View full case

RICHARD HIZON v. CA

FACTS:

The case involves petitioners who were charged with the offense of illegal fishing with the use of obnoxious or poisonous substance. Reports of illegal fishing operations prompted the city mayor to organize Task Force Bantay Dagat. On September 30, 1992, the Task Force reported illegal fishing activities and found several men fishing in motorized sampans and a big fishing boat called F/B Robinson. They boarded the F/B Robinson with the consent of the boat captain and found two foreigners in the captain's deck with photocopy passports. They also discovered a large aquarium filled with live fish at the bottom of the boat. The boat captain, crew, and fishermen were brought to Puerto Princesa. The following day, the police directed the boat captain to get random samples of fish for laboratory examination. The samples were tested and revealed the presence of sodium cyanide.

The petitioners claimed to be legitimate fishermen of the corporation and stated that they catch fish by the hook and line method. On September 30, 1992, while they were fishing in their sampans, members of the PNP Maritime Command and Task Force Bantay Dagat boarded their boat and inspected their documents. After finding photocopies of the Hongkong nationals' passports, the personnel demanded the originals, which were with the company's head office. The boat captain and his crew were ordered to follow the officers to Puerto Princesa under threat of arrest. They arrived at the city harbor the next evening and were met by members of the media who interviewed and took pictures of the boat and the fishermen. The following day, the fishermen were instructed to get fish samples and deliver them to the police. They complied and later discovered that the police had taken more fish than agreed upon. Two weeks after, an information was filed against them, and they were found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment.

The petitioners were convicted of illegal fishing based on the warrantless search and arrest conducted by the NBI. The fishing boat, sampans, and the live fishes in the fish cages were confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government. The petitioners raised several contentions on appeal, including the admissibility of the evidence against them, the presumption of guilt under Presidential Decree No. 704, and the Court of Appeals' failure to acquit them. The Solicitor General supported the petitioners' acquittal and argued that the evidence derived from the warrantless search should not be admissible. The primary issue raised by the petitioners and the Solicitor General was the admissibility of the evidence against the petitioners, specifically the NBI finding of sodium cyanide in the fish specimens.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the warrantless search and seizure of the fishing boat and the subsequent arrest of the petitioners are valid.

  2. Whether the NBI finding of sodium cyanide in the fish specimens is admissible as evidence.

  3. Whether the petitioners are guilty of the offense of illegal fishing with the use of poisonous substances.

  4. Whether the presumption of guilt under the Fisheries Decree violates the presumption of innocence guaranteed by the Constitution.

  5. Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove that the petitioners engaged in illegal fishing with the use of obnoxious or poisonous substance (sodium cyanide).

  6. Whether the contradictory findings on the fish samples create a reasonable doubt as to the use of sodium cyanide in fishing.

  7. Whether or not the accused fished using poisonous substances.

  8. Whether or not the testing of the fish specimens was done in accordance with legal procedures.

RULING:

  1. The warrantless search and seizure of the fishing boat and the subsequent arrest of the petitioners are valid. The Constitution allows for certain exceptions to the requirement of a search warrant, including search and seizure of vessels and aircraft for violations of customs laws. Given that fishing vessels can quickly move out of the jurisdiction, the warrantless search in this case is justified.

  2. The NBI finding of sodium cyanide in the fish specimens is admissible as evidence. The fish samples were seized during the valid warrantless search and seizure. The petitioners failed to raise any irregularity regarding the search during the trial and therefore waived their right to question it.

  3. The petitioners are not guilty of the offense of illegal fishing with the use of poisonous substances. The evidence presented by the prosecution is not sufficient to convict the petitioners.

  4. The third paragraph of section 33 of P.D. 704, which creates a presumption of guilt in cases of illegal fishing, is constitutionally permissible. The presumption is based on facts proved and is not arbitrary or unreasonable. It arises from the discovery of obnoxious or poisonous substances, explosives, or devices for electric fishing, or of fish caught or killed with the use of such substances, explosives, or electricity in a fishing boat or in the possession of a fisherman. The ultimate fact presumed is that the owner, operator, or fisherman were engaged in illegal fishing, and this presumption is a natural inference from the facts proved. However, it is important to note that the statutory presumption is merely prima facie and can be rebutted by the accused.

  5. The prosecution failed to explain the conflicting findings on the fish samples, raising a reasonable doubt as to whether the fishes were caught using sodium cyanide. The absence of cyanide in the second set of fish specimens supports the petitioners' claim that they did not use the poison in fishing. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to prove that the petitioners engaged in illegal fishing with the use of sodium cyanide.

  6. The contradictory findings on the fish samples and the testimony of the apprehending officers, who witnessed the petitioners fishing by hook and line, create a reasonable doubt as to the use of sodium cyanide. Since the charge is for illegal fishing with obnoxious or poisonous substance, the failure to find any evidence of such substance in the possession of the fishermen or in the fish cage further supports the claim that the petitioners did not engage in illegal fishing.

  7. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The petitioners were acquitted of the crime of illegal fishing with the use of poisonous substances defined under Section 33 of Republic Act No. 704, the Fisheries Decree of 1975.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Search and seizure without a warrant is generally prohibited, but there are exceptions such as search incident to a lawful arrest, seizure of evidence in plain view, search of a moving motor vehicle, and search in violation of customs laws.

  • Vessels and aircraft, including fishing boats, are subject to warrantless search and seizure for violations of customs laws due to their ability to quickly move out of the jurisdiction.

  • Failure to raise any irregularity regarding a search and seizure during trial waives the right to question it.

  • The admissibility of evidence depends on whether it was obtained through a lawful search and seizure.

  • The prosecution must present sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt to establish guilt in criminal cases.

  • The legislature has the power to provide that proof of certain facts can constitute prima facie evidence of the guilt of the accused and shift the burden of proof to the accused, provided there is a rational connection between the facts proved and the ultimate fact presumed.

  • The presumption of innocence guaranteed by the Constitution does not preclude the establishment of statutory presumptions in criminal cases, as long as they are based on facts and are not arbitrary or unreasonable.

  • The presumption of guilt in cases of illegal fishing under the Fisheries Decree is a natural inference from the discovery of obnoxious or poisonous substances, explosives, or devices for electric fishing, or of fish caught or killed with the use of such substances, explosives, or electricity in a fishing boat or in the possession of a fisherman.

  • The statutory presumption can be rebutted by the accused by presenting evidence to explain their possession or refute their connection to the commission of the crime.

  • In a criminal case, the prosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

  • In cases involving contradictory findings and evidence that raise reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence.

  • Evidence obtained through irregular or questionable procedures may not be considered reliable and may fail to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

  • Accused persons must be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

  • Evidence obtained through suspicious circumstances may be deemed unreliable.

  • Legal procedures must be followed in testing and examining evidence.