Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1962 > May 1962 Decisions > G.R. No. L-17923 May 26, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ROMAN CANSINO, JR., ET AL. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-17923. May 26, 1962.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by ABRAHAM CAMPO, in his capacity as Commander in the Philippine Navy, Petitioner-Appellant, v. HON. ROMAN CANSINO, JR., as Judge of the Municipal Court of Manila, SHERIFF OF MANILA and MAGDAYO RAMIREZ, Respondents-Appellees.

Solicitor General for Petitioner-Appellant.

R. M. Angeles for Respondents-Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. FISH; SAMPLE FOR EXAMINATION; REPUBLIC ACT NO. 428. — Section 4 of Republic Act No. 428 as amended by Republic Act No. 1535 refers to "fishes . . . believed to have been . . . killed" in violation of said Act, and the same authorizes the Officer entertaining said belief to take "the necessary samples, in not more than one kilo for examination of the kind and quality of fish . . . taken by him."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. SEIZED AND SEIZURE; FISHES TAKEN BY DYNAMITE; POSSESSION A CRIME; REPUBLIC ACT 428 DOES NOT APPLY. — Where it is shown that "after a finding made by a Fishery Product Examiner of the Bureau of Fisheries from samples taken earlier that the fish in question had been killed or caught with the use of dynamite", the "mere possession" of which fish is "a crime" under Republic Act No. 428, as amended by Republic Act No. 1535, said fish was seized by agents of the law, and the corresponding criminal complaints were filed with the Justice of the Peace Court of Navotas, Rizal. The above quoted provision is, therefore, inapplicable to the present case and the same is governed by the rule to the effect that the subject of an offense and the proceeds thereof are proper objects of seizure, particularly when —as it is in the present case — the mere possession of the objects seized constitutes a crime, for the holder of said objects is then committing a crime in the presence of the officer effecting the seizure, and the same is valid, despite the absence of a search warrant (Magroncia v. Palacio, 80 Phil., 770, 772; 56 C. J. 1166).


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, J.:


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

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

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

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

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

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

"Any officer or person mentioned in the preceding paragraph is authorized to take from among the fishes or aquatic animals believed to have been stupefied or killed in violation of this Act the necessary samples, in not more than one kilo, for examination; issuing a receipt therefor with specification of the kind and the quality of fish or other aquatic animals taken by him as well as their value obtaining in the market that day. If after the examination, such fish or aquatic animals are found not to have been stupefied or killed in violation of this Act, the person from whom they are taken as samples shall be paid their value as herein stated, said payment to be borne and defrayed by the government office or agency to which the person or officer mentioned in the first paragraph of this section is connected from funds appropriated for said purpose. The officer or person in authority or agent of authority who does not submit the sample taken for examination or does not gave the person from whom it was taken a report of such examination within ten days shall be punished upon conviction by a fine of not exceeding five hundred pesos, or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court."cralaw virtua1aw library

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

Such is not the situation obtaining in the case at bar. In the urgent petition filed by the Government with the municipal court on October 7, 1960, as well as in its petition for prohibition and injunction in the present case, it is specifically alleged that, "after a finding made by a Fishery Product Examiner of the Bureau of Fisheries from samples taken earlier that the fish in question had been killed or caught with the use of dynamite", the "mere possession" of which fish is "a crime" under Republic Act No. 428, as amended by Republic Act No. 1535, said fish was seized by agents of the law, and the corresponding criminal complaints were filed with the Justice of the Peace Court of Navotas, Rizal. The above quoted provision is, therefore, inapplicable to the present case and the same is governed by the rule to the effect that the subject of an offense and the proceeds thereof are proper objects of seizure, particularly when —as it is in the present case — the mere possession of the objects seized constitutes a crime, for the holder of said objects is then committing a crime in the presence of the officer effecting the seizure, and the same is valid, despite the absence of a search warrant (Magoncia v. Palacio, 80 Phil., 770, 772; 56 C. J. 1166).

Furthermore, respondent Judge erred in requiring the posting of a redelivery bond as a condition precedent to the dissolution of the warrant of seizure issued by said officer, for petitioner is the Republic of the Philippines and the same is exempt from the obligations to post such bond (De Leon v. Hon. Judge Macapanton, G. R. No. L-15394, April 29, 1961; Amparo Joaquin-Gutierrez v. Camus, G.R. No. L-6725, October 30, 1954).

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

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




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1962 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-19721 May 10, 1962 - CARLOS CUNANAN v. JORGE TAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-15580 May 10, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACIFICO CLOMA

  • G.R. No. L-19593 May 10, 1962 - DELFIN B. ALBANO v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF ISABELA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14975 May 15, 1962 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11938 May 18, 1962 - LA CAMPANA STARCH FACTORY, ET AL. v. KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA LA CAMPANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12658 May 18, 1962 - FORTUNATO PICHAY, ET AL. v. MICHAEL S. KAIRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-14573 May 18, 1962 - CONCEPCION FELICIANO v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15092 May 18, 1962 - ALFREDO MONTELIBANO, ET AL. v. BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC.

  • G.R. Nos. L-17041-17042 May 18, 1962 - TOMAS LITIMCO v. LA MALLORCA

  • G.R. No. L-17153 May 18, 1962 - UNITED STATES RUBBER CO. v. MARIANO MEDINA

  • G.R. No. L-17524 May 18, 1962 - FELICIANO VERGARA v. CIRIACO VERGARA

  • G.R. No. L-18883 May 18, 1962 - PEDRO ESTELLA v. PEDRO EDAÑO

  • G.R. No. L-10457 May 22, 1962 - CONCEPCION H. LUNA, ET AL. v. PEDRO P. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16472 May 23, 1962 - JUANA VDA DE MARTEL, ET AL. v. JULIANA F. ADRALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16628 May 23, 1962 - VIVENCIO LASALA, ET AL. v. JOSE F. FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17593 May 24, 1962 - INES SAPONG CASEÑAS, ET AL. v. RICARDO JANDAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-18420 May 24, 1962 - DALMACIO PREPOTENTE v. JOSE SURTIDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17788 May 25, 1962 - LUIS RECATO DY, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17905 May 25, 1962 - IGNACIO CAMPOS, ET AL. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15345 May 26, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO MAPA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15915 May 26, 1962 - MARCELINO T. MACARAEG, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-17923 May 26, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ROMAN CANSINO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18069 May 26, 1962 - ALFONSO DY CUECO v. SEC. OF JUSTICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16732 May 29, 1962 - RAMON AUGUSTO, ET AL. v. ARCADIO ABING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17622 May 29, 1962 - IN RE: FERNANDO UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-12613 May 30, 1962 - FARM IMPLEMENT MACHINERY CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-13250 May 30, 1962 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ANTONIO CAMPOS RUEDA

  • G.R. No. L-13555 May 30, 1962 - SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION v. FROILAN BAYONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14010 May 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS M. TARUC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14207 May 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO MENDIOLA

  • G.R. No. L-15680 May 30, 1962 - LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION v. LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16027 May 30, 1962 - LUMEN POLICARPIO v. MANILA TIMES PUBLICATION CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16383 May 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE LUMANTAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16407 May 30, 1962 - ARCADIO G. MATELA v. CHUA TAY

  • G.R. No. L-16828 May 30, 1962 - SI NE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16850 May 30, 1962 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-16955 May 30, 1962 - SALVADOR PANLILIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17013 May 30, 1962 - IN RE: YAN HANG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17025 May 30, 1962 - IN RE: SY SEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17338 May 30, 1962 - ADRIANO D. DASALLA, ET AL. v. CITY ATTORNEY OF QUEZON CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17394 May 30, 1962 - AMADOR D. SANTOS v. DOLORES BANZON TOLENTINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17396 May 30, 1962 - CECILIO PE, ET AL. v. ALFONSO PE

  • G.R. No. L-17458 May 30, 1962 - DANILO DAVID v. ALASKA LUMBER COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-17502 May 30, 1962 - A. V. H. & COMPANY OF THE PHIL. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17588 May 30, 1962 - TERESA REALTY, INC. v. MAXIMA BLOUSE DE POTENCIANO

  • G.R. No. L-17591 May 30, 1962 - CLEOTILDE LAT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17616 May 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE ABUY

  • G.R. No. L-17656 May 30, 1962 - EDUARDO TAYLOR v. PEDRO M. GIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17663 May 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAURO SANTIAGO

  • G.R. Nos. L-17684-85 May 30, 1962 - VILLA REY TRANSIT, INC. v. PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17757 May 30, 1962 - MAMERTA DE LA MERCED v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17896 May 30, 1962 - VALENTIN A. FERNANDO v. ANGAT LABOR UNION

  • G.R. No. L-17920 May 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORLANDO CARREON

  • G.R. No. L-17932 May 30, 1962 - JOSE D. DE LA CRUZ v. SULPICIO DOLLETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17939 May 30, 1962 - RICARDO CARLOS v. MARIA DE LA ROSA

  • G.R. No. L-17977 May 30, 1962 - JEREMIAS MONTEJO v. DOMINGO CABANGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18023 May 30, 1962 - ANGEL OTIBAR, ET AL. v. DEMETRIO G. VINSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18026 May 30, 1962 - SAN FELIPE IRON MINES, INC. v. JOSE A. NALDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18165 May 30, 1962 - PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18530 May 30, 1962 - JOSE ALCANTARA v. DIONISIA YAP, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18535 May 30, 1962 - VALDERRAMA LUMBER MANUFACTURERS’ COMPANY, INC. v. L. S. SARMIENTO, CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18871 May 30, 1962 - EDUARDO SOTTO v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11357 May 31, 1962 - FELIPE B. OLLADA, ETC. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-11621 May 31, 1962 - ANTONIA DE GUZMAN VDA. DE RONQUILLO, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO MARASIGAN

  • G.R. No. L-11848 May 31, 1962 - IN RE: ADELA SANTOS GUTIERREZ v. JOSE D. VILLEGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12719 May 31, 1962 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CLUB FILIPINO, INC., DE CEBU

  • G.R. No. L-14180 May 31, 1962 - LUDOVICO ESTRADA, ET AL. v. AMADO S. SANTIAGO, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16045 May 31, 1962 - IN RE: CHUA CHIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-16185-86 May 31, 1962 - BENIGNO T. PEREZ, ET AL. v. ANTONIO M. PEREZ

  • G.R. No. L-17437 May 31, 1962 - MENO PE BENITO v. ZOSIMO MONTEMAYOR

  • G.R. No. L-17520 May 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTINO BALANCIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-17603-04 May 31, 1962 - CEFERINA SAMO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17835 May 31, 1962 - GONZALO SANTOS RIVERA, ET AL. v. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17852 May 31, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. AMADOR E. GOMEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17955 May 31, 1962 - PILAR LAZARO VDA. DE JACINTO, ET AL. v. SALUD DEL ROSARIO VDA. DE JACINTO, ET AL.