G.R. No. L-13678 - People vs. Cubelo

The case involves Moises Cubelo, charged with illegal fishing with explosives, before the Court of First Instance of Surigao.
The offense occurred on or about May 7, 1955, within the jurisdictional waters of the municipality and province of Surigao, Philippines.
Cubelo was accused of willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously exploding one stick of dynamite without a permit, which resulted in the disabling, stupefying, and/or killing of a type of fish locally known as tamban, valued at P10.00.

The charge was based on Act No. 4003 as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 471 and further amended by Republic Act No. 462.
Republic Act No. 462, paragraph 2, explicitly penalizes the use of explosives in fishing, prescribing a fine ranging from not less than P1,500 to P5,000 and imprisonment between one year and six months to five years.
Section 12 of Act No. 4003 specifies that the use of dynamite or other explosives to stupefy, disable, kill, or take fish (or other aquatic animals) is prohibited, except under specific, limited, and authorized circumstances.

Cubelo was arraigned on March 25, 1957, with the information read and translated to him in the local dialect.
Despite the comprehensive reading of the information, Cubelo pleaded guilty to the charge, acknowledging his act of illegal fishing with explosives.
The trial court, taking into account his plea as a mitigating circumstance, sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of one (1) year and six (6) months as minimum to two (2) years as maximum, ordered him to pay a fine of P1,500 (or serve subsidiary imprisonment not exceeding one-third of the principal penalty, but in any case not more than one year), and imposed the payment of costs.

The title of the information was “Illegal Fishing with Explosives,” clearly indicating the purpose behind the alleged explosive act.
The evidence included items confiscated from Cubelo at the time of the offense, such as a bag of dried fish, goggles, fish nets, a paddle, and a baroto, which collectively reinforced the conclusion that the dynamite was used specifically for fishing.
The logical inference from the act—the explosion resulting in the capture of a fish—further corroborated the intent to fish rather than to engage in any other reckless or innocent activity involving explosives.

Cubelo contended that he could not be convicted of illegal fishing with explosives because the information did not explicitly allege the intention to fish with explosives; he emphasized that the phrase “use explosives in fishing” should have been clarified to denote that the explosives were used solely for fishing purposes.
He also argued that the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment in the event of his inability to pay the fine was erroneous, asserting that Act No. 4003 does not provide for such subsidiary imprisonment since it is a special law.

The prosecutorial approach noted that the fiscal could have inserted the phrase “for the purpose of fishing” to eliminate any ambiguity; however, the surrounding facts, evidence, and title of the information dispelled any doubt regarding the intended purpose.
The decision referenced prior cases, including People vs. Dizon, People vs. Moreno, and Copiaco vs. Luzon Brokerage, to justify the application of subsidiary imprisonment provisions under the Revised Penal Code to offenses under special laws.

Whether the information, which lacked the explicit phrase “for the purpose of fishing,” still sufficiently established that the dynamite was used as an instrument for fishing rather than for any other purpose.
Whether the trial court erred in ordering subsidiary imprisonment for non-payment of the imposed fine, given that Act No. 4003, as amended, is a special law and might be considered exempt from the subsidiary penalty provisions of the Revised Penal Code.