September 1954 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1954 > September 1954 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-6866 September 28, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOTERO ANITO
095 Phil 865:
095 Phil 865:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-6866. September 28, 1954.]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOTERO ANITO, Defendant-Appellee.
Solicitor General Juan R. Liwag and Solicitor Esmeraldo Umali, for Appellant.
Benjamin C. Villarin, for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. CRIMINAL LAW; IILEGAL FISHING AND ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF EXPLOSIVES ARE TWO DISTINCT OFFENSES. — Fishing with the use of explosives without obtaining the necessary permit, and possession of explosives without license are two distinct offenses penalized by different statutes. A person fishing with the use of explosives may be guilty of illegal fishing, without being guilty of illegal possession of explosives, if he has a permit of the Chief of Constabulary.
D E C I S I O N
BENGZON, J.:
On April 15, 1953, Sotero Anito was caught in the act of fishing with dynamite in Manjuyod Negros Oriental. In his pocket was found a package of explosive powder with blasting cap. But he had no license either from the Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of Constabulary.
Prosecuted for violation of Commonwealth Act No. 471 (illegal fishing) he pleaded not guilty. In another information he was charged with illegal possession of the explosive powder and cap in violation of Act No. 3023. He moved for dismissal of this second information, citing the first prosecution for illegal fishing and contended that he was being placed in double jeopardy for one single offense. The trial judge sustained the motion. Hence this appeal by the fiscal.
Having reviewed the papers, we find that the issue is covered by our decision in P. v. Tinamisan, G. R. No. L-4801, promulgated January 29, 1952, the pertinent portion of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"On August 1, 1949, the accused Teodoro Tinamisan and Apolonio Bandaño went out to fish in the Zamboanga sea, bringing with them five bottles of explosives. After throwing one into the water, they were caught and arrested, and the four bottles in the canoe seized. Charged with the crime of illegal fishing with explosives in Criminal case No. 586 of the Court of First Instance, they were convicted, the four bottles having been exhibited by the prosecution.
Prosecuted again for illegal possession of explosives in Criminal Case No. 899 of the same court, they pleaded double jeopardy, on the ground that the explosives mentioned in the information are the identical four bottles presented in the previous criminal case. After hearing both sides, the judge sustained their plea and dismissed the second case.
Hence this appeal, wherein the single issue is whether the first prosecution bars the second.
The use of explosives in fishing — except when permitted under special circumstances by the Secretary of Agriculture is prohibited and penalized under Act No. 4003 as amended by Act No. 471.
The possession of dynamite or explosives — without license from the Chief of Constabulary — is prohibited and punished by Act No. 2225 as amended by Act No. 3023.
One offense is distinct from the other. When a man fishes with explosives, he violates the first mentioned law or the second, or both, or he may commit no offense at all. No offense, if he obtained licenses from both the Secretary of Agriculture and the Chief of Constabulary. He infringes the first (and not the second) if he has no license from the Agriculture Secretary, but he has license from the Chief of Constabulary. He transgresses the second but not the first if he holds no license from the Constabulary, but he wields a permit from the Agriculture Secretary. He transgresses both laws as in this case, when he exhibits no license at all.
Wherefore, one violation of the law does not necessarily include and is not necessarily included in the other. The double jeopardy rule does not attach.." . .
The trial judge reasoned out that "one cannot fish by the use of explosives without possessing the explosives to be used" and "prior to actually committing the offense of illegal fishing the accused must be technically liable for the offense of illegal possession." The error in this reasoning lies in the assumption that anyone illegally fishing with explosives is necessarily guilty of illegal possession of explosives. Such assumption is groundless, because as explained in the above decision, a person may be guilty of the first, without being guilty of the second — if he has a permit of the Chief of Constabulary.
Judgment reversed. Case remanded for further proceedings.
Paras, C.J., Pablo, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.
Prosecuted for violation of Commonwealth Act No. 471 (illegal fishing) he pleaded not guilty. In another information he was charged with illegal possession of the explosive powder and cap in violation of Act No. 3023. He moved for dismissal of this second information, citing the first prosecution for illegal fishing and contended that he was being placed in double jeopardy for one single offense. The trial judge sustained the motion. Hence this appeal by the fiscal.
Having reviewed the papers, we find that the issue is covered by our decision in P. v. Tinamisan, G. R. No. L-4801, promulgated January 29, 1952, the pertinent portion of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"On August 1, 1949, the accused Teodoro Tinamisan and Apolonio Bandaño went out to fish in the Zamboanga sea, bringing with them five bottles of explosives. After throwing one into the water, they were caught and arrested, and the four bottles in the canoe seized. Charged with the crime of illegal fishing with explosives in Criminal case No. 586 of the Court of First Instance, they were convicted, the four bottles having been exhibited by the prosecution.
Prosecuted again for illegal possession of explosives in Criminal Case No. 899 of the same court, they pleaded double jeopardy, on the ground that the explosives mentioned in the information are the identical four bottles presented in the previous criminal case. After hearing both sides, the judge sustained their plea and dismissed the second case.
Hence this appeal, wherein the single issue is whether the first prosecution bars the second.
The use of explosives in fishing — except when permitted under special circumstances by the Secretary of Agriculture is prohibited and penalized under Act No. 4003 as amended by Act No. 471.
The possession of dynamite or explosives — without license from the Chief of Constabulary — is prohibited and punished by Act No. 2225 as amended by Act No. 3023.
One offense is distinct from the other. When a man fishes with explosives, he violates the first mentioned law or the second, or both, or he may commit no offense at all. No offense, if he obtained licenses from both the Secretary of Agriculture and the Chief of Constabulary. He infringes the first (and not the second) if he has no license from the Agriculture Secretary, but he has license from the Chief of Constabulary. He transgresses the second but not the first if he holds no license from the Constabulary, but he wields a permit from the Agriculture Secretary. He transgresses both laws as in this case, when he exhibits no license at all.
Wherefore, one violation of the law does not necessarily include and is not necessarily included in the other. The double jeopardy rule does not attach.." . .
The trial judge reasoned out that "one cannot fish by the use of explosives without possessing the explosives to be used" and "prior to actually committing the offense of illegal fishing the accused must be technically liable for the offense of illegal possession." The error in this reasoning lies in the assumption that anyone illegally fishing with explosives is necessarily guilty of illegal possession of explosives. Such assumption is groundless, because as explained in the above decision, a person may be guilty of the first, without being guilty of the second — if he has a permit of the Chief of Constabulary.
Judgment reversed. Case remanded for further proceedings.
Paras, C.J., Pablo, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.
