G.R. No. L-6866 - People vs. Anito

On April 15, 1953, Sotero Anito was apprehended in Manjuyod, Negros Oriental while engaged in fishing with dynamite.
Upon his arrest, law enforcement officers found in his pocket a package containing explosive powder along with a blasting cap.
It was established that Anito did not possess the necessary licenses required by law: neither from the Secretary of Agriculture nor from the Chief of Constabulary.

Anito was prosecuted under Commonwealth Act No. 471 for the act of illegal fishing using explosives.
In a separate information, he was charged with illegal possession of explosive materials in violation of Act No. 3023.
Anito pleaded not guilty to the charge of illegal fishing, asserting that his subsequent prosecution for possession constituted double jeopardy for the same offense.

Anito moved to dismiss the second information (illegal possession of explosives) on the ground that the same facts giving rise to the fishing offense were being used to charge him with possession.
The trial judge agreed with the motion for dismissal, reasoning that one cannot fish with explosives without possessing them, implying that prior to the commission of illegal fishing, the accused must already incur the offense of illegal possession.
This decision led to the dismissal of the second charge, setting the stage for further judicial scrutiny.

The case referenced by the court was P. vs. Tinamisan (G.R. No. L-4801), decided on January 29, 1952, involving similar circumstances wherein accused persons were charged with illegal fishing with explosives and illegal possession of explosives.
In the Tinamisan case, the court emphasized that the use of explosives in fishing and the possession of explosives are distinct offenses, depending on the various licensing conditions.
The precedent clarified that one violation does not necessarily include or preclude another, and the rule of double jeopardy does not attach when two separate statutory provisions are breached.

The central issue is whether prosecuting Anito for illegal possession of explosives, in addition to illegal fishing with explosives, violates the double jeopardy rule.
Anito contended that since both charges arose from the same act of fishing with explosives, he should not be tried twice for what he insists is essentially one offense.

The legal question arises as to whether the offense of illegal fishing with explosives (under Act No. 471) and the offense of illegal possession of explosives (under Act No. 3023) are legally distinct.
The case required an examination of whether the same act (fishing with explosives without proper licenses) can be simultaneously partitioned into two separate offenses or if it should be treated as a single offense, thereby invoking double jeopardy.

The issue also centers on the applicability of the earlier decision in the Tinamisan case, where the court elucidated that the two offenses could proceed independently when different elements (i.e., licensing requirements) are not satisfied.
This raises a broader question regarding the interpretation of statutory provisions that outline distinct elements for what might superficially appear to be a single wrongful act.