FACTS: HIZON et al.
were this presumption is merely prima
charged with violating PD 704 for
supposedly fishing without the
use of a poisonous substance
(sodium cyanide). A report that
some fishing boats were fishing
by "muro ami" led to the
apprehension of such boat (F/B
Robinson), where Hizon et al
were present. The police (PNP
Maritime Command and the Task
Force Bantay Dagat) directed the
boat captain to get random
samples of the fish from the fish
cage for testing. The initial results
tested the fish positive for sodium
cyanide and that was the basis of
the information against Hizon et
al. However, a second set of fish
samples yielded a negative result
on the sodium cyanide.
Notwithstanding this, the
RTC found Hizon et al. guilty and
sentenced them to imprisonment
and forfeiture of the fishes. The
CA affirmed this decision. Hizon
et al., together with the Solicitor
general now question the
admissibility of the evidence
against petitioners in view of the
warrantless search of the fishing
boat and the subsequent arrest of
petitioners.
ISSUE/S:
1. W/N fish samples seized
by the NBI in the F/B
Robinson without a discovered were twenty eight (28)
search warrant are
admissible in evidence. –
YES.
2. W/N Hizon et al., are
guilty of illegal fishing with
the use of poisonous
substances. NO.
RATIO: As a general rule, any
evidence obtained without a
judicial warrant is inadmissible for
any purpose in any proceeding.
The rule is, however, subject to
certain exceptions. Search and
seizure without search warrant of Tano vs
vessels and aircrafts for violations
of customs laws have been the Socrates
traditional exception to the
constitutional requirement of a
search warrant. The same Laws; Constitutional Law; Section 2 of Article XII aims
exception ought to apply to
seizures of fishing vessels and GR No. 110249; August 21, right to subsistence
boats breaching our fishery laws.
Hizon et al. were charged
with illegal fishing penalized
under sections 33 and 38 of P.D. FACTS:
704. These provisions create a
presumption of guilt for
possession of explosives or
poisonous substances. However, Puerto Princesa enacted an
ordinance banning the
facie and the accused has the shipment of all live fish and
right to present evidence to rebut lobster outside Puerto
this presumption.
In this case, the only
Princesa City from January 1,
basis for the charge of fishing with 1993 to January 1, 1998.
poisonous substance is the result Subsequently the
of the first NBI laboratory test on Sangguniang Panlalawigan,
the four fish specimens. The Provincial Government of
apprehending officers who Palawan enacted a resolution
boarded and searched the boat prohibiting the catching ,
did not find any sodium cyanide
gathering, possessing,
nor any poisonous or obnoxious
substance. Neither did they find buying, selling, and shipment
any trace of the poison in the of a several species of live
possession of the fishermen or in marine coral dwelling aquatic
the fish cage itself. Under the organisms for 5 years, in and
circumstances of the case, coming from Palawan waters.
however, this finding does not Petitioners filed a special civil
warrant the infallible conclusion action for certiorari and
that the fishes in the F/B
Robinson, or even the same four
prohibition, praying that the
specimens, were caught with the court declare the said
use of sodium cyanide. ordinances and resolutions as
Apparently, it was the unconstitutional on the
police who were the ones ground that the said
engaged in an illegal fishing ordinances deprived them of
expedition. "Muro ami", as what the due process of law, their
was reported the fishermen were
livelihood, and unduly
doing, is made with "the use of a
big net with sinkers to make the restricted them from the
net submerge in the water with practice of their trade, in
the fishermen surround[ing] the violation of Section 2, Article
net." This method of fishing needs XII and Sections 2 and 7 of
approximately two hundred (200) Article XIII of the 1987
fishermen to execute. What the Constitution.
apprehending officers instead
fishermen in their sampans
ISSUE:
fishing by hook and line. The Are the challenged
authorities found nothing on the ordinances unconstitutional?
boat that would have indicated
HELD:
any form of illegal fishing. All the
documents of the boat and the
No. The Supreme Court
fishermen were in order. It was
found the petitioners
only after the fish specimens were
contentions baseless and held
tested, albeit under suspicious
that the challenged
circumstances, that petitioners
ordinances did not suffer
were charged with illegal fishing
with the use of poisonous from any infirmity, both
substances. under the Constitution and
applicable laws. There is
absolutely no showing that
any of the petitioners
qualifies as a subsistence or
Natural and Environmental marginal fisherman. Besides,
Regalian Doctrine primarily not to bestow any
1997 fishermen, but to lay stress
on the duty of the State to
protect the nation’s marine
wealth. The so-called
On Dec 15, 1992, the “preferential right” of
Sangguniang Panglungsod ng subsistence or marginal
fishermen to the use of
marine resources is not at all
absolute.
In accordance with the
Regalian Doctrine, marine
resources belong to the state
and pursuant to the first
paragraph of Section 2,
Article XII of the
Constitution, their
“exploration, development
and utilization...shall be
under the full control and
supervision of the State.
In addition, one of the
devolved powers of the LCG
Mn m hvkjkkvhjvcjhcmh
on devolution is the validity of the questioned
enforcement of fishery laws ordinances cannot be
in municipal waters including doubted.
the conservation of Mn m hvkjkkvhjvcjhcmh
mangroves. This necessarily Kjbaskjdbakdbask.bdaskbdkasbdk
includes the enactment of asdb
ordinances to effectively kskhdkasjfksa
carry out such fishery laws
within the municipal waters.
In light of the principles of sjhbgsjkdgasjbdasljdbsajdvaslj
decentralization and Mn m
devolution enshrined in the hvkjkkvhjvcjnkkmslaknldnaskj;j
LGC and the powers granted bkasbjhcmh
therein to LGUs which Kjbaskjdbakdbask.bdaskbdkasbdk
unquestionably involve the asdb
exercise of police power, the kskhdkasjfksa
Kjbaskjdbakdbask.bdaskbdkas Kjbaskjdbakdbask.bdaskbdkas
bdkasdb bdkasdb
kskhdkasjfksa kskhdkasjfksa
Mn m hvkjkkvhjvcjhcmh