REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA

FOURTEENTH DIVISION
LT. RODELLO B. LARAYA, PN, and ATTY. ADELINA B. BENAVENTE-VILLENA, Petitioners, - versus CA-G.R. SP. No. 80927 Members: REYES, JR., A.B., (Chairman) BERSAMIN, L.P., & LIBREA-LEAGOGO,C.C., JJ.

HON. PERFECTO E. PE, Presiding Judge of Branch 52, Regional Trial Court of Palawan, And TAN ZI XIAN, TAN GUO CUN, HUANG JUN XIANG, TAN ZI DENG, ZHENG WEN JIE, LIU XIN YAN, TAN BING SHUN, CHEN YI XIAN, XIE XI WEI, CHEN GUO KUAN, TAN PING YIN (YAN), ZHENG CHAO FU, FANG MING JIE, TAN GUO HUI, XIE TAN FU, TAN HUO SHUN, LUO ZENG JIA, LAI GUO YUAN and TAN BING YAO, ZHOU JIAN GANG, QI HUI GUAN, QI JIA BING, QI HUI WEN, Promulgated: LAI GUO ZHI, CHEN ZI SHUN, ZHOU JIAN KAI, HUANG RI AN, HUANG ZI HUA, ZHAO QIAN SHAO, _____________ CHEN QI CHANG, HUANG SHAO QIANG, FANG YING XI, HUANG HONG BING, NIE ZHUANG QIANG, QI CHI SHENG, QI LU JIAN and ZHENG ZHI XIONG, Respondents. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

D E C I S I O N

REYES, JR., A.B., J.:

Before Us is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the

decisions dated 17 July 2003 of the Regional Trial

CA-G.R. SP. No. 80927 DECISION

Court of Palawan, Fourth Judicial Region, Branch 52, Puerta Princessa City in Criminal Case Numbers: 17717, 17718, 17696 and 17697.

It

appears

that

on

12

September

2002,

thirty

eight (38) Chinese nationals on board their fishing vessels were caught within the Malampaya Natural Gas Platform Project Exclusive Zone, in El Nido, Palawan in the act of illegal fishing. Groupers (locally (locally known, as known, Mameng) as and Hundreds of kilos of Lapu-Lapu), Snappers Wrasse (locally

known, as Maya-Maya) were found in the said fishing vessels.1 were Also found within the vessels, among others, and pillets, suspected to be noxious A

powders

substances or component ingredients of explosives. bottle of home-made dynamite was also retrieved.2

Subsequent Cyanide

specimen Test

tests

conducted of the

by Bureau

the of

Detection

Laboratory

Fisheries and Aquatic Resources on the fishes found on the vessels yielded positive for the presence of

cyanide.3

Tests conducted by the Forensic Chemistry

Division of the National Bureau of Investigation on the

1 2

powders

and

pillets

seized

from

the

vessels

Rollo, pp. 55-58. Ibid, p. 55. 3 Ibid, pp. 46-52.

CA-G.R. SP. No. 80927 DECISION

confirmed

the

fact

that

they

were

indeed

either

noxious substances or contained component ingredients of an explosive.4

Corresponding criminal complaints5 were thus filed on 17 September 2002 by the herein petitioners, Atty. Adelina Benavente-Villena, Chief of Legal Services of the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development [PCSD] and Lt. Rodello B. Laraya, a commanding officer of the Philippine respondents Navy for the against violation the of accused-private Republic Act No.

8550, otherwise known as the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998, 88 specifically, (Fishing Section 87 (Poaching) Noxious and or

Section

through

Explosives,

Poisonous Substances) of the said Act.

Subsequently, criminal informations for violation of Republic Act No. 8550 were filed against all 38 Chinese Palawan. nationals All with the the Regional Trial Court of

of

accused-private

respondents

thereafter pleaded not guilty to the charges on 07 May 2003.

During

the

pre-trial

of

the

criminal

cases,

counsel for the accused-private respondents manifested

4 5

Ibid, pp. 53-54. Ibid, pp. 38-45.

CA-G.R. SP. No. 80927 DECISION

their

intention

to

enter

into

plea

bargaining

by

entering a plea of guilty to a lesser offense under paragraph 2 of Section 88 of Republic Act 8550.

However, the then prosecuting officer of the cases, Provincial Prosecutor Alen Ross B. Rodriguez did not accede. Consequently, trial on the merits ensued.

After prosecution presented its first witness and initial cross-examination was conducted by the counsel for the defense, or after only two hearing dates,

subsequent trial schedules were reset until a hearing finally pushed through on 15 July 2003. On such date,

however, Provincial Prosecutor Alen Ross B. Rodriguez manifested his intention to inhibit from further

prosecuting the criminal cases.

Continuation of the

trial was, hence, rescheduled the following day.

On 16 July 2003, with the appearance of a new prosecutor, counsel for the defense asked the court to re-open the pre-trial stage of the criminal cases and reiterated the accused-private respondents earlier

intention of availing plea bargaining. Provincial Prosecutors Office,

This time, the represented by On

Prosecutor Olegario Cayetano, Jr., did not object.

the contrary, Prosecutor Cayetano manifested that the government was amenable to re-open pre-trial for the

CA-G.R. SP. No. 80927 DECISION

purpose of plea-bargaining.

Consequently, the trial

court ordered the re-opening of the pre-trial.

During

the

re-opened respondents

pre-trial through

stage, their

all

the

accused-private

counsel

plead guilty to violation of Paragraph 2, Section 88 of Republic Act 8550. The public prosecutor

interposed no objection with the change of plea and informed the court that the prosecutors conformity

with the plea bargaining was in consonance with the directive of the Chief State Prosecutor.

On 17 July 2003, the trial court promulgated the assailed decisions,6 which convicted all the accusedprivate respondents for violation of Paragraph 2,

Section 88 of Republic Act 8550 (Possession of Noxious or Poisonous Substances) and sentenced each of the

accused-private respondents to a penalty of ten (10) months imprisonment. were also All the of accused-private violating of

respondents

convicted

Section 87 of the same Act (the crime of Poaching) and were ordered to pay a fine of USD100,000.00 in favor of the government. Fishing paraphernalia, equipment

and vessels were ordered forfeited in favor of the State.

6

Ibid, pp. 24-31.

CA-G.R. SP. No. 80927 DECISION

On 18 July 2003, the herein petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, by way of an Omnibus

Motion7 seeking, among others, reconsideration of the decision of the trial court allowing the re-opening of the pre-trial, despite vigorous objections from the

petitioners.

The latter contend that the prosecutor

must not be allowed to plea bargain without seeking the conformity of the herein petitioners being the

complainants.

On 04 August 2003, the trial court denied8 the petitioners Omnibus Motion, declaring the same as a mere scrap of paper, for failure on the part of the petitioners to notify the provincial prosecutor and

the accused-private respondents. court cannot said observed properly that the

Moreover, the trial by in themselves filing in the the the

petitioners the People and is

represent

motion,

since of

supervision cases

control lodged

prosecution

criminal

with

public prosecutor.

Hence, the instant petition.

7 8

Ibid, pp. 32-35. Ibid, pp. 36-37.

CA-G.R. SP. No. 80927 DECISION

Petitioners raise the following issues to wit:9

I. WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT JUDGE ACTED BEYOND HIS AUTHORITY IN RULING THAT HEREIN COMPLAINANTS-PETITIONERS CANNOT REPRESENT THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HENCE, NO STANDING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDINGS, PLEA BARGAINING PROCESS; II. WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT JUDGE ACTED IN EXCESS OF HIS JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN HE ALLOWED THE RE-OPENING OF PRE-TRIAL FOR PURPOSES OF PLEA-BARGAINING WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE COMPLAINANTS AND CONTRARY TO SECTION 2, RULE 116 OF THE REVISED RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, AS AMENDED; III. WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT JUDGE ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION BY NOT PROVIDING FOR SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT IN CASE THE ACCUSED POACHERS ARE NOT ABLE TO PAY THE FINE OF $200,000 IMPOSED UPON UNDER SECTION 87, REPUBLIC ACT 8550; IV. WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT JUDGE ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION I DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID MOTION WAS A MERE SCRAP OF PAPER.

Ibid, pp. 11-12.

CA-G.R. SP. No. 80927 DECISION

We resolve to dismiss the instant petition.

At

the

outset,

considering

that

the

instant

petition arose out of a criminal case, it is peculiar that it is the chief legal counsel of PCSD and a

commanding officer of the Philippine Navy who brings this instant action before Us assailing the decision of the trial court in the said criminal cases.

Therefore, before this petition can be given due course, it is imperative to resolve whether the herein petitioners have legal standing to bring up the

present action.

We rule in the negative.

Section 1, Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court expressly provides:

SECTION 1. Petition for Certiorari. When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial and quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the

CA-G.R. SP. No. 80927 DECISION

proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) XXX XXX XXX

Hence, for the herein petitioners to lodge the instant action, they must they first would be be a person legal

aggrieved,

otherwise,

without

standing to pursue this legal recourse.

That having been said, this Court rules that the herein petitioners are not persons aggrieved by the assailed decision of the trial court in the subject criminal cases.

It is elementary in criminal law that a crime is an offense against the State, and is hence prosecuted in the name of the People of the Philippines.10 this Rules reason, of Section 5 of Rule 110 of the For

Revised all or

Criminal actions shall

Procedure commenced

provides by a under

that

criminal

complaint the

information

be

prosecuted

direction

and control of the prosecutor.

10

People v. Arcilla, G.R. No. 116237, 15 May1996.

CA-G.R. SP. No. 80927 DECISION

10

Furthermore, Section 1 of P.D. 1275, provides, to wit: SECTION 1. Creation of the National Prosecution Service; Supervision and Control of the Secretary of Justice. There is hereby created and established a National Prosecution Service under the supervision and control of the Secretary of Justice, to be composed of the Prosecution Staff in the Office of the Secretary of Justice and such number of Regional State Prosecution Offices, and Provincial and City Fiscals Offices as are hereinafter provided, which shall be primarily responsible for the investigation and prosecution of all cases involving violations of penal laws. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Clearly, it is within the exclusive domain of the prosecutory arm of the government as how best to deal with the prosecution of criminal cases. Hence, any

grievance in course thereof affecting the interest of the State must proceed only from such an arm of the government.

Moreover,

at

this

stage,

only

the

Solicitor

General can bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines.11 Section 35 (1), Chapter

12, Title III, Book IV of Administrative Code of 1987 provides duty Court
11

for

the

Office the of

of

the

Solicitor in in

Generals Supreme criminal

to

Represent the Court

Government Appeals

the all

and

People v. Partisala, G.R. No. L-61997, 15 November 1982.

CA-G.R. SP. No. 80927 DECISION

11

proceedings; represent the Government and its officers in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and all other courts or tribunals in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the Government or any

officer thereof in his official capacity is a party.

Therefore, successfully

the by

present the

action

cannot without

be the

lodged

petitioners

concurrence and presence of the Solicitor General, who legally represents the interest of the State at this stage of the proceedings.

To restate, the criminal violation of our fishery laws is an offense The the against the is People of the none

Philippines. other than

offended and

party

therefore not the

State

certainly

herein

petitioners, who are public officials under the employ of the PCSD and the Philippine Navy. The State for

its part, in the prosecution of criminal offenses, is represented by the National Prosecution Service,

directly supervised and controlled by the Department of Justice. At this stage, the competent agency to

represent the cause of the State should be the Office of the Solicitor General and none other. and underscoring supplied.) (Emphasis

CA-G.R. SP. No. 80927 DECISION

12

Considering the foregoing, it is futile for the petitioners Republic to Act invoke 7611, Plan for the known Palawan statutory as Act the to mandate of

Strategic the

Environmental

initiate

present petition. said law which

Indeed, there is nothing in the authorizes the PCSD to directly

prosecute criminal cases, nay represent the State in actions arising from such criminal cases as aggrieved parties.

To be sure, the PCSD was created for the purpose of exercising governance and implementing the policy direction of the Strategic Environmental Plan [SEP]. The SEP on the other hand, as referred to in Republic Act No. 7611, is a comprehensive framework for the sustainable protecting endangered development and enhancing of of Palawan compatible resources with and The

the the

natural said

environment

province.12

SEPs express purpose is thus to serve as a framework to guide the local government of Palawan and other government agencies concerned in the formulation and implementation of plans, programs and projects

affecting the province of Palawan.13

12

Section 4, Chapter II of Republic Act No. 7611, otherwise known as the Strategic Environmental Plan for Palawan Act. 13 Section 4 and Section 6, Ibid.

CA-G.R. SP. No. 80927 DECISION

13

A reading of the Republic Act No. 7611 therefore clearly spells out that PCSDs and function is purely in

administrative,

regulatory

policy-making

nature, and certainly not prosecutory.

With respect to the legal standing of Lt. Rodello B. Laraya to file the instant petition, suffice it to again reiterate that the aggrieved party in this case is the State and not Lt. Laraya in his personal

capacity, or the Philippine Navy or the Naval Forces West, both of which Laraya is a member of. petitioners Forces West own is allegation, simply to the task of the By the Naval

undertake of

patrolling, of our

monitoring

and

apprehension

violators

fishery laws and other laws affecting our waters and seas.

In petition,

fine, the

to

successfully must

lodge have a

the

instant and

petitioners

personal

substantial interest in the case such that they have sustained or stand to sustain direct injury as a

result of the act that is being challenged.

We find

no such injury, whether sustained or otherwise to the herein petitioners. If at all, it was the State who

CA-G.R. SP. No. 80927 DECISION

14

was injured.

Thus, it is only the State who may bring

the instant action.

With the lack of legal personality of the herein petitioners to instigate the instant petition, there is no need to further consider the other issues and arguments raised therein. WHEREFORE, petition is premises considered, for the of instant legal

hereby

DISMISSED

lack

standing on the part of the petitioners.

SO ORDERED. ANDRES B. REYES, JR. Associate Justice

WE CONCUR: LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice

CELIA C. LIBREA-LEAGOGO Associate Justice

C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. ANDRES B. REYES, JR. Associate Justice Chairman, 14th Division