Facts:

The case involves Petitioners Santiago Argoncillo, Richard Balbona, and Policarpio Umiten, who were found guilty of illegal fishing with the use of explosives. The events transpired on May 7, 1990, in the sea waters of Barangay Basiao, Ivisan, Capiz, Philippines. Following reports of widespread illegal fishing in the area, personnel from the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, alongside local authorities, conducted a surveillance operation. A team aboard two pump boats stationed themselves in the vicinity and around 6:30 PM, they heard an explosion, suspected to have resulted from dynamite fishing. Upon investigation, they observed the accused diving into the water and retrieving fish. The apprehensive team identified the three petitioners as actively participating in the illegal fishing. The team managed to catch seven fish samples showing signs of having been caught by explosives.

An Information was filed against six individuals, including the three petitioners,

...

Facts:

Incident and Arrest

• On May 7, 1990, reports of rampant illegal fishing in Barangay Basiao, Ivisan, Capiz prompted law enforcement action.
• A team composed of personnel from the Bureau of Fisheries, the Department of Agriculture, local police, and barangay officials conducted a sea-borne patrol.
• Around 5:30–6:30 PM, while the patrol team was on station, an explosion was heard near a small islet off the coast.
• Upon approaching the scene, the team observed six persons: three were diving into the water, and three were standing on rocky areas near the islet.

Evidence Collection and Examination

• The enforcing team gathered seven fish samples from a banca (small boat) associated with the accused.
• An external examination of the fish revealed signs suggestive of explosive impact, such as blood oozing from the operculum and protruding eyes.
• An internal examination, later conducted by expert fishery personnel Joey de la Cruz and Rolando Amoroso, further revealed:
• Ruptured air bladders with deep blood stains.
• Broken vertebral columns and ribs with evident blood clots.
• These fish were identified as species locally known as avulgan, abulawis, apacol, and abag-angan, which further raised suspicion about the method of capture.

Identification, Testimonies, and Defense Claims

• Barangay Captain Persinefles U. Oabe, who accompanied the team, identified the six accused by their faces.
• Testimonies by Joey de la Cruz, Rolando Amoroso, and other law enforcers established that the fish exhibited unmistakable signs of being killed by explosives.
• The accused offered divergent defenses:
• Three accused (Policarpio Umiten, Santiago Argoncillo, and Richard Balbona) maintained that they were collecting the catch from a fishnet (locally referred to as "apatuloya") rather than using explosives.
• The other three (Johnson Sucgang, Elvis Villar, and Efren Alvaro) claimed they were engaged in shell gathering or other legitimate activities, with one explaining his presence on the islet as a search for fish (apulutana) for a customer.

Judicial Proceedings

• An Information was filed on August 1, 1990, charging all six accused with illegal fishing using dynamite.
• Upon arraignment on September 11, 1990, the accused pleaded not guilty.
• During trial, the prosecution’s evidence—especially the forensic examinations of the fish—was given significant weight.
• The trial court convicted Policarpio Umiten, Santiago Argoncillo, and Richard Balbona for illegal fishing with the use of explosives, imposing a straight penalty of twenty (20) years imprisonment.
• The other three accused were acquitted for lack of sufficient evidence to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• The Court of Appeals later affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court, thus prompting the petition for review.

Issue:

Whether the absence of recovered explosives or dynamite in the possession of the accused undermines the evidence of illegal fishing using explosives.

• Petitioners asserted that not finding any dynamite or related paraphernalia indicates their innocence.
• The prosecution argued that the mere forensic evidence from the fish samples is sufficient to create a presumption of using explosives, regardless of the recovery of the explosive materials.

Whether the imposition of a straight penalty of twenty (20) years imprisonment was proper, or if the Indeterminate Sentence Law requires an indeterminate penalty.

• Petitioners contended that the penalty should have been rendered indeterminate, with a minimum and maximum period, conforming to the requirements of the law for offenses penalized beyond one year.
• The discussion centered on the proper application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law and whether its exception clauses applied.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)