
said objects is then committing a crime in the presence of the officer
effecting the seizure, and the same is valid, despite the absence of a
search warrant (Magoncia vs. Palacio, 30 Phil., 770, 772; 56 C. J.
1166).

Furthermore, respondent Judge erred in requiring the posting of a
redelivery bond as a condition precedent to the dissolution of the
warrant of seizure issued by said officer, for petitioner is the
Republic of the Philippines and the same is exempt from the obligations
to post such bond (De Leon vs. Hon. Judge Macapanton, G. R. No.
L-15394, April 29, 1961; Amparo Joaquin-Gutierrez vs. Camus, 96 Phil.,
144.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is reversed and respondent Judge
and the Sheriff of Manila are hereby enjoined from proceeding with the
delivery of the 85 tubs of fish in question to respondent Magdayo
Ramirez, unless otherwise directed by the court having jurisdiction
over the aforementioned criminal action against him for illegal
possession of dynamited fish, with the costs of both instances against
said Magdayo Ramirez. It is so ordered.

Padilla, Bautista, Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L. Barrera, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.