Environmental Law (Midterm)

8/6/2019 Environmental Law (Midterm)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/environmental-law-midterm 1/63

RA 8550

Sec. 4. Definition of Terms. As used in this Code, the following terms and phrases shall mean as

follows:

1. Ancillary industries firms or companies related to the supply, construction and maintenance of

fishing vessels, gears, nets and other fishing paraphernalia; fishery machine shops; and other facilities

such as hatcheries, nurseries, feed plants, cold storage, and refrigeration, processing plants and other

pre-harvest and post-harvest facilities.

2. Appropriate fishing technology adaptable technology, both in fishing and ancillary industries, that is

ecologically sound, locally source-based and labor-intensive.

3. Aquaculture fishery operations involving all forms of raising and culturing fish and other fishery

species in fresh, brackish and marine areas.

4. Aquatic pollution the introduction by human or machine, directly or indirectly, of substances or

energy to the aquatic environment, which results or is likely to result in such deleterious effects as to

harm living and non-living aquatic resources, pose potential and/or real hazard to human health,

hindrance to aquatic activities as fishing and navigation, including dumping/disposal of waste and other

marine litters, discharge of petroleum or residual products of petroleum or carbonaceous

materials/substances and other radioactive, noxious or harmful liquid, gaseous or solid substances, from

any water, land or air transport or other human-made structure. Deforestation, unsound agricultural

practices such as the use of banned chemicals and excessive use of chemicals,

4 RA 8550 Implementing Rules and Regulations

intensive use of artificial fish feed, and wetland conversion, which similar hazards and deleterious

effects shall also constitute aquatic pollution.

5. Aquatic resources includes fish, all other aquatic flora and fauna and other living resources of the

aquatic environment, including but not limited to salt and corals;

6. Artificial reefs any structure of natural or man-made materials placed on a body of water to serve as

shelter and habitat, source of food, breeding areas for fishery species and shoreline protection;

7. Catch ceilings refer to the annual catch limits allowed to be taken, gathered, or harvested from any

fishing area in consideration of the need to prevent overfishing and harmful depletion of breeding

stocks of aquatic organisms;

8. Closed season the period during which the taking of specified fishery species by a specified gear is

prohibited in a specified area or areas in Philippine waters;



9. Coastal area/zone is a band of dry land and adjacent ocean space (water and submerged land) in

which terrestrial processes and uses directly affect oceanic processes and uses, and vice versa; its

geographic extent may include areas within a landmark limit of one (1) kilometer from the shoreline at

high tide to include mangrove swamps, brackishwater ponds, nipa swamps, estuarine rivers, sandy

beaches and other areas within a seaward limit of 200 meters isobath to include coral reefs, algal flats,

seagrass beds, and other soft-bottom areas;

10. Commercial fishing the taking of fishery species by passive or active gear for trade, business or

profit beyond subsistence or sports fishing, to be further classified as:

1. Small-scale commercial fishing fishing with passive or active gear utilizing fishing vessels of 3.1 gross

tons (GT) up to twenty (20) GT;

2. Medium-scale commercial fishing fishing utilizing active gears and vessels of 20.1 GT up to one

hundred fifty (150) GT; and

3. Large-scale commercial fishing fishing utilizing active gears and vessels of more than one hundredfifty (150) GT.

11. Commercial scale a scheme of producing a minimum harvest per hectare per year of milkfish or

other species including those raised in pens, cages and tanks to be determined by the Department in

consultation with the concerned sectors.

12. Coral the hard calcareous substance made up of the skeleton of marine coelenterate polyps which

includes reefs, shelves and atolls or any of the marine coelenterate animals living in colonies where their

skeletons form a stony mass. They include: (a) skeletons of anthozoan coelenterates characterized as

having a rigid axis of compact calcareous or horny spicules, belonging to the genus corallium as

represented by the red, pink, and white corals which are considered precious corals; (b) skeletons of

anthozoan coelenterates characterized by thorny, horny axis such as antipatharians represented by the

black corals which are considered semi-precious corals; and (c) ordinary corals which are any kind of

corals that are not precious nor semi-precious.

13. Coral reef a natural aggregation of coral skeleton, with or without living coral polyps, occurring in

intertidal and subtidal marine waters.

14. Demarcated areas boundaries defined by markers and assigned exclusively to specific individuals

or organizations for certain specified and limited uses such as:

a. Aquaculture, sea ranching and sea farming;

b. Fish-aggregating devices;

c. Fixed and passive fishing gears; and

d. Fry and fingerling gathering.



15. Department shall mean the Department of Agriculture.

16. Electrofishing the use of electricity generated by batteries, electric generators and other source of

electric power to kill, stupefy, disable or render unconscious fishery species, whether or not the same

are subsequently recovered.

17. Endangered, rare and/or threatened species aquatic plants, animals including some varieties of

corals and seashells in danger of extinction as provided for in existing fishery laws, rules and regulations

or in the Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources

(DENR) and in the Convention of the International Trade of Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna

(CITES).

18. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea which shall not

extend beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines as defined under existing laws.

19. FARMCs the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Councils.

RA 8550 Implementing Rules and Regulations 5

20. Farm-to-market roads shall include roads linking the fisheries production sites, coastal loading

points and other post-harvest facilities to major market and arterial roads and highways.

21. Fine mesh nets net with mesh size of less than three centimeters (3 cm) measured between two

(2) opposite knots of a full mesh when stretched or as otherwise determined by the appropriate

government agency.

22. Fish and fishery/aquatic products include not only finfish but also mollusk, crustaceans,

echinoderms, marine mammals, and all other species of aquatic flora and fauna and all other products

of aquatic living resources in any form.

23. Fish cage refers to an enclosure which is either stationary or floating made up of nets or screens

sewn or fastened together and installed in the water with opening at the surface or covered and held in

a place by wooden/bamboo posts or various types of anchors and floats.

24. Fish corral or Baklad a stationary weir or trap devised to intercept and capture fish consisting of

rows of bamboo stakes, plastic nets and other materials fenced with split bamboo mattings or wire

mattings with one or more enclosures, usually with easy entrance but difficult exit, and with or without

leaders to direct the fish to the catching chambers, purse or bags.

25. Fish fingerlings a stage in the life cycle of the fish measuring to about 6-13 cm depending on the

species.

26. Fish fry a stage at which a fish has just been hatched usually with sizes from 1-2.5 cm.



27. Fish pen an artificial enclosure constructed within a body of water for culturing fish and

fishery/aquatic resources made up of poles closely arranged in an enclosure with wooden materials,

screen or nylon netting to prevent escape of fish.

28. Fisherfolk people directly or personally and physically engaged in taking and/or culturing and

processing fishery and/or aquatic resources.

29. Fisherfolk cooperative a duly registered association of fisherfolk with a common bond of interest,

who have voluntarily joined together to achieve a lawful common social or economic end, making

equitable contribution to the capital requirement and accepting a fair share of the risks and benefits of

the undertakings in accordance with universally accepted cooperative principles.

30. Fisherfolk organizations an organized group, association, federation, alliance or an institution of

fisherfolk which has at least fifteen (15) members, a set of officers, a constitution and by-laws, an

organizational structure and a program of action.

31. Fisheries refers to all activities relating to the act or business of fishing, culturing, preserving,processing, marketing, developing, conserving and managing resources and the fishery areas, including

the privilege to fish or take aquatic resource thereof.

32. Fish pond a land-based facility enclosed with earthen or stone material to impound water for

growing fish.

33. Fishing boat/gear license a permit to operate specific types of fishing boat/gear for specific

duration in areas beyond municipal waters for demersal or pelagic fishery resources.

34. Fishery management areas a bay, gulf, lake or any other fishery area, which may be delineated for

fishery resource management purposes.

35. Fishery operator one who owns and provides the means including land, labor, capital, fishing gears,

and vessels, but does not personally engage in fishery.

36. Fishery refuge and sanctuaries a designated area where fishing or other forms of activities, which

may damage the ecosystem of the area is prohibited and human access may be restricted.

37. Fishery reserve a designated area where activities are regulated and set aside for educational and

research purposes.

38. Fishery species aquatic flora and fauna including, but not restricted to, fish, algae, coelenterates,mollusks, crustaceans, echinoderms, and cetaceans

39. Fishing the taking of fishery species from their wild state or habitat, with or without the use of

fishing vessels.

40. Fishing gear any instrument or device and its accessories utilized in taking fish and other fishery

species.



a. Active fishing gear a fishing device characterized by gear movement, and/or the pursuit of target

species by towing, lifting, and pushing the gears, surrounding, covering, dredging, pumping and scaring

the target species to impoundments, such as, but not limited to, trawl, purse seines, Danish seines, bag

nets, paaling, drift gill net and tuna longline.


b. Passive fishing gear characterized by the absence of gear movements and/or the pursuit of target

species; such as, but not limited to, hook and line, fishpots, traps and gillnets across the path of the fish.

a) Anadromous species marine fishes which migrate to freshwater areas to spawn;

b) Catadromous species freshwater fishes which migrate to marine areas to spawn;

41. Fishing vessel any boat, ship or other watercraft equipped to be used for taking of fishery species

or aiding or assisting one (1) or more vessels in the performance of any activity relating to fishing,

including, but not limited to, preservation, supply, storage, refrigeration, transportation and/or

processing.

42. Fishing with explosives the use of the dynamite, other explosives or other chemical compounds

that contains combustible elements or ingredients which upon ignition by friction, concussion,

percussion or detonation of all or parts of the compound, will kill, stupefy, disable or render unconscious

any fishery species. It also refers to the use of any other substance and/or device which causes an

explosion that is capable of producing the said harmful effects on any fishery species and aquatic

resources and capable of damaging and altering the natural habitat.

43. Fishing with noxious or poisonous substances the use of any substance, plant extracts or juice

thereof, sodium cyanide and/or cyanide compounds or other chemicals either in raw or processed form,

harmful or harmless to human beings, which will kill, stupefy, disable or render unconscious any fishery

species and aquatic resources and capable of damaging and altering the natural habitat.

44. Fishworker a person regularly or not regularly employed in commercial fishing and related

industries, whose income is either in wage, profit-sharing or stratified sharing basis, including those

working in fish pens, fish cages, fish corrals/traps, fishponds, prawn farms, sea farms, salt beds, fish

ports, fishing boat/or trawlers, or fish processing and/or packing plants. Excluded form this category areadministrators, security guards and overseers.

45. Food security refers to any plan, policy or strategy aimed at ensuring adequate supplies of

appropriate food at affordable prices. Food security may be achieved through self-sufficiency (i.e.,

ensuring adequate food supplies from domestic production), through self-reliance (i.e., ensuring



adequate food supplies through a combination of domestic production and importation), or though pure

importation.

46. Foreshore land a strip of land margining a body of water, the part of a seashore between the low-

water line usually at the seaward margin of a low tide terrace and the upper limit of wave at high tide

usually marked by a beach scarp or berm.

47. Fully developed fishpond area a clean leveled area enclosed by dikes, at least one food higher than

the highest floodwater level in the locality and strong enough to resist pressure at the highest flood tide;

consists of at least a nursery pond, a transition pond, a rearing pond or a combination of any or all said

classes of ponds, and a functional water control system and producing in a commercial scale.

48. Gross tonnage includes the underdeck tonnage, permanently enclosed spaces above the tonnage

deck, except for certain exemptions. In broad terms, all the vessels closed-in spaces expressed in

volume terms on the bases of one hundred cubit feet (that equals one gross ton).

49. Inland fishery the freshwater fishery and brackishwater fishponds.

50. Lake an inland body of water, an expanded part of a river, a reservoir formed by a dam, or a lake

basin intermittently or formerly covered by water.

51. Limited access a fishery policy by which a system of equitable resource use and allocation is

established by law through fishery rights granting and licensing procedure as provided by this Code.

52. Mangroves a community of intertidal plants including all species of trees, shrubs, vines nad herbs

found on coastas, swamps, or border of swamps.

53. Maximum sustainable yield (MSY) is the largest average quantity of fish that can be harvested from

a fish stock/resource within a period of time (e.g., one year) on a sustainable basis under existing

environmental conditions.

54. Migratory species refers to any fishery species which in the course of their life could travel from

freshwater, to marine water or vice versa, or any marine species which travel over great distances in

waters of the ocean as part of their behavioral adaptation for survival and speciation;

55. Monitoring, control and surveillance

a) Monitoring the requirement of continuously observing: 1) fishing effort which cann be expressed by

the number of days or hours of fishing, number of fishing gears and number of fisherfolks; 2)

characteristics of fishery resources; and 3) resource yields (catch);

b) Control the regulatory conditions (legal framework under which the exploitation, utilization and

disposition of the resources may be conducted; and




c) Surveillance the degree and types of observations required to maintain compliance with regulations.

56. Municipal fisherfolk persons who are directly or indirectly engaged in municipal fishing and other

related fishing activities.

57. Municipal fishing refers to fishing within municipal waters using fishing vessels of three (3) gross

tons or less, or fishing not requiring the use of fishing vessels.

58. Municipal waters include not only streams, lakes, inland bodies of water and tidal waters within

the municipality which are not included within the protected areas as defined under Republic Act.

No.7586 (The NIPAS Law), public forest, timber lands, forest reserves or fishery reserves, but also marine

waters included between two (2) lines drawn perpendicular to the general coastline from points where

the boundary lines of the municipality touch the sea at low tide and a third line parallel with the general

coastline including offshore islands and fifteen (15) kilometers from such coastline. Where two (2)

municipalities are situated on opposite shores that there is less than thirty (30) kilometers of marine

waters between them, the third l ine shall be equally distant from opposite shores of the respective

municipalities.

59. Non-governmental organization (NGO) an agency, institution, a foundation or a group of persons

whose purpose is to assist peoples organizations/associations in various ways including, but not limited

to, organizing, education, training, research and/or resource accessing.

60. Payao a fish-aggregating device consisting of a floating raft anchored by a weighted line with

suspended materials such as palm fronds to attract pelagic and schooling species common in deepwaters.

61. Pearl farm lease public waters leased for the purpose of producing cultured pearls.

62. Peoples organizations a bona fide association of citizens with demonstrated capacity to promote

the public interest and with identifiable leadership, membership and structure. Its members belong to a

sector/s and voluntarily band themselves together to work for and by themselves for their own

upliftment, development and greater goood.

63. Person natural or juridical entities such as individuals, associations, partnerships, cooperatives or

corporations.

64. Philippine waters include all bodies of water within the Philippine territory such as lakes, rivers,

streams, creeks, brooks, ponds, swamps, lagoons, gulfs, bays and seas and other bodies of water now

existing or which hereafter exist in the provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays and the waters

around, between and connecting the islands of the archipelago regardless of their breadth and

dimensions, the territorial sea, the sea beds, the insular shelves, and all other waters over which the



Philippines has sovereignty and jurisdiction including the 200-mile nautical miles Exclusive Economic

Zone and the continental shelf.

65. Post-harvest facilities these facilities include, but are not limited to, fishport, fish landing, ice plants

and cold storages, fish processing plants.

66. Purse seine a form of encircling net having a line at the bottom passing through rings attached to

the net, which can be drawn or pursed. In general, the net is set from a boat or pair of boats around the

school of fish. The bottom of the net is pulled closed with the purse line. The net is then pulled aboard

the fishing boat or boats until the fish are concentrated in the bunt or fish bag.

67. Resource rent the difference between the value of the products produced from harvesting a public

owned resource less the cost of producing it, where cost includes the normal return to capital and

normal return to labor.

68. Sea farming the stocking of natural or hatchery-produced marine plants or animals, under

controlled conditions, for purposes of rearing and harvesting, but not limited to commercially-importantfishes, mollusks (such as pearl and giant clam culture), including seaweeds and seagrass.

69. Sea ranching the release of the young of fishery species reared in hatcheries and nurseries into

natural bodies of water for subsequent harvest at maturity or the manipulation of fishery habitat, to

encourage the growth of the wild stocks.

70. Secretary the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture.

71. Superlight also called magic light, is a type of light using halogen or metal halide bulb which may be

located above the sea surface or submerged in the water. It consists of a ballasst, electric cable and

socket. The source of energy comes from a generator, battery or dynamo coupled with the main engine.

72. Total allowable catch (TAC) the maximum harvest allowed to be taken during a given period of

time from any fishery area, or from any fishery species or group of fishery species, or a combination of

area and species and normally would not exceed the MSY.

73. Trawl an active fishing gear consisting of a bag-shaped net with or without otter boards to open its

opening which is dragged or towed along the bottom or through the water column to take fishery

species by


straining them from the water, including all variations and modifications of trawls (bottom, mid-water,

and baby trawls) and tow nets.



Rule 4.1. Additional Terms. Additional terms and their definitions as used in this IRR but not

included in Section 4 of RA No. 8550 are as follows:

a. Coastline refers to the outline of the mainland shore touching the sea at mean lower low tide.

b. Director refers to the Director of the BFAR.

c. Endangered species refers to species and sub-species of aquatic organisms whose population is in

danger of extinction and whose survival is unlikely if the causal factor is not reversed.

d. Fishing industry refers to the fisheries sector covering catching, growing, harvesting, processing,

marketing, developing, conserving and managing of aquatic resources.

e. Foreign aquatic species is further clarified by including any aquatic species not indigenously found

in Philippine waters.

f. Health hazard refers to any biological, chemical contamination or physical agent that has adverse

effects on humans or aquatic organisms.

g. Rare species refers to species and sub-species of aquatic organisms found in very small numbers

in specialized areas or habitats in the country.

h. Threatened species refers to species and sub-species of aquatic organisms which have reached

critical level of depletion and are threatened with extinction.

SUBJECT: MNR Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1979

Re: Regulations for the Conservation of Marine Turtles in the Philippines.

1. Quoted hereunder is MNR Administrative Order No. 12, dated November 15,1979 Re:

Regulations for the Conservation of Marine Turtles in the Philippines, for your information and

guidance, to wit:

"November 15, 1979

"MNR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER No. 12, Series of 1979

"SUBJECT: Regulations for the Conservation of Marine Turtles in the Philippines.

"1. In line with the President's desire for the conservation of marine turtles as enunciated in

Executive Order No. 542, dated June 26, 1979, the following regulations are hereby promulgated

for strict compliance of all concerned:



"(a) Except in Regions 9 and 12, no new permits for collecting, gathering, utilizing, possessing,

transporting, removing and/or disposing of marine turtles, turtle eggs and its by-products shall be

issued from the date of effectivity of this order.

"(b) In Regions 9 and 12, licenses or permits shall be issued by the Bureau of Forest Development

to collect, gather, utilize and dispose of marine turtles, turtle eggs and its by-products, provided

that the allowable quantity shall be specified in the permit by the Director of Forest Developmentand provided, further, that such harvest, except turtle eggs, shall be sold only to the BFD and

BFAR and such other agencies to be authorized by the Minister of Natural Resources a prices duly

prescribed.

"The Government shall then utilize and dispose of these harvests in support of the pawikan

conservation program particularly to assure the immediate setting up of turtle sanctuaries and to

maintain and increase the breeding population.

"(c) All existing permits shall be valid only up to December 1979, or if the permits are to expire

earlier than December 1979, the same shall no longer be renewed or extended except as provided in

paragraphs (a) and (b) herein above.

"(d) Exports of marine turtles, turtle eggs and its by- products thereof of whatever kind or state are

hereby banned.

"(e) Any person who shall collect, gather, utilize, possess, transport, remove, export and/or dispose

of marine turtles, turtle eggs or any of its by-products in violation of the provision of this Order

shall be punished by a fine of not more than P600.00 or imprisonment of not more than six (6)

months or both, in the sound discretion of the courts. If the violator is a permittee his or her permit

shall be automatically cancelled.

"2. Enforcement of the provisions of this Order shall be the responsibility of the BFD and BFAR.

The Minister of Natural Resources may deputize other competent persons a may be necessary inthe successful enforcement of this Order.

"3. This Order shall include not only marine turtles described by BFD Administrative Order No. 1

dated July 10,1974, but also soft-shelled or fresh water turtles (Trionyx sp.)

"4. This Order amends/modifies/supersedes accordingly, previous order/issuances inconsistent

herewith.

"5. This Order shall take effect sixty (60) days after its publication in the Official Gazette or two

newspaper of general circulation.

FISHER IES ADMI NISTRATIVE)ORDER NO. 185 :Series of 1992..........)



SUBJECT: Ban on the taking or catching, selling, purchasing possessing, transporting and

exporting of Dolphins.

Pursuant to Sections 4 and 7 of P. D. No. 704, as amended, and the Convention on International

Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) the following rules and regulations for the protection andconservation of dolphins in Philippine waters are hereby promulgated:

SECTION 1. Definition. - As used in this Order, the following terms are defined, as follows:

a) Dolphins. - Any of certain small-toothed marine mammals of the Order Cetacea having beaklike snouts, the neck vertebrae of which is partially fused. b) Take or catch - includes the killing, capturing, trapping, snaring and netting of dolphins.c) Sell - includes barter, exchange, or offering or exposing for sale.d) Purchase - means to buy and includes agreeing or offering to buy.e) Possess - means to have actual or constructive possession or control thereof.

f) Transport - means to carry or move or cause to be carried or moved.g) Export - means to send or ship out of the country.

SEC. 2. Prohibition. - It shall be unlawful to take or catch dolphins in Philippine waters or tosell, purchase, possess, transport, or export the same whether dead or alive, in any state or formwhether raw or processed: Provided , That the Secretary of Agriculture, upon therecommendation of the Director of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, may issue a special permitin favor of any government or private agency or institution engaged in research work ondolphins, including those to be used for exhibition or show purposes subject to such terms andconditions as the said Secretary may deem wise to impose.

I

t shall, likewise, be unlawful to wound or kill dolphins in the course of catching other species of fish. Dolphins, which are accidentally included in the catch by any gear shall immediately bereleased unharmed in the sea; otherwise, the liability shall be deemed to still exist. Dead dolphinsthat are washed to the seashore shall be surrendered to nearest Department of Agriculture Officefor proper disposition.

SEC. 3. Penalty. - Violation of this Order shall subject the offender to a fine of not less than fivehundred (P500.00) pesos to not more than five thousand (P5,000.00) pesos or imprisonment fromsix (6) months to four (4) years, or both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of theCourt: Provided,That the Director of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources is hereby empowered toimpose upon the offender an administrative fine of not more than five thousand (P5,000.00) pesos or to cancel his permit or license or to impose such fine and to cancel his permit or licenseat his discretion including the confiscation of the dolphins for proper disposition of thegovernment.

SEC. 4. Effectivity. - This Order shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in theOfficial Gazette and/or in two (2) newspapers of general circulation.



FISHER IES ADMI NISTRATIVE)ORDER NO.193 :Series of 1998 . . . . . . . . . . )

SUBJECT: Ban on the taking or catching, selling, purchasing and possessing, transporting

and exporting of Whale Sharks and Manta Rays

Pursuant to Sections 65 and 107 of RA No. 8550 otherwise known as the Philippine FisheriesCode of 1998, the following rules and regulations for the protection and conservation of whalesharks and manta rays in Philippine waters are hereby promulgated:

SECTION 1. Definition. ± The terms used herein shall be construed as follows:

a. W hale shark ± a large elasmobranch of the family Rhincodontidae, of the speciesRhincodon typus characterized externally by a broad, flattened head, a very large and nearlyterminal mouth, very large gill slits, three prominent longitudinal ridges on its upper flanks,

a large first dorsal fin, a semi-lunate caudal fin and a unique ³checkerboard´ pattern of lightspots and stripes on a dark background

b. Manta Rays ± a large elasmobranch of the family Mobulidae, synonymous with the giantAtlantic manta ( Manta birostris).

c. Take or catch ± includes the killing, capturing, trapping, snaring and netting of whale shark and manta rays.

d. Sell ± includes barter, exchange, or offering or exposing for sale.

e. Possess ± means to have actual or constructive possession or control thereof.

f. Transport ± means to carry or move or cause to be carried or moved.

g. Export ± means to send or ship out of the country.

SEC. 2. Prohibition. ± It shall be unlawful to take or catch whale shark and manta rays inPhilippine waters or to sell, purchase, possess, transport, or export the same whether dead or alive, in any state or form whether raw or processed.

It shall likewise, be unlawful to wound or to kill whale shark and manta rays in the course of catching other species of fish. Whale shark and manta rays which are accidentally included in thecatch by any gear shall immediately be released unharmed in the sea; otherwise the liability shall be deemed to still exist. Dead whale shark and manta rays which are drifted to the seashore shall be surrendered to the nearest Department of Agriculture (DA) Regional Field Unit or Bureau of Fisheries Regional or Provincial Fishery Office, as the case may be for proper disposition.

SEC. 3. Issuance of Permit to Conduct Research and/or Collect Specimens for Research/Scientific Purposes. - The Secretary or his duly appointed representative, upon therecommendation of the Director of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), mayissue a Special Permit in favor of any government or private institution engaged in purelyresearch work on whale shark and manta rays, subject to such terms and conditions as the DASecretary may deem wise to impose.



SEC. 4. Penalty. ± Violation of this Order shall subject the offender to a fine of not less than fivehundred (P500.00) pesos to not more than five thousand (P5,000) pesos or imprisonment fromsix (6) months to four (4) years, or both such fine and imprisonment depending on the discretionof the court: Provided, That the Director of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources is herebyempowered to impose upon the offender an administrative fine not more than five thousand

(P5,000.00) pesos or to cancel his permit or license or to impose such fine and to cancel his permit or license at his discretion including the confiscation of the whale shark and/or manta raysfor proper disposition/documentation of the government.

SEC. 5. Repealing Clause. ± All existing administrative orders, rules and regulations which areinconsistent with the provisions of this Order are hereby repealed.

SEC. 6. Effectivity. ±This Order shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in theOfficial Gazette and/or in two (2) newspaper of general circulation.

DENR Administrative Order No. 55

Series of 1991

SUBJECT: Declaring Dugong or sea cow (Dugong dugon) as

Protected Marine Mammal of the Philippines

Pursuant to Executive Order 192, and in cognizance of the intents and purposes of Section 1of ACT VIII of the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES)agreement and in the interest of protecting and preserving endangered species, thefollowing are hereby promulgated with regard to Dugong or Sea Cow (Dugong dugon):

Section 1. Basic Policy. It is hereby declared that Dugong or Sea Cow (Dugong dugon) is a

protected marine mammal of the Philippines. As such, the killing or taking so such speciesfor whatever purposes, except for scientific research, and the destruction or disturbance of its habitat, is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. Illegal Acts. Any person who shall hunt, kill, wound or take away, posses,transport and/or dispose of Dugong or Sea Cow, dead or alive, its meat or any of its by-products in violation of the provisions of this Order shall be punished by imprisonment fromsix (6) months to four (4) years or a fine from Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) to FiveThousand (P5,000.00) or both upon sound discretion of the Court, pursuant to section 38(d) of the Philippine Fisheries Code.

FURTHERMORE, the vessels/carrier, gears, tools, equipment and other paraphernalia used

in the commission of the prohibited acts and offenses including the catch thereof, asinstrument and proceeds of the offense, shall be confiscated in favor of the governmentpursuant to the pertinent provisions of DENR Administrative Order No. 36 series of 1991,entitled "Guidelines Governing the Confiscation, Seizure and Disposition of Wild Flora andFauna Illegally Collected, Gathered, Acquired, Transported, and Imported IncludingParaphernalia" and the revised Penal Code.

Section 3. Disposition of Confiscated Species. Confiscated species of Dugong or Sea cow,or any of its by-products shall be forfeited in favor of the DENR for disposition to any



research institution as determined by the DENR pursuant to section 9 of DENRAdministrative Order No. 36, series of 1991.

Section 4. Implementing DENR Unit. The Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB)through the Pawikan Conservation Projects (PCP) shall lead the implementation of thisorder. It shall generate funds and implement a national program for the conservation and

protection of the country's remaining Dugong or Sea Cow population and shall alsocoordinate with other concerned agencies likewise involved in the conservation andmanagement of the country's marine resources.

The Offices of the Undersecretary for Environment and Research and the Undersecretary forField Operations through their respective bureau and regional offices shall assist PAWB inthe reinforcement of the provisions of this Order.

Effectivity. This Order shall take effect fifteen (15) days after publication in newspaper of

general circulation

Section 3. Coverage (15-kilometer municipal water)

The coverage of this administrative order shall be all the municipal waters as defined bySec. 4(58) of RA 8550, which include, not only streams, lakes, inland bodies of water andtidal waters within the municipality which are not included within the protected areas asdefined under RA 7586 (The NIPAS Law), public forest, timber lands, forest reserves orfishery reserves, but also marine waters included between two (2) lines drawnperpendicular to the general coastline from points where the boundary lines of themunicipality touch the sea at low tide and a third line parallel with the general coastlineincluding offshore islands and fifteen (15) kilometers from such coastline. Where two (2)municipalities are situated on opposite shores that there is less than thirty (30) kilometers

of marine waters between them, the third line shall be equally distant from opposite shoreof the respective municipalities. This administrative order shall not be construed to precludespecial agencies or offices in exercising their jurisdiction over municipal waters by virtue of special laws creating these agencies such as, but not limited to, the Laguna LakeDevelopment Authority and the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development, pursuant toSec. 17 of RA 8550.

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1599

ESTABLISHING AN EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

WHEREAS, an exclusive economic zone extending to a distance of two hundred nautical milesfrom the baselines from which the territorial sea is measured is vital to the economic survival anddevelopment of the Republic of the Philippines;

WHEREAS, such a zone is now a recognized principle of international law;



NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDI NAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby decree and order:

Section 1. There is hereby established a zone to be known as the exclusive economic zone of thePhilippines. The exclusive economic zone shall extend to a distance of two hundred nautical

miles beyond and from the baselines from which the territorial sea is measured: Provided, That,where the outer limits of the zone as thus determined overlap the exclusive economic zone of anadjacent or neighboring state, the common boundaries shall be determined by agreement with thestate concerned or in accordance with pertinent generally recognized principles of internationallaw on delimitation.

Section 2. Without prejudice to the rights of the Republic of the Philippines over it territorial seaand continental shelf, it shall have and exercise in the exclusive economic zone establishedherein the following;

(a) Sovereignty rights for the purpose of exploration and exploitation,

conservation and management of the natural resources, whether living or non-living, both renewable and non-renewable, of the sea-bed, including the subsoiland the superjacent waters, and with regard to other activities for the economicexploitation and exploration of the resources of the zone, such as the productionof energy from the water, currents and winds;

(b) Exclusive rights and jurisdiction with respect to the establishment andutilization of artificial islands, off-shore terminals, installations and structures, the preservation of the marine environment, including the prevention and control of pollution, and scientific research;

(c) Such other rights as are recognized by international law or state practice.

Section 3. Except in accordance with the terms of any agreement entered into with the Republicof the Philippines or of any license granted by it or under authority by the Republic of thePhilippines, no person shall, in relation to the exclusive economic zone:

(a) explore or exploit any resources;

(b) carry out any search, excavation or drilling operations:

(c) conduct any research;

(d) construct, maintain or operate any artificial island, off-shore terminal,installation or other structure or device; or

(e) perform any act or engage in any activity which is contrary to, or in derogationof, the sovereign rights and jurisdiction herein provided.



Nothing herein shall be deemed a prohibition on a citizen of the Philippines, whether natural or juridical, against the performance of any of the foregoing acts, if allowed under existing laws.

Section 4. Other states shall enjoy in the exclusive economic zone freedoms with respect tonavigation and overflight, the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally

lawful uses of the sea relating to navigation and communications.

Section 5. (a) The President may authorize the appropriate government office/agency to makeand promulgate such rules and regulations which may be deemed proper and necessary for carrying out the purposes of this degree.

(b) Any person who shall violate any provision of this decree or of any rule or regulation promulgated hereunder and approved by the President shall be subjectto a fine which shall not be less than two thousand pesos (P2,000.00) nor be morethan one hundred thousand pesos (100,000.00) or imprisonment ranging from six(6) months to ten (10) years, or both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion

of the court.V

essels and other equipment or articles used in connection therewithshall be subject to seizure and forfeiture.



CHAPTER VI PROHIBITIONS AND PENALTIES

SECTION 86. Unauthorized Fishing or Engaging in Other Unauthorized Fisheries Activities. - No personshall exploit, occupy, produce, breed, culture, capture or gather fish, fry or fingerlings of any fisheries species or fishery products, or engage in any fishery activity in Philippine waters without a license, lease or permit.

Discovery of any person in an area where he has no permit or registration papers for a fishing vessel shallconstitute a prima facie presumption that the person and/or vessel is engaged in unauthorized fishing: Provided, Thatfishing for daily food sustenance or for leisure which is not for commercial, occupation or livelihood purposes may

be allowed.It shall be unlawful for any commercial fishing vessel to fish in bays and in such other fishery management

areas which may hereinafter be declared as over-exploited.Any commercial fishing boat captain or the three (3) highest officers of the boat who commit any of the

above prohibited acts upon conviction shall be punished by a fine equivalent to the value of catch or Ten thousand pesos (P 10,000.00) whichever is higher, and imprisonment of six (6) months, confiscation of catch and fishinggears, and automatic revocation of license.

It shall be unlawful for any person not listed in the registry of municipal fisherfolk to engage in anycommercial fishing activity in municipal waters. Any municipal fisherfolk who commits such violation shall be

punished by confiscation of catch and a fine of Five hundred pesos (P 500.00).Rule 86.1. Leisure or game fishing ± The Department, through BFAR in coordination with the Department of

Tourism (DOT) and other concerned agencies, shall issue, within one (1) year from the effectivity of

this IRR, the appropriate FAO for leisure or game fishing.SECTION 87. Poaching in Philippine Waters. - It shall be unlawful for any foreign person, corporation or

entity to fish or operate any fishing vessel in Philippine waters.The entry of any foreign fishing vessel in Philippine waters shall constitute a prima facie evidence that the

vessel is engaged in fishing in Philippine waters.Violation of the above shall be punished by a fine of One hundred thousand U.S. Dollar (US$ 100,000.00),

in addition to the confiscation of its catch, fishing equipment and fishing vessel: Provided, That the Department isempowered to impose an administrative fine of not less than Fifty thousand U.S. Dollars (US$ 50,000.00) but notmore than Two hundred thousand U.S. Dollars (US$ 200,000.00) or its equivalent in the Philippine Currency.The Department, through BFAR, shall:

Rule 87.1. Regulation ± Coordinate with CABCOM-MOA Technical Working Group and other law

enforcement agencies and issue the appropriate FAO, within six (6) months from the effectivity of

this IRR, on poaching in Philippine waters;

Rule 87.2. Reports ± Coordinate with DOTC to require officers of inter-island vessels, skippers and officers of commercial fishing vessels to report sightings of foreign vessels.SECTION 88. Fishing Through Explosives, Noxious or Poisonous Substance, and/or Electricity. -(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to catch, take or gather or cause to be caught, taken or gathered, fish

or any fishery species in Philippine waters with the use of electricity, explosives, noxious or poisonous substancesuch as sodium cyanide in the Philippine fishery areas, which will kill, stupefy, disable or render unconscious fish or




fishery species: Provided, That the Department, subject to such safeguards and conditions deemednecessary and endorsement from the concerned LGUs, may allow, for research, educational or scientific purposesonly, the use of electricity, poisonous or noxious substances to catch, take or gather fish or fishery species: Provided,further, That the use of poisonous or noxious substances to eradicate predators in fishponds in accordance withaccepted scientific practices and without causing adverse environmental impact in neighboring waters and groundsshall not be construed as illegal fishing.

It will likewise be unlawful for any person, corporation or entity to possess, deal in sell or in any manner dispose of, any fish or fishery species which have been illegally caught, taken or gathered.

The discovery of dynamite, other explosives and chemical compounds which contain combustibleelements, or noxious or poisonous substances, or equipment or device for electro-fishing in any fishing vessel or inthe possession of any fisherfolk, operator, fishing boat official or fishworker shall constitute prima facie evidence,that the same was used for fishing in violation of this Code. The discovery in any fishing vessel of fish caught or killed with the use of explosive, noxious or poisonous substances or by electricity shall constitute prima facieevidence that the fisherfolk, operator, boat official or fishworker is fishing with the use thereof.

(2) Mere possession of explosive, noxious or poisonous substances or electrofishing devices for illegalfishing shall be punishable by imprisonment ranging from six (6) months to two (2) years.

(3) Actual use of explosives, noxious or poisonous substances or electrofishing devices for illegal fishingshall be punishable by imprisonment ranging from five (5) years to ten (10) years without prejudice to the filing of separate criminal cases when the use of the same result to physical injury or loss of human life.

(4) Dealing in, selling, or in any manner disposing of, for profit, illegally caught/gathered fisheries species

shall be punished by imprisonment ranging from six (6) months to two (2) years.(5) In all cases enumerated above, the explosives, noxious or poisonous substances and/or electrical

devices, as well as the fishing vessels, fishing equipment and catch shall be forfeited.Rule 88.1. Regulation on confiscated catch, fishing vessels, gears and paraphernalia ± The Department,

through BFAR, shall issue, within one (1) year from the effectivity of this IRR, the appropriate FAO

on the disposition of confiscated catch and impoundment of fishing vessels, equipment and other

fishing paraphernalia.SECTION 89. Use of Fine Mesh Net. - It shall be unlawful to engage in fishing using nets with mesh

smaller than that with which may be fixed by the Department: Provided, That the prohibition on the use of fine meshnet shall not apply to the gathering of fry, glass eels, elvers, tabios, and alamang and such species which by their nature are small but already mature to be identified in the implementing rules and regulations by the Department.

Violation of the above shall subject the offender to a fine from Two thousand pesos (P 2,000.00) to Twentythousand pesos (P 20,000.00) or imprisonment from six (6) months to two (2) years or both such fine and

imprisonment at the discretion of the court: Provided, That if the offense is committed by a commercial fishingvessel, the boat captain and the master fisherman shall also be subject to the penalties provided herein: Provided,further, That the owner/operator of the commercial fishing vessel who violates this provision shall be subjected tothe same penalties provided herein: Provided, finally, That the Department is hereby empowered to impose upon theoffender an administrative fine and/or cancel his permit or license or both.The Department, through BFAR, shall:

Rule 89.1. Regulation of mesh sizes ± Issue the appropriate FAO, within one (1) year from the effectivity of

this IRR on the allowable mesh size for different gears which may serve as guidelines for LGUs in the

implementation of this prohibition in municipal waters;




Rule 89.2. Determination of juvenile fishes ± Issue the appropriate FAO on fishes considered in juvenile stage

and penalizing possession thereof.SECTION 90. Use of Active Gear in the Municipal Waters and Bays and Other Fishery Management

Areas. - It shall be unlawful to engage in fishing in municipal waters and in all bays as well as other fisherymanagement areas using active fishing gears as defined in this Code. Violators of the above prohibitions shall suffer the following penalties:

(1) The boat captain and master fisherman of the vessels who participated in the violation shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment from two (2) years to six (6) years;

(2) The owner/operator of the vessel shall be fined from Two thousand pesos (P 2,000.00) to Twentythousand pesos (P 20,000.00) upon the discretion of the court.

If the owner/operator is a corporation, the penalty shall be imposed on the chief executive officer of theCorporation.

If the owner/operator is a partnership the penalty shall be imposed on the managing partner.(3) The catch shall be confiscated and forfeited.

Rule 90.1. Regulation ± The Department, through BFAR, shall issue, within one (1) year from the effectivity

of this IRR, the appropriate FAO to implement this Section.SECTION 91. Ban on Coral Exploitation and Exportation. - It shall be unlawful for any person or

corporation to gather, possess, sell or export ordinary precious and semi-precious corals, whether raw or in processed form, except for scientific or research purposes.

Violation of this provision shall be punished by imprisonment from six (6) months to two (2) years and a

fine from Two thousand pesos (P 2,000.00) to Twenty thousand pesos (P 20,000.00), or both such fine andimprisonment, at the discretion of the court, and forfeiture of the subject corals, including the vessel and its proper disposition.

The confiscated corals shall either be returned to the sea or donated to schools and museums for educational or scientific purposes or disposed through other means.Rule 91.1. Regulation ± The Department, through BFAR, shall issue, within one (1) year from effectivity of

the IRR, the appropriate FAO to implement this Section.SECTION 92. Ban on Muro-Ami, Other Methods and Gear Destructive to Coral Reefs and Other Marine

Habitat. - It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or juridical, to fish with gear method that destroys coral reefs,seagrass beds, and other fishery marine life habitat as may be determined by the Department. ³Muro-Ami´ and anyof its variation, and such similar gear and methods that require diving, other physical or mechanical acts to poundthe coral reefs and other habitat to entrap, gather of catch fish and other fishery species are also prohibited.

The operator, boat captain, master fisherman, and recruiter or organizer of fishworkers who violate this

provision shall suffer a penalty of Two (2) years to ten (10) years imprisonment and a fine of not less than Onehundred thousand pesos (P 100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P 500,000.00) or both such fine andimprisonment, at the discretion of the court. The catch and gear used shall be confiscated.

It shall likewise be unlawful for any person or corporation to gather, sell or export white sand, silica, pebbles and any other substances which make up any marine habitat.




The person or corporation who violates this provision shall suffer a penalty of two (2) years to ten (10)years imprisonment and a fine of not less than One hundred thousand pesos (P 100,000.00) to Five hundredthousand pesos (P500,000.00) or both such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court. The substancetaken from its marine habitat shall be confiscated.Rule 92.1. Regulations ± The Department, through BFAR, shall issue within one (1) year from the effectivity

of this IRR, the appropriate FAO to implement this Section;

Rule 92.2. Regulation by LGUs ± The LGUs shall enact the appropriate Municipal Fisheries Ordinance

prohibiting destructive fishing gears and its variations in accordance with national policies;

Rule 92.3. Regulation ± The LGUs, in consultation with the Bureau of Mines and Geo-sciences shall issue the

appropriate Municipal Fisheries Ordinance prohibiting the gathering, selling, mining, exporting of

white sand which include coralline and coral sand, silica and pebbles.SECTION 93. Illegal Use of Superlights. - It shall be unlawful to engage in fishing in with the use of

superlights in municipal waters or in violation of the rules and regulations which may be promulgated by theDepartment on the use of superlights outside municipal waters.

Violation of this provision shall be punished by imprisonment from six (6) months to two (2) years or a fineof Five thousand pesos (P 5,000.00) per superlight, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of thecourts. The superlight, fishing gears and vessel shall be confiscated.

SECTION 94. Conversion of Mangroves. - It shall be unlawful for any person to convert mangroves intofishponds or for any other purposes.

Violation of the provision of this section shall be punished by imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1)

day to twelve (12) years and/or a fine of Eighty thousand pesos (P 80,000.00): Provided, That if the area requiresrehabilitation or restoration as determined by the court, the offender should also be requires rehabilitation or restoration as determined by the court, the offender should also be required to restore or compensate for therestoration of the damage.

SECTION 95. Fishing in Overfished Area and During Closed Season. - It shall be unlawful to fish inoverfished area and during closed season.

Violation of the provision of this section shall be punished by imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1)day to six (6) years and/or fine of Six thousand pesos (P 6,000.00) and by forfeiture of the catch and cancellation of fishing permit or license.

SECTION 96. Fishing in Fishery Reserves, Refuge and Sanctuaries. - It shall be unlawful to fish in fisheryareas declared by the Department as fishery reserves, refuge and sanctuaries.

Violation of the provision of this section shall be punished by imprisonment of Two (2) years to Six (6)years and/or fine of Two thousand pesos (P 2,000.00) to Twenty thousand pesos (P 20,000.00) and by forfeiture of

the catch and the cancellation of fishing permit or license.SECTION 97. Fishing or Taking of Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species. - It shall be unlawful to fish

or take rare, threatened or endangered species as listed in the CITES and as determined by the Department.Violation of the provision of this section shall be punished by imprisonment of twelve (12) years to twenty

(20) years and/or a fine of One hundred and twenty thousand pesos (P 120,000.00) and forfeiture of the catch, andthe cancellation of fishing permit.




SECTION 98. Capture of Sabalo and Other Breeders/Spawners. - It shall be unlawful for any person tocatch, gather, capture or possess mature milkfish or ³sabalo´ and such other breeders or spawners of other fisheryspecies as may be determined by the Department: Provided, That catching of ³sabalo´ and other breeders/spawnersfor local breeding purposes or scientific or research purposes may be allowed subject to guidelines to be

promulgated by the Department.Violation of the provision of this section shall be punished by imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1)

day to eight (8) years and/or a fine of Eighty thousand pesos (P 80,000.00) and forfeiture of the catch, and fishingequipment used and revocation of license.The Department, through BFAR, shall:

Rule 98.1. Regulation ± Issue, within one (1) year upon effectivity of this IRR, the appropriate FAO on the list

of breeders or spawners of important fishery species to be included in this ban and when necessary,

declare a closed season on important fisheries areas where these spawners are found during known

spawning time.SECTION 99. Exportation of Breeders, Spawners, Eggs or Fry. - Exportation of breeders, spawners, eggs

or fry as prohibited in this Code shall be punished by imprisonment of eight (8) years, confiscation of the same or afine equivalent to double the value of the same, and revocation of the fishing and/or export license/permit.

SECTION 100. Importation or Exportation of Fish or Fishery Species. - Any importation or exportation of fish or fisheries species in violation of this Code shall be punished by eight (8) years of imprisonment, a fine of Eighty thousand pesos (P 80,000.00) and destruction of live fishery species or forfeiture of non-live fishery speciesin favor of the department for its proper disposition: Provided, That violator of this provision shall be banned from

being members or stock holders of companies currently engaged in fisheries or companies to be created in thefuture, the guidelines for which shall be promulgated by the Department.

SECTION 101. Violation of Catch Ceilings. - It shall be unlawful for any person to fish in violation of catch ceilings as determined by the Department.Violation of the provision of this section shall be punished byimprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years and/or a fine of Fifty thousand pesos (P 50,000.00)and forfeiture of the catch, and fishing equipment used and revocation of license.

SECTION 102. Aquatic Pollution. - Aquatic pollution, as defined in this Code shall be unlawful.Violation of the provision of this section shall be punished by imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1)

day to twelve (12) years and/or a fine of Eighty thousand pesos (P 80,000.00) plus an additional fine of Eightthousand pesos (P 8,000.00) per day until such violation ceases and the fines paid.

SECTION 103. Other Violations. - The following fisheries activities shall also be considered as a violationof this Code:

a. Failure to Comply with Minimum Safety Standards. - The owner and captain of a commercial fishing

vessel engaged in fishing who, upon demand by proper authorities, fails to exhibit or show proof of compliance withthe safety standards provided in this Code, shall be immediately prevented from continuing with his fishing activityand escorted to the nearest port or landing point. The license to operate the commercial fishing vessel shall besuspended until the safety standard has been complied with.

b. Failure to Conduct a Yearly Report on all Fishponds, Fish Pens, Fish Cages. - The FLA of the holder who fails to render a yearly report shall be immediately canceled: Provided, That if the offender be the owner of thefishpond, fish pen or fish cage, he shall be subjected to the following penalties: (1) first offense, a fine of Fivehundred pesos (P 500.00) per unreported hectare; (2) subsequent offenses, a fine of One thousand pesos (P 1,000.00)

per unreported hectare.




c. Gathering and Marketing of Shell Fishes. - It shall be unlawful for any person to take, sell, transfer, or have in possession for any purposes any shell fish which is sexually mature or below the minimum size or above themaximum qualities prescribed for the particular species.

d. Obstruction to Navigation or Flow and Ebb of Tide in any Stream, River, Lake or Bay. - It shall beunlawful for any person who causes obstruction to navigation or flow or ebb of tide.

e. Construction and Operation of Fish Corrals/Traps, Fish Pens and Fish Cages. - It shall be unlawful toconstruct and operate fish corrals/traps, fish pens and fish cages without a license/permit.

Subject to the provision of subparagraph (b) of this section, violation of the above-enumerated prohibitedacts shall subject the offender to a fine ranging from Two thousand pesos (P 2,000.00) to Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) or imprisonment from one (1) month and one (1) day to six months, or both such fine and imprisonment,upon the discretion of the court: Provided, That the Secretary is hereby empowered to impose upon the offender anadministrative fine of not more than Ten thousand pesos (P 10,000.00) or to cancel his permit or license, or toimpose such fine and to cancel his permit or license, in the discretion of the Secretary : Provided, further, That theSecretary, or his duly authorized representative, and law enforcement agents are hereby empowered to impound withthe assistance of the Philippine Coast Guard, PNP-Maritime Command: Provided, finally, That any person whounlawfully obstructs or delays the inspection and/or movement of fish and fishery/aquatic products when suchinspection and/or movement is authorized under this Code, shall be subject to a fine of not more than Ten thousand

pesos(P 10,000.00) or imprisonment of not more than two (2) years, or both such fine and imprisonment, upon thediscretion of the court.

Every penalty imposed for the commission of an offense shall carry with it the forfeiture of the proceeds of

such offense and the instruments or tools with which it was committed.Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government,

unless they be the property of a third person not liable for the offense, but those articles which are not subject of lawful commerce shall be destroyed.

SECTION 104. Commercial Fishing Vessel Operators Employing Unlicensed Fisherfolk or Fishworker or Crew. - The owner/operator of a commercial fishing vessel employing unlicensed fisherfolk or fishworker shall befined Five hundred pesos (P 500.00) each for every month that the same has been employed and/or One thousand

pesos (P 1,000.00) for every month for each unlicensed crew member who has been employed.Rule 104.1. Fishworker license ± The validity of the license of the fishworker shall be three (3) years from the

date of issuance thereof.SECTION 105. Obstruction of Defined Migration Paths. - Obstruction of any defined migration paths of

anadromous, catadromous and other migratory species, in areas including , but not limited to river mouths andestuaries within a distance determined by the concerned FARMCs shall be punished by imprisonment of seven (7)

years to twelve (12) years or a fine from Fifty thousand pesos (P 50,000.00) to One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or both imprisonment and fine at the discretion of the court, and cancellation of permit/license, if any,and dismantling of obstruction shall be at his own expense and confiscation of same.SECTION 106. Obstruction to Fishery Law Enforcement Officer. - The boat owner, master or operator or any

person acting on his behalf of any fishing vessel who evades, obstructs or hinder any fishery law enforcement officer

of the Department to perform his duty, shall be fined Ten thousand pesos (P 10,000.00). In addition, the registration,

permit and/or license of the vessel including the license of the master fisherman shall be canceled.

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 979

[PROVIDING FOR THE REVISION OF PRESIDENTIALDECREE NO. 600 GOVERNING MARINE POLLUTION]

WHEREAS, the marine environment and theliving organisms which it supports are



vital of importance to humanity, and all people have an interest in assuring that itis managed and protected, and its qualityis not impaired;

WHEREAS, recognizing that the capacity ofthe sea to assimilate wastes and renderthem harmless, and its ability toregenerate natural resources is limited;

WHEREAS, knowing that the marine pollution

originates from many sources, such asdumping and discharging through the rivers,estuaries, brooks or springs.

WHEREAS, it is our responsibility tocontrol public and private activities thatcause damage to the marine environment byusing the best practicable means and bydeveloping improved disposal processes to

minimize harmful w

WHEREAS, there is a urgent need to prevent, mitigate or eliminate the increasingdamages to marine resources as a result of

pollution;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ferdinand E. Marcos,President of the Philippines, by virtue ofthe powers vested in me by theConstitution, do hereby decree and order



the following:

Section 1

Title

This Decree shall be known as the "Marine

Pollution Decree of 1976."

Section 2

Statement of Policy

It is hereby declared a national policy to prevent and control the pollution of seas by the dumping of wastes and other matter which create hazards to human health, harm living resources and marine life, damageamenities, or interfere with the legitimateuses of the sea within the territorialjurisdiction of the Philippines.

Section 3

Definition of Terms

For the purposes of this decree:

a. Discharge includes, but is notlimited to, any spilling, leaking,

pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying ordumping but does not include dischargeof effluent from industrial or

manufacturing establishments, or millof any kind.



b. Dumping means any deliberatedisposal at sea and into navigable

waters of wastes or other matter from vessels, aircraft, platforms or other

man-made structures at sea, includingthe disposal of wastes or other matterdirectly arising from or related to theexploration, exploitation and associated off-shore processing of sea

bed mineral resources unless the same

is permitted and/or regulated underthis decree: Provided, That it does not

mean a disposition of any effluent from any outfall structure to the extentthat such disposition is regulated under the provisions of Republic Act

Numbered Three Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty One, nor does it mean a routinedischarge of effluent or other matterincidental to the propulsion of, orderived from the normal operations ofvessels, aircraft, platforms or other

man-made structures at sea and theirequipment.

b. Oil means oil of any kind or in anyform including, but not limited to,

petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oilrefuse, and oil mixed with wastes otherthan dredge spoil.



c. Navigable Waters means the watersof the Philippines, including theterritorial sea and inland waters whichare presently, or be in the futuresusceptible for use by watercraft.

d. Vessel means every description of watercraft, or other artificialcontrivance used, or capable of beingused, as a means of transportation on

water.

e. Person includes any being, naturalor juridical, susceptible of rights and obligations or of being the subject oflegal relations.

f. Refuse means garbage, waste, wood residues, sand, lime cinder ashes,offal, nightsoil, tar, dye stuffs,acids, chemicals and substances otherthan sewage and industrial wastes that

may cause pollution.

Section 4

Prohibited Acts

Except in cases of emergency imperilinglife or property, or unavoidable accident,collision, or stranding or in any cases

which constitute danger to human life or



property or a real threat to vessels,aircraft, platforms, or other man-madestructure, or if dumping appears to be theonly way of averting the threat and ifthere is probability that the damageconsequent upon such dumping will be lessthan would otherwise occur, and except asotherwise permitted by regulations

prescribed by the National PollutionControl Commission or the Philippine CoastGuard, it shall be unlawful for any person

to:

a. discharge, dump, or suffer, permitthe discharge of oil, noxious gaseousand liquid substances and other harmfulsubstances from or out of any ship,vessel, barge, or any other floatingcraft, or other man-made structures atsea, by any method, means or manner,into or upon the territorial and inland navigable waters of the Philippines;

b. throw, discharge or deposit, dump,or cause, suffer or procure to bethrown, discharged, or deposited eitherfrom or out of any ship, barge, or

other floating craft or vessel of anykind, or from the shore, wharf,

manufacturing establishment, or mill ofany kind, any refuse matter of any kind or description whatever other than that



flowing from streets and sewers and passing therefrom in a liquid stateinto tributary of any navigable waterfrom which the same shall float or be

washed into such navigable water; and

c. deposit or cause, suffer or procureto be deposited material of any kind inany place on the bank of any navigable

water, or on the bank of any tributaryof any navigable water, where the same

shall be liable to be washed into suchnavigable water, either by ordinary orhigh tides, or by storms or floods, orotherwise, whereby navigation shall or

may be impeded or obstructed orincrease the level of pollution of such

water.

Section 5

Primary Responsibility

It shall be the primary responsibility ofthe National Pollution Control Commissionto promulgate national rules and policiesgoverning marine pollution, including butnot limited to the discharge of effluents

from any outfall structure, industrial and manufacturing establishments or mill of anykind to the extent that it is regulated under the provisions of Republic Act

Numbered Three Thousand Nine Hundred



Thirty-One, and to issue the appropriaterules and regulations upon consultation

with the Philippine Coast Guard.

The Philippine Coast Guard shall promulgateits own rules and regulations in accordance

with the national rules and policies set bythe National Pollution Control Commissionupon consultation with the latter, for theeffective implementation and enforcement ofthis decree and other applicable laws,

rules and regulations promulgated by thegovernment.

The rules and regulations issued by the National Pollution Control Commission orthe Philippine Coast Guard shall notinclude deposit of oyster, shells, or other

materials when such deposit is made for the

purpose of developing, maintaining orharvesting fisheries resources and isotherwise regulated by law or occurs

pursuant to an authorized government program: Provided, That the PhilippineCoast Guard, whenever in its judgmentnavigation will not be injured thereby and upon consultation with and concurrence ofthe National Pollution Control Commission

may permit the deposit of any of the materials above-mentioned in navigable waters, and whenever any permit is sogranted, the conditions thereof shall be



strictly complied with.

Section 6

Enforcement and Implementation

The Philippine Coast Guard shall have the primary responsibility of enforcing thelaws, rules and regulations governing

marine pollution. However, it shall be thejoint responsibility of the Philippine

Coast Guard and the National PollutionControl Commission to coordinate and cooperate with each other in theenforcement of the provisions of thisdecree and its implementing rules and regulations, and may call upon any othergovernment office, instrumentality oragency to extend every assistance in this

respect.

Section 7

Penalties for Violations

Any person who violates Section 4 of thisDecree or any regulations prescribed in

pursuance thereof, shall be liable for afine of not less than Two Hundred Pesos nor more than Ten Thousand Pesos or byimprisonment of not less than thirty daysnor more than one year or both such fineand imprisonment, for each offense, without



prejudice to the civil liability of theoffender in accordance with existing laws.

Any vessel from which oil or other harmful

substances are discharged in violation ofSection 4 or any regulation prescribed in

pursuance thereof, shall be liable for the penalty of fine specified in this section,and clearance of such vessel from the portof the Philippines may be withheld untilthe fine is paid.

In addition to the penalties above- prescribed, the Philippine Coast Guard shall provide in its rules and regulationssuch reasonable administrative penalties as

may be necessary for the effectiveimplementation of this decree.

Section 8

Containment-Recovery System

The Philippine Coast shall develop anadequate capability for containment and recovery of spilled oil for inland watersand high seas use. An initial amount of

five (5) million pesos is herebyappropriated for the procurement ofnecessary equipment for this purpose. Forthe succeeding fiscal years, theappropriation for the development of such



capability shall be included in thePhilippine Coast Guard portion of theGeneral Appropriation Decree.

CHAPTER III

APPROPRIATION OF WATERS

Article 9. Waters may be appropriated and used in accordance with the provisions of this Code.

Appropriation of water, as used in this Code, is the acquisition of rights over the use of waters or the taking or diverting of waters from a natural source in the manner and for any purposeallowed by law.

Article 10. Water may be appropriated for the following purposes:

(a) Domestic

(b) Municipal

(c) Irrigation

(d) Power generation

(e)F

isheries

(f) Livestock raising

(g) Industrial

(h) Recreational, and

(i) Other purposes

Use of water for domestic purposes is the utilization of water for drinking, washing, bathing,

cooking or other household needs, home gardens, and watering of lawns or domestic animals.

Use of water for municipal purposes is the utilization of water for supplying the water requirements of the community.

Use of water for irrigation is the utilization of water for producing agricultural crops.



Use of water for power generation is the utilization of water for producing electrical or mechanical power.

Use of water for fisheries is the utilization of water for the propagation and culture of fish as acommercial enterprise.

Use of water for livestock raising is the utilization of water for large herds or flocks of animalsraised as a commercial enterprise.

Use of water for industrial purposes is the utilization of water in factories, industrial plants andmines, including the use of water as an ingredient of a finished product.

Use of water for recreational purposes is the utilization of water for swimming pools, bathhouses, boating, water skiing, golf courses and other similar facilities in resorts and other placesof recreation.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 68166. February 12, 1997]

HEIRS OF EMILIANO NAVARRO, Petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE

COURT AND HEIRS OF SINFOROSO PASCUAL , Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

Unique is the legal question visited upon the claim of an applicant in a Land Registration case byoppositors thereto, the Government and a Government lessee, involving as it does ownership of land formed by alluvium.

The applicant owns the property immediately adjoining the land sought to be registered. Hisregistered property is bounded on the east by the Talisay River, on the west by the BulacanRiver, and on the north by the Manila Bay. The Talisay River and the Bulacan River flow downtowards the Manila Bay and act as boundaries of the applicant's registered land on the east and

on the west.

The land sought to be registered was formed at the northern tip of the applicant's land.Applicant's registered property is bounded on the north by the Manila Bay.

The issue: May the land sought to be registered be deemed an accretion in the sense that itnaturally accrues in favor of the riparian owner or should the land be considered as foreshoreland?



Before us is a petition for review of: (1) the decision1 and (2) two subsequent resolutions2 of theIntermediate Appellate Court3 (now the Court of Appeals) in Land Registration Case No. N-84,4 the application over which was filed by private respondents' predecessor-in-interest, SinforosoPascual, now deceased, before the Court of First Instance5 (now the Regional Trial Court) of Balanga, Bataan.

There is no dispute as to the following facts:

On October 3, 1946, Sinforoso Pascual, now deceased, filed an application for foreshore leasecovering a tract of foreshore land in Sibocon, Balanga, Bataan, having an area of approximatelyseventeen (17) hectares. This application was denied on January 15, 1953. So was his motion for reconsideration.

Subsequently, petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, also now deceased, Emiliano Navarro, filed afishpond application with the Bureau of Fisheries covering twenty five (25) hectares of foreshoreland also in Sibocon, Balanga, Bataan. Initially, such application was denied by the Director of F

isheries on the ground that the property formed part of the public domain. Upon motion for reconsideration, the Director of Fisheries, on May 27, 1988, gave due course to his application but only to the extent of seven (7) hectares of the property as may be certified by the Bureau of Forestry as suitable for fishpond purposes.

The Municipal Council of Balanga, Bataan, had opposed Emiliano Navarro's application.Aggrieved by the decision of the Director of Fisheries, it appealed to the Secretary of NaturalResources who, however, affirmed the grant. The then Executive Secretary, acting in behalf of the President of the Philippines, similarly affirmed the grant.

On the other hand, sometime in the early part of 1960, Sinforoso Pascual filed an application to

register and confirm his title to a parcel of land, situated in Sibocon, Balanga, Bataan, describedin Plan Psu-175181 and said to have an area of 146,611 square meters. Pascual claimed that thisland is an accretion to his property, situated in Barrio Puerto Rivas, Balanga, Bataan, andcovered by Original Certificate of Title No. 6830. It is bounded on the eastern side by the TalisayRiver, on the western side by the Bulacan River, and on the northern side by the Manila Bay.The Talisay River as well as the Bulacan River flow downstream and meet at the Manila Baythereby depositing sand and silt on Pascual's property resulting in an accretion thereon. SinforosoPascual claimed the accretion as the riparian owner.

On March 25, 1960, the Director of Lands, represented by the Assistant Solicitor General, filedan opposition thereto stating that neither Pascual nor his predecessors-in-interest possessedsufficient title to the subject property, the same being a portion of the public domain and,therefore, it belongs to the Republic of the Philippines. The Director of Forestry, through theProvincial Fiscal, similarly opposed Pascual's application for the same reason as that advanced by the Director of Lands. Later on, however, the Director of Lands withdrew his opposition. TheDirector of Forestry become the sole oppositor.

On June 2, 1960, the court a quo issued an order of general default excepting the Director of Lands and the Director of Forestry.



Upon motion of Emiliano Navarro, however, the order of general default was lifted and, onFebruary 13, 1961, Navarro thereupon filed an opposition to Pascual's application. Navarroclaimed that the land sought to be registered has always been part of the public domain, it beinga part of the foreshore of Manila Bay; that he was a lessee and in possession of a part of thesubject property by virtue of a fishpond permit issued by the Bureau of Fisheries and confirmed

by the Office of the President; and that he had already converted the area covered by the leaseinto a fishpond.

During the pendency of the land registration case, that is, on November 6, 1960, SinforosoPascual filed a complaint for ejectment against Emiliano Navarro, one Marcelo Lopez and their privies, alleged by Pascual to have unlawfully claimed and possessed, through stealth, force andstrategy, a portion of the subject property covered by Plan Psu-175181. The defendants in thecase were alleged to have built a provisional dike thereon: thus they have thereby deprivedPascual of the premises sought to be registered. This, notwithstanding repeated demands for defendants to vacate the property.

The case was decided adversely against Pascual. Thus, Pascual appealed to the Court of F

irstInstance (now Regional Trial Court) of Balanga, Bataan, the appeal having been docketed asCivil Case No. 2873. Because of the similarity of the parties and the subject matter, the appealedcase for ejectment was consolidated with the land registration case and was jointly tried by thecourt a quo.

During the pendency of the trial of the consolidated cases, Emiliano Navarro died on November 1, 1961 and was substituted by his heirs, the herein petitioners.

Subsequently, on August 26, 1962, Pascual died and was substituted by his heirs, the herein private respondents.

On November 10, 1975, the court a quo rendered judgment finding the subject property to beforeshore land and, being a part of the public domain, it cannot be the subject of land registration proceedings.

The decision's dispositive portion reads:

"WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered:

(1) Dismissing plaintiff [private respondent] Sinforoso Pascual's complaint for ejectment in CivilCase No. 2873;

(2) Denying the application of Sinforoso Pascual for land registration over the land in question;and

(3) Directing said Sinforoso Pascual, through his heirs, as plaintiff in Civil Case No. 2873 and asapplicant in Land Registration Case No. N-84 to pay costs in both instances."6

chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary



The heirs of Pascual appealed and, before the respondent appellate court, assigned the followingerrors:

"1. The lower court erred in not finding the land in question as an accretion by the action of theTalisay and Bulacan Rivers to the land admittedly owned by applicants-appellants [private

respondents].

2. The lower court erred in holding that the land in question is foreshore land.

3. The lower court erred in not ordering the registration of the and is controversy in favor of applicants-appellants [private respondents].

4. The lower court erred in not finding that the applicants-appellants [private respondents] areentitled to eject the oppositor-appellee [petitioners]."7


On appeal, the respondent court reversed the findings of the court a quo and granted the petition

for registration of the subject property but excluding therefrom fifty (50) meters from corner 2towards corner 1; and fifty meters (50) meters from corner 5 towards corner 6 of the Psu-175181.

The respondent appellate court explained the reversal in this wise:

"The paramount issue to be resolved in this appeal as set forth by the part ies in their respective briefs is whether or not the land sought to be registered is accretion or foreshore land, or,whether or not said land was formed by the action of the two rivers of Talisay and Bulacan or bythe action of the Manila Bay. If formed by the action of the Talisay and Bulacan rivers, thesubject land is accretion but if formed by the action of the Manila Bay then it is foreshore land.

xxx

It is undisputed that applicants-appellants [private respondents] owned the land immediatelyadjoining the land sought to be registered. Their property which is covered by OCT No. 6830 is bounded on the east by the Talisay River, on the west by the Bulacan River, and on the north bythe Manila Bay. The Talisay and Bulacan rivers come from inland flowing downstream towardsthe Manila Bay. In other words, between the Talisay River and the Bulacan River is the propertyof applicants with both rivers acting as the boundary to said land and the flow of both riversmeeting and emptying into the Manila Bay. The subject land was formed at the tip or apex of appellants' [private respondents'] land adding thereto the land now sought to be registered.

This makes this case quite unique because while it is undisputed that the subject land isimmediately attached to appellants' [private respondents'] land and forms the tip thereof, at thesame time, said land immediately faces the Manila Bay which is part of the sea. We canunderstand therefore the confusion this case might have caused the lower court, faced as it waswith the uneasy problem of deciding whether or not the subject land was formed by the action of the two rivers or by the action of the sea. Since the subject land is found at the shore of theManila Bay facing appellants' [private respondents'] land, it would be quite easy to conclude that



it is foreshore and therefore part of the patrimonial property of the State as the lower court did infact rule x x x.

xxx

It is however undisputed that appellants' [private respondents'] land lies between these two riversand it is precisely appellants' [private respondents'] land which acts as a barricade preventing

these two rivers to meet. Thus, since the flow of the two rivers is downwards to the Manila Baythe sediments of sand and silt are deposited at their mouths.

It is, therefore, difficult to see how the Manila Bay could have been the cause of the depositthereat for in the natural course of things, the waves of the sea eat the land on the shore, as theysuge [sic] inland. It would not therefore add anything to the land but instead subtract from it dueto the action of the waves and the wind. It is then more logical to believe that the two riversflowing towards the bay emptied their cargo of sand, silt and clay at their mouths, thus causingappellants' [private respondents'] land to accumulate therein.

However, our distinguished colleage [sic], Mr. Justice Serrano, do [sic] not seem to accept thistheory and stated that the subject land arose only when x x x Pascual planted 'palapat' and'bakawan' trees thereat to serve as a boundary or strainer. But we do not see how this act of planting trees by Pascual would explain how the land mass came into being. Much less will it prove that the same came from the sea. Following Mr. Justice Serrano's argument that it were thefew trees that acted as strainers or blocks, then the land that grew would have stopped at the place where the said trees were planted. But this is not so because the land mass went far beyondthe boundary, or where the trees were planted.

On the other hand, the picture-exhibits of appellants' [private respondents'] clearly show that the

land that accumulated beyond the so-called boundary, as well as the entire area being applied for is dry land, above sea level, and bearing innumerable trees x x x. The existence of vegetation onthe land could only confirm that the soil thereat came from inland rather than from the sea, for what could the sea bring to the shore but sand, pebbles, stones, rocks and corrals? On the other hand, the two rivers would be bringing soil on their downward flow which they brought alongfrom the eroded mountains, the lands along their path, and dumped them all on the northern portion of appellants' [private respondents'] land.

In view of the foregoing, we have to deviate from the lower court's finding. While it is true thatthe subject land is found at the shore of the Manila Bay fronting appellants' [private respondents']land, said land is not foreshore but an accretion from the action of the Talisay and Bulacanrivers. In fact, this is exactly what the Bureau of Lands found out, as shown in the followingreport of the Acting Provincial Officer, Jesus M. Orozco, to wit:

'Upon ocular inspection of the land subject of this registration made on June 11, 1960, it wasfound out that the said land is x x x sandwitched [sic] by two big rivers x x x These two rivers bring down considerable amount of soil and sediments during floods every year thus raising thesoil of the land adjoining the private property of the applicant [private respondents]. About four-fifth [sic] of the area applied for is now dry land whereon are planted palapat trees thickly



growing thereon. It is the natural action of these two rivers that has caused the formation of saidland x x x subject of this registration case. It has been formed, therefore, by accretion. Andhaving been formed by accretion, the said land may be considered the private property of theriparian owner who is the applicant herein [private respondents'] x x x.

In view of the above, the opposition hereto filed by the government should be withdrawn, exceptfor the portion recommended by the land investigator in his report dated May 2, 1960, to be

excluded and considered foreshore. x x x'

Because of this report, no less than the Solicitor General representing the Bureau of Landswithdrew his opposition dated March 25, 1960, and limited 'the same to the northern portion of the land applied for, compromising a strip 50 meters wide along the Manila Bay, which should be declared public land as part of the foreshore' x x x.8

Pursuant to the aforecited decision, the respondent appellate court ordered the issuance of thecorresponding decree of registration in the name of private respondents and the reversion to

private respondents of the possession of the portion of the subject property included in Navarro'sfishpond permit.

On December 20, 1978, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the aforecited decision.The Director of Forestry also moved for the reconsideration of the same decision. Both motionswere opposed by private respondents on January 27, 1979.

On November 21, 1980, respondent appellate court promulgated a resolution denying the motionfor reconsideration filed by the Director of Forestry. It, however, modified its decision, to read,viz:

"(3). Ordering private oppositors Heirs of Emiliano Navarro to vacate that portion included intheir fishpond permit covered by Plan Psu-175181 and hand over possession of said portion toapplicants-appellants, if the said portion is not within the strip of land fifty (50) meters widealong Manila Bay on the northern portion of the land subject of the registration proceedings andwhich area is more particularly referred to as fifty (50) meters from corner 2 towards corner 1;and fifty (50) meters from corner 5 towards corner 6 of Plan Psu-175181. x x x9


On December 15, 1980, we granted the Solicitor General, acting as counsel for the Director of Forestry, an extension of time within which to file in this court, a petition for review of thedecision dated November 29, 1978 of the respondent appellate court and of the aforecitedresolution dated November 21, 1980.

Thereafter, the Solicitor General, in behalf of the Director of Forestry, filed a petition for reviewentitled, "The Director of Forestry vs. the Court of Appeals."10 We, however, denied the same ina minute resolution dated July 20, 1981, such petition having been prematurely filed at a timewhen the Court of Appeals was yet to resolve petitioners' pending motion to set aside theresolution dated November 21, 1980.



On October 9, 1981, respondent appellate court denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the decision dated November 29, 1978.

On October 17, 1981, respondent appellate court made an entry of judgment stating that thedecision dated November 29, 1978 had become final and executory as against herein petitioners

as oppositors in L.R.C. Case No. N-84 and Civil Case No. 2873 of the Court of F

irstInstance(now the Regional Trial Court) of Balanga, Bataan.

On October 26, 1981, a second motion for reconsideration of the decision dated November 29,1978 was filed by petitioners' new counsel.

On March 26, 1982, respondent appellate court issued a resolution granting petitioners' requestfor leave to file a second motion for reconsideration.

On July 13, 1984, after hearing, respondent appellate court denied petitioners' second motion for reconsideration on the ground that the same was filed out of time, citing Rule 52, Section 1 of the

Rules of Court which provides that a motion for reconsideration shall be made ex-parte and filedwithin fifteen (15) days from the notice of the final order or judgment.

Hence this petition where the respondent appellate court is imputed to have palpably erred inappreciating the facts of the case and to have gravely misapplied statutory and case law relatingto accretion, specifically, Article 457 of the Civil Code.

We find merit in the petition.

The disputed property was brought forth by both the withdrawal of the waters of Manila Bay andthe accretion formed on the exposed foreshore land by the action of the sea which brought soil

and sand sediments in turn trapped by the palapat and bakawan trees planted thereon by petitioner Sulpicio Pascual in 1948.

Anchoring their claim of ownership on Article 457 of the Civil Code, private respondentsvigorously argue that the disputed 14-hectare land is an accretion caused by the joint action of the Talisay and Bulacan Rivers which run their course on the eastern and western boundaries,respectively, of private respondents' own tract of land.

Accretion as a mode of acquiring property under said Article 457, requires the concurrence of thefollowing requisites: (1) that the accumulation of soil or sediment be gradual and imperceptible;(2) that it be the result of the action of the waters of the river; and (3) that the land where the

accretion takes place is adjacent to the bank of the river.

11

Accretion is the process whereby thesoil is deposited, while alluvium is the soil deposited on the estate fronting the river bank;12 theowner of such estate is called the riparian owner. Riparian owners are, strictly speaking, distinctfrom littoral owners, the latter being owners of lands bordering the shore of the sea or lake or other tidal waters.13 The alluvium, by mandate of Article 457 of the Civil Code, is automaticallyowned by the riparian owner from the moment the soil deposit can be seen14 but is notautomatically registered property, hence, subject to acquisition through prescription by third persons.15




Private respondents' claim of ownership over the disputed property under the principle of accretion, is misplaced.

First, the title of private respondents' own tract of land reveals its northeastern boundary to beManila Bay. Private respondents' land, therefore, used to adjoin, border or front the Manila Bay

and not any of the two rivers whose torrential action, private respondents insist, is to account for the accretion on their land. In fact, one of the private respondents, Sulpicio Pascual, testified inopen court that the waves of Manila Bay used to hit the disputed land being part of the bay'sforeshore but, after he had planted palapat and bakawan trees thereon in 1948, the land began torise.16

Moreover, there is no dispute as to the location of: (a) the disputed land; (b) private respondents'own tract of land; (c) the Manila Bay; and, (d) the Talisay and Bulacan Rivers. Privaterespondents' own land lies between the Talisay and Bulacan Rivers; in front of their land on thenorthern side lies now the disputed land where before 1948, there lay the Manila Bay. If theaccretion were to be attributed to the action of either or both of the Talisay and Bulacan Rivers,

the alluvium should have been deposited on either or both of the eastern and western boundariesof private respondents' own tract of land, not on the northern portion thereof which is adjacent tothe Manila Bay. Clearly lacking, thus, is the third requisite of accretion, which is, that thealluvium is deposited on the portion of claimant's land which is adjacent to the river bank.

Second, there is no dispute as to the fact that private respondents' own tract of land adjoins theManila Bay. Manila Bay is obviously not a river, and jurisprudence is already settled as to whatkind of body of water the Manila Bay is. It is to be remembered that we held that:

"Appellant next contends that x x x Manila Bay cannot be considered as a sea. We find saidcontention untenable. A bay is part of the sea, being a mere indentation of the same:

'Bay. An opening into the land where the water is shut in on all sides except at the entrance; aninlet of the sea; an arm of the sea, distinct from a river, a bending or curbing of the shore of thesea or of a lake.' 7 C.J. 1013-1014."17


The disputed land, thus, is an accretion not on a river bank but on a sea bank, or on what used to be the foreshore of Manila Bay which adjoined private respindents' own tract of land on thenorthern side. As such, the applicable law is not Article 457 of the Civil Code but Article 4 of theSpanish Law of Waters of 1866.

The process by which the disputed land was formed, is not difficult to discern from the facts of the case. As the trial court correctly observed:

"A perusal of the survey plan x x x of the land subject matter of these cases shows that on theeastern side, the property is bounded by Talisay River, on the western side by Bulacan River, onthe southern side by Lot 1436 and on the northern side by Manila Bay. It is not correct to statethat the Talisay and Bulacan Rivers meet a certain portion because the two rivers both flowtowards Manila Bay. The Talisay River is straight while the Bulacan River is a little bitmeandering and there is no portion where the two rivers meet before they end up at Manila Bay.



The land which is adjacent to the property belonging to Pascual cannot be considered anaccretion [caused by the action of the two rivers].

Applicant Pascual x x x has not presented proofs to convince the Court that the land he hasapplied for registration is the result of the settling down on his registered land of soil, earth or

other deposits so as to be rightfully be considered as an accretion [caused by the action of thetwo rivers]. Said Art. 457 finds no applicability where the accretion must have been caused byaction of the bay."18


The conclusion formed by the trial court on the basis of the foregoing observation is that thedisputed land is part of the foreshore of Manila Bay and therefore, part of the public domain. Therespondent appellate court, however, perceived the fact that petitioners' own land lies betweenthe Talisay and Bulacan Rivers, to be basis to conclude that the disputed land must be anaccretion formed by the action of the two rivers because private respondents' own land acted as a barricade preventing the two rivers to meet and that the current of the two rivers carriedsediments of sand and silt downwards to the Manila Bay which accumulated somehow to a 14-

hectare land. These conclusions, however, are fatally incongruous in the light of the oneundisputed critical fact: the accretion was deposited, not on either the eastern or western portionof private respondents' land where a river each runs, but on the northern portion of petitioners'land which adjoins the Manila Bay. Worse, such conclusions are further eroded of their practicallogic and consonance with natural experience in the light of Sulpicio Pascual's admission as tohaving planted palapat and bakawan trees on the northern boundary of their own land. Inamplification of this, plainly more reasonable and valid are Justice Mariano Serrano'sobservations in his dissenting opinion when he stated that:

"As appellants' (titled) land x x x acts as a barricade that prevents the two rivers to meet, andconsidering the wide expanse of the boundary between said land and the Manila Bay, measuring

some 593.00 meters x x x it is believed rather farfetched for the land in question to have beenformed through 'sediments of sand and salt [sic]... deposited at their [rivers'] mouths.' Moreover,if 'since the flow of the two rivers is downwards to the Manila Bay the sediments of sand and siltare deposited at their mouths,' why then would the alleged cargo of sand, silt and clayaccumulate at the northern portion of appellants' titled land facing Manila Bay instead of merelyat the mouths and banks of these two rivers? That being the case, the accretion formed at said portion of appellants' titled [land] was not caused by the current of the two rivers but by theaction of the sea (Manila Bay) into which the rivers empty.

The conclusion x x x is not supported by any reference to the evidence which, on the contrary,shows that the disputed land was formed by the action of the sea. Thus, no less than SulpicioPascual, one of the heirs of the original applicant, testified on cross-examination that the land indispute was part of the shore and it was only in 1948 that he noticed that the land was beginningto get higher after he had planted trees thereon in 1948. x x x

x x x it is established that before 1948 sea water from the Manila Bay at high tide could reach asfar as the dike of appellants' fishpond within their titled property, which dike now separates this

titled property from the land in question. Even in 1948 when appellants had already planted palapat and bakawan trees in the land involved, inasmuch as these trees were yet small, the



waves of the sea could still reach the dike. This must be so because in x x x the survey plan of the titled property approved in 1918, said titled land was bounded on the north by Manila Bay.

So Manila Bay was adjacent to it on the north. It was only after the planting of the aforesaid treesin 1948 that the land in question began to rise or to get higher in elevation.

The trees planted by appellants in 1948 became a sort of strainer of the sea water and at the sametime a kind of block to the strained sediments from being carried back to the sea by the verywaves that brought them to the former shore at the end of the dike, which must have caused theshoreline to recede and dry up eventually raising the former shore leading to the formation of theland in question."19


In other words, the combined and interactive effect of the planting of palapat and bakawan trees,the withdrawal of the waters of Manila Bay eventually resulting in the drying up of its former foreshore, and the regular torrential action of the waters of Manila Bay, is the formation of thedisputed land on the northern boundary of private respondents' own tract of land.

The disputed property is an accretion on a sea bank, Manila Bay being an inlet or an arm of thesea; as such, the disputed property is, under Article 4 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866, partof the public domain.

At the outset, there is a need to distinguish between Manila Bay and Laguna de Bay.

While we held in the case of Ig nacio v. Director of Lands and Valeriano20

that Manila Bay isconsidered a sea for purposes of determining which law on accretion is to be applied inmultifarious situations, we have ruled differently insofar as accretions on lands adjoining theLaguna de Bay are concerned.

I

n the cases of Government of the P. I v. Cole g io de San Jose,

21

Republic v. Court of Appeals,

22

Republic v. Ala g ad 23 , and Meneses v. Court of Appeals,

24we categorically ruled that Laguna de

Bay is a lake the accretion on which, by the mandate of Article 84 of the Spanish Law of Watersof 1866, belongs to the owner of the land contiguous thereto.

The instant controversy, however, brings a situation calling for the application of Article 4 of theSpanish Law of Waters of 1866, the disputed land being an accretion on the foreshore of ManilaBay which is, for all legal purposes, considered a sea.

Article 4 of the Spanish Law of Waters of August 3, 1866 provides as follows:

"Lands added to the shores by accretions and alluvial deposits caused by the action of the sea,form part of the public domain. When they are no longer washed by the waters of the sea and arenot necessary for purposes of public utility, or for the establishment of special industries, or for the coast-guard service, the Government shall declare them to be the property of the owners of the estates adjacent thereto and as increment thereof."

In the light of the aforecited vintage but still valid law, unequivocal is the public nature of thedisputed land in this controversy, the same being an accretion on a sea bank which, for all legal



purposes, the foreshore of Manila Bay is. As part of the public domain, the herein disputed landis intended for public uses, and "so long as the land in litigation belongs to the national domainand is reserved for public uses, it is not capable of being appropriated by any private person,except through express authorization granted in due form by a competent authority."25 Only theexecutive and possibly the legislative departments have the right and the power to make the

declaration that the lands so gained by action of the sea is no longer necessary for purposes of public utility or for the cause of establishment of special industries or for coast guard services.26 Petitioners utterly fail to show that either the executive or legislative department has alreadydeclared the disputed land as qualified, under Article 4 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866, to be the property of private respondents as owners of the estates adjacent thereto.

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED.

The decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals) in CA G.R. No.59044-R dated November 29, 1978 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The resolutiondated November 21, 1980 and March 28, 1982, respectively, promulgated by the Intermediate

Appellate Court are likewise REV

ERSED and SET ASI

DE.

The decision of the Court of First Instance (now the Regional Trial Court), Branch 1, Balanga,Bataan, is hereby ORDERED REI NSTATED.

Costs against private respondents.

SO ORDERED.

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 119619. December 13, 1996

RICHARD HIZON, SILVERIO GARGAR, ERNESTO ANDAYA, NEMESIO GABO,

RODRIGO ABRERA, CHEUNG TAI FOOK, SHEK CHOR LUK, EFREN DELA PENA,

JONEL AURELIO, GODOFREDO VILLAVERDE, ANGELITO DUMAYBAG,

DEOMEDES ROSIL, AMADO VILLANUEVA, FRANCISCO ESTREMOS, ANGEL

VILLAVERDE, NEMESIO CASAMPOL, RICHARD ESTREMOS, JORNIE DELA

PENA, JESUS MACTAN, MARLON CAMPORAZO, FERNANDO BIRING,

MENDRITO CARPO, LUIS DUARTE, JOSEPH AURELIO, RONNIE JUEZAN,

BERNARDO VILLACARLOS, RICARDO SALES, MARLON ABELLA, TEODORODELOS REYES, IGNACIO ABELLA, JOSEPH MAYONADO, JANAIRO LANGUYOD,DODONG DELOS REYES, JOLLY CABALLERO and ROPLANDO ARCENAS,

Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, .

D E C I S I O N



PUNO, J .:

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-

G.R. CR No. 15417 affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 52, Palawan

in Criminal Case No. 10429 convicting petitioners of the offense of illegal fishing with the

use of obnoxious or poisonous substance penalized under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No.704, the Fisheries Decree of 1975.

In an Information dated October 15, 1992, petitioners were charged with a violation of P.D.

704 committed as follows:

"That on or about the 30th day of September 1992, at Brgy. San Rafael, Puerto Princesa

City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named

accused crew members and fishermen of F/B Robinson owned by First Fishermen Fishing

Industries, Inc., represented by Richard Hizon, a domestic corporation duly organized

under the laws of the Philippines, being then the owner, crew members and fishermen of

F/B Robinson and with the use of said fishing boat, did then and there wilfully, unlawfullyand feloniously the said accused conspiring and confederating together and mutually

helping one another catch, take or gather or cause to be caught, taken or gathered fish or

fishery aquatic products in the coastal waters of Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, with the

use of obnoxious or poisonous substance (sodium cyanide), of more or less one (1) ton of

assorted live fishes which were illegally caught thru the use of obnoxious/poisonous

substance (sodium cyanide)." 1

The following facts were established by the prosecution: In September 1992, the Philippine

National Police (PNP) Maritime Command of Puerto Princesa City, Palawan received

reports of illegal fishing operations in the coastal waters of the city. In response to these

reports, the city mayor organized Task Force Bantay Dagat to assist the police in thedetection and apprehension of violators of the laws on fishing.

On September 30, 1992 at about 2:00 in the afternoon, the Task Force Bantay Dagat

reported to the PNP Maritime Command that a boat and several small crafts were fishing

by "muro ami" within the shoreline of Barangay San Rafael of Puerto Princesa. The police,

headed by SPO3 Romulo Enriquez, and members of the Task Force Bantay Dagat, headed

by Benito Marcelo, Jr., immediately proceeded to the area and found several men fishing in

motorized sampans and a big fishing boat identified as F/B Robinson within the seven-

kilometer shoreline of the city. They boarded the F/B Robinson and inspected the boat with

the acquiescence of the boat captain, Silverio Gargar. In the course of their inspection, the

police saw two foreigners in the captains deck. SPO3 Enriquez examined their passports

and found them to be mere photocopies. The police also discovered a large aquarium full of

live lapu-lapu and assorted fish weighing approximately one ton at the bottom of the boat. 2

They checked the license of the boat and its fishermen and found them to be in order.

Nonetheless, SPO3 Enriquez brought the boat captain, the crew and the fishermen to

Puerto Princesa for further investigation.



At the city harbor, members of the Maritime Command were ordered by SPO3 Enriquez

to guard the F/B Robinson. The boat captain and the two foreigners were again

interrogated at the PNP Maritime Command office. Thereafter, an

Inspection/Apprehension Report was prepared and the boat, its crew and fishermen were

charged with the following violations:

"1. Conducting fishing operations within Puerto Princesa coastal waters without mayors

permit;

2. Employing excess fishermen on board (Authorized--26; On board--36);

3. Two (2) Hongkong nationals on board without original passports." 3

The following day, October 1, 1992, SPO3 Enriquez directed the boat captain to get

random samples of fish from the fish cage of F/B Robinson for laboratory examination. As

instructed, the boat engineer, petitioner Ernesto Andaya, delivered to the Maritime Office

four (4) live lapu-lapu fish inside a plastic shopping bag filled with water. SPO3 Enriquezreceived the fish and in the presence of the boat engineer and captain, placed them inside a

large transparent plastic bag without water. He sealed the plastic with heat from a lighter. 4

The specimens were brought to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) sub-office in the

city for examination "to determine the method of catching the same for record or

evidentiary purposes." 5 They were received at the NBI office at 8:00 in the evening of the

same day. The receiving clerk, Edna Capicio, noted that the fish were dead and she placed

the plastic bag with the fish inside the office freezer to preserve them. Two days later, on

October 3, 1992, the chief of the NBI sub-office, Onos Mangotara, certified the specimens

for laboratory examination at the NBI Head Office in Manila. The fish samples were to be

personally transported by Edna Capicio who was then scheduled to leave for Manila forher board examination in Criminology. 6 On October 4, 1992, Ms. Capicio, in the presence

of her chief, took the plastic with the specimens from the freezer and placed them inside

two shopping bags and sealed them with masking tape. She proceeded to her ship where

she placed the specimens in the ships freezer.

Capicio arrived in Manila the following day, October 5, 1992 and immediately brought the

specimens to the NBI Head Office. On October 7, 1992, NBI Forensic Chemist Emilia

Rosaldes conducted two tests on the fish samples and found that they contained sodium

cyanide, thus:

"FINDINGS:

Weight of Specimen 1.870 kilograms Examinations made on the above-mentioned specimen

gave POSITIVE RESULTS to the test for the presence of SODIUM CYANIDE x x x"

REMARKS:

Sodium Cyanide is a violent poison." 7



In light of these findings, the PNP Maritime Command of Puerto Princesa City filed the

complaint at bar against the owner and operator of the F/B Robinson, the First Fishermen

Fishing Industries, Inc., represented by herein petitioner Richard Hizon, the boat captain,

Silverio Gargar, the boat engineer, Ernesto Andaya, two other crew members, the two

Hongkong nationals and 28 fishermen of the said boat.

Petitioners were arraigned and they pled not guilty to the charge. As defense, they claimed

that they are legitimate fishermen of the First Fishermen Industries, Inc., a domestic

corporation licensed to engage in fishing. They alleged that they catch fish by the hook and

line method and that they had used this method for one month and a half in the waters of

Cuyo Island. They related that on September 30, 1992 at about 7:00 A.M., they anchored

the F/B Robinson in the east of Podiado Island in Puerto Princesa City. The boat captain

and the fishermen took out and boarded their sampans to fish for their food. They were

still fishing in their sampans at 4:00 P.M. when a rubber boat containing members of the

PNP Maritime Command and the Task Force Bantay Dagat approached them and boarded

the F/B Robinson. The policemen were in uniform while the Bantay Dagat personnel were

in civilian clothes. They were all armed with guns. One of the Bantay Dagat personnelintroduced himself as Commander Jun Marcelo and he inspected the boat and the boats

documents. Marcelo saw the two foreigners and asked for their passports. As their

passports were photocopies, Marcelo demanded for their original. The captain explained

that the original passports were with the companys head office in Manila. Marcelo angrily

insisted for the originals and threatened to arrest everybody. He then ordered the captain,

his crew and the fishermen to follow him to Puerto Princesa. He held the magazine of his

gun and warned the captain "Sige, huwag kang tatakas, kung hindi babarilin ko kayo!" 8

The captain herded all his men into the boat and followed Marcelo and the police to Puerto

Princesa.

They arrived at the city harbor at 7:45 in the evening and were met by members of themedia. As instructed by Marcelo, the members of the media interviewed and took pictures

of the boat and the fishermen. 9

The following day, October 1, 1992, at 8:00 in the morning, Amado Villanueva, one of the

fishermen at the F/B Robinson, was instructed by a policemen guarding the boat to get five

(5) fish samples from the fish cage and bring them to the pier. Villanueva inquired whether

the captain knew about the order but the guard replied he was taking responsibility for it.

Villanueva scooped five pieces of lapu-lapu, placed them inside a plastic bag filled with

water and brought the bag to the pier. The boat engineer, Ernesto Andaya, received the

fish and delivered them to the PNP Maritime Office. Nobody was in the office and Andaya

waited for the apprehending officers and the boat captain. Later, one of the policemen in

the office instructed him to leave the bag and hang it on a nail in the wall. Andaya did as he

was told and returned to the boat at 10:00 A.M. 10

In the afternoon of the same day, the boat captain arrived at the Maritime office. He

brought along a representative from their head office in Manila who showed the police and

the Bantay Dagat personnel the original passports of the Hongkong nationals and other

pertinent documents of the F/B Robinson and its crew. Finding the documents in order,



Marcelo approached the captain and whispered to him "Tandaan mo ito, kapitan, kung

makakaalis ka dito, magkikita pa rin uli tayo sa dagat, kung hindi kayo lulubog ay

palulutangin ko kayo!" It was then that SPO3 Enriquez informed the captain that some

members of the Maritime Command, acting under his instructions, had just taken five (5)

pieces of lapu-lapu from the boat. SPO3 Enriquez showed the captain the fish samples.

Although the captain saw only four (4) pieces of lapu-lapu, he did not utter a word of protest. 11

Under Marcelos threat, he signed the "Certification" that he received only four

(4) pieces of fish. 12

Two weeks later, the information was filed against petitioners. The case was prosecuted

against thirty-one (31) of the thirty-five (35) accused. Richard Hizon remained at large

while the whereabouts of Richard Estremos, Marlon Camporazo and Joseph Aurelio were

unknown.

On July 9, 1993, the trial court found the thirty one (31) petitioners guilty and sentenced

them to imprisonment for a minimum of eight (8) years and one (1) day to a maximum of

nine (9) years and four (4) months. The court also ordered the confiscation and forfeitureof the F/B Robinson, the 28 sampans and the ton of assorted live fishes as instruments and

proceeds of the offense, thus:

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding the

accused SILVERIO GARGAR, ERNESTO ANDAYA, NEMESIO GABO,

RODRIGO ABRERA, CHEUNG TAI FOOK, SHEK CHOR LUK, EFREN DELA

PENA, JONEL AURELIO, GODOFREDO VILLAVERDE, ANGELITO

DUMAYBAG, DEOMEDES ROSIL, AMADO VILLANUEVA, FRANCISCO

ESTREMOS, ARNEL VILLAVERDE, NEMESIO CASAMPOL, JORNIE

DELACRUZ, JESUS MACTAN, FERNANDO BIRING, MENDRITO CARPO, LUIS

DUARTE, RONNIE JUEZAN, BERNARDO VILLACARLOS, RICARDO SALES,MARLON ABELLA, TEODORO DELOS REYES, IGNACIO ABELLA, JOSEPH

MAYONADO, JANAIRO LANGUYOD, DODONG DELOS REYES, ROLANDO

ARCENAS and JOLLY CABALLERO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime

of Illegal Fishing with the use of obnoxious or poisonous substance commonly known

as sodium cyanide, committed in violation of section 33 and penalized in section 38 of

Presidential Decree No. 704, as amended, and there being neither mitigating nor

aggravating circumstances appreciated and applying the provisions of the

Indeterminate Sentence Law, each of the aforenamed accused is sentenced to an

indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from a minimum of EIGHT (8)

YEARS and ONE (1) DAY to a maximum of NINE (9) YEARS and FOUR (4)

MONTHS and to pay the costs.

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 45, in relation to the second sentence of Article

10 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended:

a) Fishing Boat (F/B) Robinson;

b) The 28 motorized fiberglass sampans; and



c) The live fishes in the fish cages installed in the F/B Robinson, all of which have

been respectively shown to be tools or instruments and proceeds of the offense, are

hereby ordered confiscated and declared forfeited in favor of the government.

SO ORDERED." 13

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. Hence, this

petition.

Petitioners contend that:

"I

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE

MERE "POSITIVE RESULTS TO THE TEST FOR THE PRESENCE OF SODIUM

CYANIDE" IN THE FISH SPECIMEN, ALBEIT ILLEGALLY SEIZED ON THE

OCCASION OF A WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND ARREST, IS ADMISSIBLEAND SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR THE PETITIONERS CONVICTION OF THE

CRIME OF ILLEGAL FISHING.

II

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT

THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION OF GUILT UNDER SEC. 33 OF

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 704 CANNOT PREVAIL AGAINST THE

CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, SUCH THAT THE

GRAVAMEN OF THE OFFENSE OF ILLEGAL FISHING MUST STILL BE

PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

III

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT REVERSING THE

JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT AND ACQUITTING THE PETITIONERS." 14

The Solicitor General submitted a "Manifestation in Lieu of Comment" praying for

petitioners acquittal. 15

The petitioners, with the concurrence of the Solicitor General, primarily question theadmissibility of the evidence against petitioners in view of the warrantless search of the

fishing boat and the subsequent arrest of petitioners. More concretely, they contend that

the NBI finding of sodium cyanide in the fish specimens should not have been admitted and

considered by the trial court because the fish samples were seized from the F/B Robinson

without a search warrant.



Our constitution proscribes search and seizure and the arrest of persons without a judicial

warrant. 16

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. Some of these are: 17

(1) a search incident to a lawful arrest; 18

(2) seizure of

evidence in plain view; (3) search of a moving motor vehicle; 19

and (4) search in violation

of customs laws.

20

Search and seizure without search warrant of vessels and aircrafts for violations of customs

laws have been the traditional exception to the constitutional requirement of a search

warrant. It is rooted on the recognition that a vessel and an aircraft, like motor vehicles,

can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the search warrant must

be sought and secured. Yielding to this reality, judicial authorities have not required a

search warrant of vessels and aircrafts before their search and seizure can be

constitutionally effected. 21

The same exception ought to apply to seizures of fishing vessels and boats breaching our

fishery laws. These vessels are normally powered by high-speed motors that enable them toelude arresting ships of the Philippine Navy, the Coast Guard and other government

authorities enforcing our fishery laws. 22

We thus hold as valid the warrantless search on the F/B Robinson, a fishing boat suspected

of having engaged in illegal fishing. The fish and other evidence seized in the course of the

search were properly admitted by the trial court. Moreover, petitioners failed to raise the

issue during trial and hence, waived their right to question any irregularity that may have

attended the said search and seizure. 23

Given the evidence admitted by the trial court, the next question now is whether petitioners

are guilty of the offense of illegal fishing with the use of poisonous substances. Again, thepetitioners, joined by the Solicitor General, submit that the prosecution evidence cannot

convict them.

We agree.

Petitioners were charged with illegal fishing penalized under sections 33 and 38 of P.D. 704 24

which provide as follows:

"Sec. 33. Illegal fishing, illegal possession of explosives intended for illegal fishing;

dealing in illegally caught fish or fishery/aquatic products. -- It shall be unlawful for

any person to catch, take or gather or cause to be caught, taken or gathered fish orfishery/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: 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: Provided, That the Secretary may, upon

recommendation of the Director and subject to such safeguards and conditions he

deems necessary, allow for research, educational or scientific purposes only, the use



of explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substance or electricity to catch, take or

gather fish or fishery/aquatic products in the specified area: Provided, further, That

the use of chemicals to eradicate predators in fishponds in accordance with accepted

scientific fishery practices without causing deleterious effects in neighboring waters

shall not be construed as the use of obnoxious or poisonous substance within the

meaning of this section: Provided, finally, That the use of mechanical bombs forkilling whales, crocodiles, sharks or other large dangerous fishes, may be allowed,

subject to the approval of the Secretary.

It shall, likewise, be unlawful for any person knowingly to possess, deal in, sell or in

any manner dispose of, for profit, any fish or fishery/aquatic products which have

been illegally caught, taken or gathered.

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 thisDecree, and 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."

x x x

Sec. 38. Penalties. -- (a) For illegal fishing and dealing in illegally caught fish or

fishery/aquatic products.-- Violation of Section 33 hereof shall be punished as

follows:

x x x

(2) By imprisonment from eight (8) to ten (10) years, if obnoxious or poisonous

substances are used: Provided, That if the use of such substances results 1) in

physical injury to any person, the penalty shall be imprisonment from ten (10) to

twelve (12) years, or 2) in the loss of human life, then the penalty shall be

imprisonment from twenty (20) years to life or death;"

x x x ." 25

The offense of illegal fishing is committed when a person catches, takes or gathers or causesto be caught, taken or gathered fish, fishery or aquatic products in Philippine waters with

the use of explosives, electricity, obnoxious or poisonous substances. The law creates a

presumption that illegal fishing has been committed when: (a) explosives, obnoxious or

poisonous substances or equipment or device for electric fishing are found in a fishing boat

or in the possession of a fisherman; or (b) when fish caught or killed with the use of

explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substances or by electricity are found in a fishing boat.



Under these instances, the boat owner, operator or fishermen are presumed to have

engaged in illegal fishing.

Petitioners contend that this presumption of guilt under the Fisheries Decree violates the

presumption of innocence guaranteed by the Constitution. 26

As early as 1916, this Court

has rejected this argument by holding that:

27

"In some States, as well as in England, there exists what are known as common law

offenses. In the Philippine Islands no act is a crime unless it is made so by statute.

The state having the right to declare what acts are criminal, within certain well-

defined limitations, has the right to specify what act or acts shall constitute a crime,

as well as what proof shall constitute prima facie evidence of guilt, and then to put

upon the defendant the burden of showing that such act or acts are innocent and are

not committed with any criminal intent or intention." 28

The validity of laws establishing presumptions in criminal cases is a settled matter. It is

generally conceded that the legislature has the power to provide that proof of certain factscan constitute prima facie evidence of the guilt of the accused and then shift the burden of

proof to the accused provided there is a rational connection between the facts proved and

the ultimate fact presumed. 29

To avoid any constitutional infirmity, the inference of one

from proof of the other must not be arbitrary and unreasonable. 30

In fine, the presumption

must be based on facts and these facts must be part of the crime when committed. 31

The third paragraph of section 33 of P.D. 704 creates a presumption of guilt based on facts

proved and hence is not constitutionally impermissible. It makes the discovery of obnoxious

or poisonous substances, explosives, or devices for electric fishing, or of fish caught or

killed with the use of obnoxious and poisonous substances, explosives or electricity in any

fishing boat or in the possession of a fisherman evidence that the owner and operator of thefishing boat or the fisherman had used such substances in catching fish. The ultimate fact

presumed is that the owner and operator of the boat or the fisherman were engaged in

illegal fishing and this presumption was made to arise from the discovery of the substances

and the contaminated fish in the possession of the fisherman in the fishing boat. The fact

presumed is a natural inference from the fact proved. 32

We stress, however, that the statutory presumption is merely prima facie. 33

It can not,

under the guise of regulating the presentation of evidence, operate to preclude the accused

from presenting his defense to rebut the main fact presumed. 34

At no instance can the

accused be denied the right to rebut the presumption, 35

thus:

"The inference of guilt is one of fact and rests upon the common experience of men.

But the experience of men has taught them that an apparently guilty possession may

be explained so as to rebut such an inference and an accused person may therefore

put witnesses on the stand or go on the witness stand himself to explain his

possession, and any reasonable explanation of his possession, inconsistent with his

guilty connection with the commission of the crime, will rebut the inference as to his



guilt which the prosecution seeks to have drawn from his guilty possession of the

stolen goods." 36

We now review the evidence to determine whether petitioners have successfully rebutted

this presumption. The facts show that on November 13, 1992, after the information was

filed in court and petitioners granted bail, petitioners moved that the fish specimens takenfrom the F/B Robinson be reexamined. 37

The trial court granted the motion. 38

As prayed

for, a member of the PNP Maritime Command of Puerto Princesa, in the presence of

authorized representatives of the F/B Robinson, the NBI and the local Fisheries Office,

took at random five (5) live lapu-lapu from the fish cage of the boat. The specimens were

packed in the usual manner of transporting live fish, taken aboard a commercial flight and

delivered by the same representatives to the NBI Head Office in Manila for chemical

analysis.

On November 23, 1992, Salud Rosales, another forensic chemist of the NBI in Manila

conducted three (3) tests on the specimens and found the fish negative for the presence of

sodium cyanide,

39

thus:

"Gross weight of specimen = 3.849 kg.

Examination made on the above-mentioned specimens gave NEGATIVE RESULTS

to the tests for the presence of SODIUM CYANIDE." 40

The Information charged petitioners with illegal fishing "with the use of obnoxious or

poisonous substance (sodium cyanide), of more or less one (1) ton of assorted live fishes."

There was more or less one ton of fishes in the F/B Robinsons fish cage. It was from this

fish cage that the four dead specimens examined on October 7, 1992 and the five live

specimens examined on November 23, 1992 were taken. Though all the specimens camefrom the same source allegedly tainted with sodium cyanide, the two tests resulted in

conflicting findings. We note that after its apprehension, the F/B Robinson never left the

custody of the PNP Maritime Command. The fishing boat was anchored near the city

harbor and was guarded by members of the Maritime Command. 41

It was later turned

over to the custody of the Philippine Coast Guard Commander of Puerto Princesa City. 42

The prosecution failed to explain the contradictory findings on the fish samples and this

omission raises a reasonable doubt that the one ton of fishes in the cage were caught with

the use of sodium cyanide.

The absence of cyanide in the second set of fish specimens supports petitioners claim thatthey did not use the poison in fishing. According to them, they caught the fishes by the

ordinary and legal way, i.e., by hook and line on board their sampans. This claim is

buttressed by the prosecution evidence itself. The apprehending officers saw petitioners

fishing by hook and line when they came upon them in the waters of Barangay San Rafael.

One of the apprehending officers, SPO1 Demetrio Saballuca, testified as follows:

"ATTY. TORREFRANCA ON CROSS-EXAMINATION:



Q : I get your point therefore, that the illegal fishing supposedly conducted at San Rafael is

a moro ami type of fishing [that] occurred into your mind and that was made to

understand by the Bantay Dagat personnel?

A : Yes, sir.

Q : Upon reaching the place, you and the pumpboat, together with the two Bantay Dagat

personnel were SPO3 Romulo Enriquez and Mr. Benito Marcelo and SPO1 Marzan, you

did not witness that kind of moro ami fishing, correct?

A : None, sir.

Q :In other words, there was negative activity of moro ami type of fishing on September 30,

1992 at 4:00 in the afternoon at San Rafael?

A : Yes, sir.

Q : And what you saw were 5 motorized Sampans with fishermen each doing a hook and

line fishing type?

A : Yes, sir. More or less they were five.

Q : And despite the fact you had negative knowledge of this moro ami type of fishing, SPO3

Enriquez together with Mr. Marcelo boarded the vessel just the same?

A : Yes, sir.

x x x ."

43

The apprehending officers who boarded and searched the boat did not find any

sodium cyanide nor any poisonous or obnoxious substance. Neither did they find

any trace of the poison in the possession of the fishermen or in the fish cage

itself. An Inventory was prepared by the apprehending officers and only the

following items were found on board the boat:

"ITEMS QUANTITY REMARKS

F/B Robinson (1) unit operating

engine (1) unit ICE-900-BHP

sampans 28 units fiberglass

outboard motors 28 units operating

assorted fishes more or less 1 ton live



hooks and lines assorted

x x x." 44

We cannot overlook the fact that the apprehending officers found in the boat assorted

hooks and lines for catching fish.

45

For this obvious reason, the Inspection/ApprehensionReport prepared by the apprehending officers immediately after the search did not charge

petitioners with illegal fishing, much less illegal fishing with the use of poison or any

obnoxious substance. 46

The only basis for the charge of fishing with poisonous substance is the result of the first

NBI laboratory test on the four fish specimens. Under the circumstances of the case,

however, this finding does not warrant the infallible conclusion that the fishes in the F/B

Robinson, or even the same four specimens, were caught with the use of sodium cyanide.

Prosecution witness SPO1 Bernardino Visto testified that for the first laboratory test , boat

engineer Ernesto Andaya did not only get four (4) samples of fish but actually got five (5)from the fish cage of the F/B Robinson. 47

This Certification that four (4) fish samples were

taken from the boat shows on its face the number of pieces as originally "five (5)" but this

was erased with correction fluid and "four (4)" written over it. 48

The specimens were

taken, sealed inside the plastic bag and brought to Manila by the police authorities in the

absence of petitioners or their representative. SPO2 Enriquez testified that the same plastic

bag containing the four specimens was merely sealed with heat from a lighter. 49

Emilia

Rosaldes, the NBI forensic chemist who examined the samples, testified that when she

opened the package, she found two ends of the same plastic bag knotted. 50

These

circumstances as well as the time interval from the taking of the fish samples and their

actual examination 51

fail to assure the impartial mind that the integrity of the specimens

had been properly safeguarded.

Apparently, the members of the PNP Maritime Command and the Task Force Bantay

Dagat were the ones engaged in an illegal fishing expedition. As sharply observed by the

Solicitor General, the report received by the Task Force Bantay Dagat was that a fishing

boat was fishing illegally through "muro ami" on the waters of San Rafael. "Muro ami"

according to SPO1 Saballuca is made with "the use of a big net with sinkers to make the

net submerge in the water with the fishermen surround[ing] the net." 52

This method of fishing needs approximately two hundred (200) fishermen to execute. 53

What the apprehending officers instead discovered were twenty eight (28) fishermen in

their discovered were twenty eight(28) fishermen in their sampans fishing by hook andline. The authorities found nothing on the boat that would have indicated any form of

illegal fishing. All the documents of the boat and the fishermen were in order. It was only

after the fish specimens were tested, albeit under suspicious circumstances, that petitioners

were charged with illegal fishing with the use of poisonous substances.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is granted and the decision of the Court of Appeals in

CA-G.R. CR No. 15417 is reversed and set aside. Petitioners are acquitted of the crime of



illegal fishing with the use of poisonous substances defined under the Section 33 of

Republic Act No. 704, the Fisheries Decree of 1975. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R.No.110286.April 2, 1997]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee , vs.RENERIO P.VERGARA,

ERNESTO T.CUESTA, JR., PEDRO G.DAGAO and BERNARDO P.CUESTA,

accused .RENERIO P.VERGARA, accused-appellant .

.

D E C I S I O N

VITUG, J .:

From the decision, dated 10 February 1993, of the Regional Trial Court, 8th Judicial Region,Branch 7, in Tacloban City, finding accused Renerio P.Vergara guilty beyond reasonable doubtin Criminal Case No.92-09-508 of a violation of Section 33 of Presidential Decree ("P.D.") No.704, as amended by P.D.No.1508, an appeal to this Court has been interposed.

Vergara was charged, together with his three co-accused, namely Ernesto T.Cuesta, Jr., PedroG.Dagao and Bernardo P.Cuesta, on 25 September 1992, in an information that read:

"The undersigned Provincial Prosecutor of Leyte accuses Ernesto T.Cuesta, Jr., Pedro G.Dagao,Renerio P.Vergara and Bernardo P.Cuesta of the crime of Violation of Section 33, PresidentialDecree No.704, as amended by Presidential Decree No.1058, committed as follows:

"That on or about the 4th day of July, 1992, in the Municipal waters of Palo, Province of Leyte,Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,without any authority of law, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one

another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally catch, take and gather fish belonging to the anchovies species known locally as 'bolinao', with the use of explosivescontained in a bottle and called in the vernacular as 'badil', which bottled explosives after beingignited and hurled to the sea, produced explosion and caused the death of the said fish whichwere hit or affected by such explosion.

"CONTRARY TO LAW."1chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary



Vergara alone was arraigned and brought to trial; his co-accused escaped and remained at large.

It would appear that at about 7:30 in the morning of 04 July 1992, a team composed of deputizedFish Warden and President of the Leyte Fish Warden Association Jesus P.Bindoy, PoliceOfficers Casimiro Villas and Diosdado Moron of the Palo PNP Station, Leyte, Fish Wardens

Mario Castillote and Estanislao Cabreros andF

ish Examiner Nestor Aldas of the Department of Agriculture were on board, " Bantay-Da g at ," a pumpboat, on "preventive patrol" along themunicipal waters fronting barangays Baras and Candahug of Palo, Leyte, when they chancedupon a blue-colored fishing boat at a distance of approximately 200 meters away.The boat, 30feet long, had on board appellant Renerio Vergara and his three co-accused Bernardo Cuesta,Pedro Dagao and Ernesto Cuesta, Jr., and was on parallel course toward the general direction of Samar.2 Momentarily, the team saw appellant throw into the sea a bottle known in the locality as"badil " containing ammonium nitrate and having a blasting cap on top which, when ignited andthrown into the water, could explode.The explosion would indiscriminately kill schools andvarious species of fish within a certain radius.Approximately three seconds after appellant hadthrown the "badil " into the sea, the explosion occurred.Vergara and Cuesta dove into the sea with

their gear while Dagao and Cuesta, Jr., stayed on board to tend to the air hose for thedivers.3chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The team approached the fishing boat.SPO2 Casimiro Villas boarded the fishing boat while FishWarden Jesus Bindoy held on to one end of the boat.Moments later, Vergara and Cuestasurfaced, each carrying a fishnet or " sibot " filled with about a kilo of "bolinao" fish scoopedfrom under the water.Having been caught red-handed, the four accused were apprehended andtaken by the patrol team to the " Bantay-Da g at " station at Baras, and later to the police station inPalo, Leyte.The fishing boat and its paraphernalia, as well as the two fishnets of "bolinao," wereimpounded.The accused, however, refused to sign and acknowledge the corresponding receiptstherefor.

On 10 February 1993, following the submission of the evidence, the trial court rendered judgment convicting Vergara, viz:

"WHEREFORE, said Renerio Vergara is hereby sentenced to a penalty of Twenty (20) years tolife imprisonment as punished under Sec.2, of PD 1058.

"This Court further orders the confiscation of the fishing boat of Mario Moraleta including thefollowing equipments: 1 air compressor, 3 sets of air hoses, and the 3 pieces of 'sibot' having been found to be instruments of the crime.

"SO ORDERED "4

In his appeal, Vergara submitted the following assignment of errors:

"1.THE LOWER COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF AUTHOR ITY WHEN ITCOMPLETELY IGNORED THE TESTIMONY OF EMILIO LI NDE.



"2.THE LOWER COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF AUTHOR ITY WHEN ITGAVE MUCH WEIGHT TO BIASED WITNESSES WHOSE TESTIMONIES WEREGLAR I NGLY I NCONSISTENT.

"3.THE LOWER COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF AUTHOR ITY WHEN IT

OPENLY SHOWED BIAS AGA

I NST THE ACCUSED DUR

I NG THE TR

IAL O

FTH

ISCASE."[5

Emilio Linde sought to corroborate the claim of appellant that it was another unidentified groupof fishermen who threw the bottle of explosives at a school of "bolinao" fish.It was obvious,however, said the trial court, that the statement of this defense witness was incredulous since heapparently had not at all been on board the fishing boat in the company of the accused at the timeof the incident.Even the rather lengthy counter-affidavit of the four accused completely missed tomention Linde.The court a quo went on to observe that the demeanor of the accused at thewitness stand and the substance of his testimony failed to elicit belief.

Trial courts are tasked to initially rule on the credibility of witnesses for both the prosecution andthe defense.Appellate courts seldom would subordinate, with their own, the findings of trialcourts which concededly have good vantage points in assessing the credibility of those who takethe witness stand.Nevertheless, it is not all too uncommon for this Court, in particular, to perusethrough the transcript of proceedings in order to satisfy itself that the records of a case do supportthe conclusions of trial courts.

Fish Warden Jesus Bindoy gave a detailed account of the 4th July 1992 incident.Thus

"FISCAL DAGANDAN:

"QI

n the morning of the 4th day of July, 1992 do you recall where you were?

"A We were on the sea fronting barangays Baras and Candahug.

"Q What municipality?

"A Palo, Leyte.

"Q Did you have anyone with you in this particular incident?

"A Yes, sir.

"Q Who were they?

"A Two policemen Casimiro Villas, Jr.and Diosdado Moron and my fellow fish warden and onefrom the Department of Agriculture.

"Q Will you identify your co-fish warden who were present at that time?



"A Mario Castillote, Estanislao Cabreros, Jr.

"Q How about that employee from the Department of Agriculture, who was he?

"A Nestor Aldas.

"Q What were you doing at that particular time on this place fronting barangay Baras andBarangay Candahug, Palo, Leyte?

"A We were watching for illegal fishers.

"Q What is your authority in this particular task?

"A We are the bantay dagat members of Palo.

Q Do you have any written authoriting evidencing that position?

"A Yes, maam, our deputized ID (witness is showing ID No.1432-91)

"FISCAL DAGANDAN:

For the records your honor I will quote this ID: This is to certify that Jesus P.Bindoy is a deputyfish warden vested with full power and authority to enforce all existing fishery laws, rules andregulations (SGD) Leopoldo Romano, [D]irector, Department of Agriculture, Region 8.

"FISCAL DAGANDAN:

"Q Since you claimed that you were on the sea fronting barangays Baras and Candahug in whatvehicle were you in at that moment?

"A We were in a motorized pumpboat.

"Q So, what unusual incident if any that transpired?

"A In that morning we saw a blue pump boat which is about 200 meters away from us.

"COURT

What time in the morning?

"A About 7:30 in the morning more or less.

"FISCAL DAGANDAN:

"Q About how long is this colored blue pumpboat?



"A More or less 30 feet.

"Q At about this distance of 200 meters were you able to visualize or see if there were any passengers in that blue colored pumpboat?

"A Yes, maam.

"Q Were you able to identify them?

"A Yes, sir.

"Q Who were they?

"A The one in front of the pumpboat was Renerio Vergara, Bernardo Cuesta, Pedro Dagao andErnesto Cuesta, Jr.

"Q You mentioned of RenerioV

ergara, whom you saw in that blue colored pumpboat and youidentified earlier Renerio Vergara.Is he the same person?

"A Yes, they are one and the same person.

"Q At the time you saw these persons loaded in that color blue pumpboat what were they doing?

"A I saw them paddling.

"Q Towards what direction?

"A Towards the direction of Samar.

"Q And where were you in relation with that pumpboat that was paddled towards Samar area?

"A We were situated parallel to them.

"Q So what happened at this particular time?

"A That was when we saw Renerio Vergara threw a bottle to the sea and after that we heard anexplosion.

"Q Did you come to know what particular bottle was it thrown to the sea?

"A It was a dynamite (badil).

"Q As a member of this bantay dagat are you familiar with this 'badil' which you earlier mentioned?

"A Yes, sir.



"Q Will you describe this particular device?

"A This bottle is filled with ammonium nitrate and on top is a blasting cap.

"Q So in case this is used by fishermen, how do they operate this 'badil'?

"A It is ignited and then thrown to the sea and this result in the killing of fishes at the sea.

"Q In this particular instance when you heard the explosion how far were you to this blue pumpboat?

"A About 200 meters.

"Q So what did you do after you heard this explosion?

"A After the explosion we slowly approached them.

"Q From the time you saw this bottle being thrown to the sea by Vergara up to the time youheard this explosion about how many minutes elapsed?

"A About 3 seconds.

"Q At about how near were you to this blue pumpboat?

"A We went near to a distance of one hundred meters.

"Q So, what did you do at this distance?

"A We kept on watching them first and after we knew that the two persons dived to the sea thatwas the time that we approached the pumpboat.

"Q Were you able to recognize these two persons who dived?

"A Yes, maam.

"Q Who were they?

"A Renerio Vergara and Bernardo Cuesta.

"Q You said there were four persons loaded in that pumpboat.How about the other two whatwere they doing?

"A The two persons were there, one watching the hose that was used by the two persons whodived for breathing.

"Q So, what else did you do?



"A When we approached the pumpboat it was Casimiro Villas, a policeman who boarded the pumpboat.

"Q How about you what did you do when Casimiro Villas boarded the pumpboat?

"AI

was the one holding on to the blue pumpboat.

"Q So, what else was done if any by the members of your team?

"A While we were there we let the two persons who dived surface and they were carrying withthem fishnet filled with 'bolinao' fish and then we told them that we will bring them to our temporary station at Baras, Palo.

"Q Do you know the specie of this bolinao?

"A Anchovies.

"Q About how heavy were these fishes of bolinao in the fishnet?

"A About one kilo per fishnet.

"Q How many contraption were carried by them?

"A Each one of them was carrying one 'sibot' (fishnet).

"COURT

So, two divers two nets?

"A Yes, sir.

"Q And each has a catch of one kilo?

"A Almost one kilo.

"Q So, two nets two kilos more or less?

"A Yes, sir.

"FISCAL DAGANDAN:

"Q So, after that what did you do?

"Q When we arrived at our temporary station at Baras, Palo we gave the fishes to the fishexaminer and we had the pumpboat inventoried and told them to sign the receipt we made.



"Q Do you recall if you made an apprehension report of the incident you witnessed?

"A Yes, maam.

"Q I show you a original copy of apprehension report dated July 4, 1992 addressed to the

Regional Director, Department of Agriculture, Tacloban City stating that the following offendersnamely Renerio Vergara y Prisno, Pedro Dagao y Gadin, Ernesto Cueta y Tobilla and BernardoCuesta y Pedrero were apprehended and the violation is fishing with the use of dynamite, theoriginal of which is found on page 4 of the records.Will you examine the same and tell this courtwhat relation has that to the report you said you made?

"A This is the apprehension report that we prepared on July 4, 1992."6

Nestor Aldas, an Agricultural Technologist and Fish Examiner working with the Department of Agriculture, Palo, Leyte, who examined the fish samples taken from the accused, testified that hewas with the team patrolling, on 04 July 1992, the waters of San Pedro Bay, Baras, Palo, Leyte,

when he, like the other members of his team, witnessed the use of explosives by the accused.F

ishsamples from the catch showed ruptured capillaries, ruptured and blooded abdominal portion,and crushed internal organs indicating that explosives were indeed used.

The Court is convinced that the trial court has acted correctly in finding accused-appellant guiltyof the offense charged.

Sections 33 and 38 of P.D.No.704, as amended by P.D.No.1058, read:

"Sec.33. I lle g al fishin g; ille g al possession of explosives intended for ille g al fishin g; dealin g in

ille g ally cau g ht fish or fishery/aquatic products.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 inPhilippine waters with the use of explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substance, or by theuse 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 fishingas herein defined shall be punishable as hereinafter provided: Provided , That the Secretary may,upon recommendation of the Director and subject to such safeguards and conditions he deemsnecessary, allow for research, educational or scientific purposes only, the use of explosives,obnoxious or poisonous substance or electricity to catch, take or gather fish or fishery/aquatic products in specified area: Provided, further , That the use of chemicals to eradicate predators infishponds in accordance with accepted scientific fishery practices without causing deleteriouseffects in neighboring waters shall not be construed as the use of obnoxious or poisonoussubstance within the meaning of this section: Provided, finally, That the use of mechanical bombs for killing whales, crocodiles, sharks or other large dangerous fishes, may be allowed,subject to the approval of the Secretary.

"Section 38.(1) 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; byimprisonment ranging from twenty (20) years to life imprisonment, if the explosive is actuallyused: Provided, That if the use of the explosive results in 1) physical injury to any person, the



penalty shall be imprisonment ranging from twenty-five (25) years to life imprisonment, or 2) inthe loss of human life, then the penalty shall be life imprisonment to death."

WHEREFORE, the decision of the court a quo appealed from is affirmed in tot o.Costs againstaccused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Environmental Law (Midterm)

Documents

Transcript of Environmental Law (Midterm)