A.M. No. RTJ-95-1293 - Manlavi vs. Gacott, Jr.

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-95-1293)

Factual Background

Complainant was a senior police officer who participated in operations that led to the filing of Criminal Cases Nos. 9210 and 9211, which were consolidated for trial. Criminal Case No. 9210 charged illegal possession of explosives intended for illegal fishing. Criminal Case No. 9211 charged illegal possession of illegally caught fish. The challenged seizures and the sufficiency of the information formed the factual and legal basis for motions to quash filed by the accused in those criminal cases.

Motions to Quash and Trial Court Orders

In Criminal Case No. 9210, the accused moved to quash on the ground that the prosecution’s evidence was the product of a warrantless and illegal search and seizure. Respondent granted the motion in an Order dated July 9, 1992, noting the prosecution’s admission that the search and seizure occurred without a warrant and that the search warrant presented had been issued after the fact. In Criminal Case No. 9211, the accused moved to quash for failure of the information to allege the element “for profit.” The information alleged wilful possession of illegally caught fish weighing about eight thousand kilos but did not expressly allege “for profit.” Respondent granted that motion in an Order dated June 25, 1992, finding the information fatally defective for omitting two essential elements: (1) knowledge that the fish were illegally caught with explosives; and (2) intent to dispose of or sell the fish for profit.

Prosecutor’s and Parties’ Positions in the Criminal Cases

The City Prosecutor admitted that the information in Criminal Case No. 9211 omitted the phrase “for profit” but characterized the omission as a mere technicality. The prosecution later moved for reconsideration of the quashal rulings, arguing that the word “wilfully” in the information encompassed the element of knowledge and that P.D. No. 704 punishes separately the acts of possessing, dealing in, selling, or disposing of illegally caught fish or aquatic products. The motion for reconsideration was denied by Respondent.

Administrative Complaint Against the Judge

Complainant filed an administrative complaint against Respondent charging partiality, miscarriage of justice, and knowingly rendering an unjust decision in connection with the two quashal orders. The complaint attacked the correctness of Respondent’s rulings and sought disciplinary action for the judge’s alleged improper exercise of judicial power.

Respondent’s Defense in the Administrative Proceeding

Respondent denied the charges and moved to dismiss the administrative complaint. He maintained that his orders were supported by law and evidence. With respect to Criminal Case No. 9210, Respondent emphasized that the arresting officers and the prosecution admitted the absence of a search warrant at the time of seizure and that the purported warrant was issued after the fact. He further asserted that Circular No. 130 (s. 1967) did not permit warrantless seizures by arresting officers and that the procedure prescribed by the circular, including appraisal and authority to confiscate, had not been followed.

Legal Analysis on the Warrantless Seizure Issue

The Court noted that Complainant conceded the search and seizure occurred without a warrant and that the search warrant was issued after the event. The Court explained that Circular No. 130 (s. 1967) governs confiscation of fish caught by explosives by the Commissioner of Fisheries or his representatives, limits taking of samples not to exceed one kilo for testing, and provides for appraisal and possible compensation if the accused is acquitted. The Court found that the arresting officers failed to show compliance with the circular’s procedure and that the circular did not justify the warrantless seizure by police officers at the scene.

Legal Analysis on the Sufficiency of the Information

As to Criminal Case No. 9211, the Court observed that Respondent erred in concluding that the information lacked the element of knowledge because the word “wilfully” in the information covered the element of knowledge. The Court agreed, however, with Respondent’s conclusion that the information was deficient for failing to allege the element “for profit,” which is essential under Section 33 (Illegal fishing, dealing in illegally caught fish or fishery/aquatic products) of Presidential Decree No. 704, as amended. The Court quoted the operative language that it is unlawful for any person knowingly to possess, deal in, sell or in any manner dispose of, for profit, any fish or fishery/aquatic products which have been illegally caught, taken or gathered. The Court held that the element “for profit” must be alleged.

Procedural and Evidentiary Rules Cited

The Court rejected Complainant’s contention that quashal could not be granted without prior written approval of the provincial prosecutor under Section 4, Rule 112 of the New Rules on Criminal Procedure. The Court explained that Section 4, Rule 112 pertains to the duty of the investigating fiscal in the conduct of preliminary investigation and does not apply once an information has been filed in court. The Court further invoked the rules governing motions to quash under Revised Rules of Court Rule 117, noting exceptions that permit quashal after arraignment where no offense is charged

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-95-1293)

Parties and Procedural Posture

GIL filed an administrative complaint against Judge Eustaquio Z. Gacott, Jr., presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 47, Puerto Princesa City.
The administrative complaint alleged partiality, miscarriage of justice, and knowingly rendering an unjust decision in connection with the dismissal of Criminal Cases Nos. 9210 and 9211.
Criminal Case No. 9210 charged illegal possession of explosives intended for illegal fishing, and Criminal Case No. 9211 charged illegal possession of illegally caught fish.
The accused in the criminal cases moved to quash both informations and respondent granted both motions by orders dated July 9, 1992 and June 25, 1992 respectively.
The prosecution moved for reconsideration of the order quashing Criminal Case No. 9211, and the motion for reconsideration was denied.
Respondent denied the administrative charges and moved to dismiss the administrative complaint.
The Court dismissed the administrative complaint and entered final disposition in favor of Judge Eustaquio Z. Gacott, Jr..

Key Factual Allegations

The arresting officers conducted a search and seizure without a search warrant and later produced a search warrant that was issued after the search and seizure took place.
The confiscated items included assorted fish alleged to have been caught with the use of explosives.
The information in Criminal Case No. 9211 alleged possession of illegally caught assorted fish with the use of explosives weighing "more or less Eight (8,000) Thousand Kilos" and named John Doe, Peter Doe, William Doe and one Virgilio Laguna.
The City Prosecutor admitted that the information in Criminal Case No. 9211 omitted the phrase "for profit" but characterized the omission as a mere technicality.
The prosecution asserted that the word "wilfully" in the information encompassed the element of knowledge.
Complainant invoked Circular No. 130 (s. 1967) of the Office of the President as justifying the confiscation of fish in the absence of a search warrant.

Procedural History

The accused moved to quash Criminal Case No. 9210 on the ground that the evidence was the product of a warrantless search and seizure, and respondent granted the motion in an Order dated July 9, 1992.
The accused moved to quash Criminal Case No. 9211 on the ground that the information failed to allege the element "for profit", and respondent granted the motion in an Order dated June 25, 1992.
The prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration of the June 25, 1992 order, which the trial court denied.
GIL thereafter filed an administrative complaint against respondent alleging judicial misconduct.
Respondent filed a comment denying the charges and moved for dismissal of the administrative complaint.
The Court, through QUIASON, J., dismissed the administrative complaint and the resolution was concurred in by Padilla (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, and Kapunan, JJ.

Issues Presented

Whether respondent committed misconduct by quashing Criminal Case No. 9210 on the ground that the search and seizure lacked a valid warrant.
Whether respondent erred in quashing Criminal Case No. 9211 on the ground that the information failed to allege the element "for profit" under Presidential Decree No. 704.
Whether Circular No. 130 (s. 1967) authorizes warrantless confiscation of fish by arresting officers.
Whether Rule 112, Section 4 of the New Rules on Criminal Procedure required prior written approval of the provincial or city fiscal to quash a filed information.
Whether judicial acts performed in the exercise of judicial capacity are subject to administrative discipline absent fraud, dishonesty, corruption, or bad faith.

Contentions of the Parties

GIL contended that respondent acted with partiality and rendered unjust decisions by quashing the criminal cases and that Circular No. 13