Case Digest (G.R. No. 172678)
Facts:
Sea Lion Fishing Corporation v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 172678, March 23, 2011, the Supreme Court First Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Sea Lion Fishing Corporation owned (it alleged) the fishing vessel F/V Sea Lion. In January 2004 a combined team of Philippine Marines, Coast Guard and barangay officials, responding to reports of poaching off Mangsee Island (Balabac, Palawan), boarded F/V Sea Lion, found it anchored with five other boats and a long fishing net spread in the water, and arrested the vessel’s captain, its crew (three Filipinos and three Chinese) and seventeen other Chinese fishermen found aboard.
The Provincial Prosecutor of Palawan dismissed several charges against the vessel’s owner, captain and chief engineer but found probable cause only against the 17 Chinese fishermen and filed Informations against them. Petitioner filed an Urgent Motion for Release of Evidence claiming ownership of F/V Sea Lion. The Provincial Prosecutor issued a Resolution (August 25, 2004) recommending release of the vessel to petitioner upon proof of ownership and posting of a bond, later supplementing that release required approval of the Provincial Committee on Illegal Entrants; petitioner did not comply with these conditions.
At the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Criminal Case Nos. 18965 and 19422, the 17 Chinese accused pleaded guilty—first to a lesser offense under Section 88(3) of RA 8550 and also to Section 87 (poaching); on May 16, 2005 the RTC sentenced them and ordered confiscation of F/V Sea Lion and related paraphernalia, placing the vessel under temporary custody of the Philippine Coast Guard. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on June 24, 2005 asking the RTC to delete the confiscation; the RTC denied the motion.
Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a January 10, 2006 Decision (CA‑G.R. SP No. 91270), denied the petition, holding no lack/excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, and faulting petitioner for failing to present evidence of ownership and for pursuing an improper remedy (certiorari instead of appeal). The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a May 5, 2006 Resolution.
Petitioner elevated the matt...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 the proper remedy to challenge the RTC’s confiscation order (procedural question)?
- Was the confiscation of F/V Sea Lion valid under the applicable law and evidence (substantive question)?
- Was petitioner deprived of due process in the confiscation of F/V Sea Lion (procedu...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)