Title
Sea Lion Fishing Corp. vs People
Case
G.R. No. 172678
Decision Date
Mar 23, 2011
Chinese fishermen convicted of poaching; vessel confiscated as owner failed to prove ownership or comply with legal remedies.
ownership
confiscated fishing vessel
forfeiture

Case Summary (G.R. No. 172678)

Factual Background: Apprehension and Charges

The apprehending team boarded F/V Sea Lion and arrested the captain and crew, as well as seventeen Chinese fishermen found aboard. The charges were organized as follows: first, a prosecution under Section 97 of RA No. 8550 against those arrested, docketed as I.S. No. 2004-032; second, a prosecution under Section 90 of RA No. 8550 against the captain, the Chief Engineer, and the corporate President, docketed as I.S. No. 2004-061; and third, a prosecution under Section 27(a) and (f) of RA No. 9147 and Section 87 of RA No. 8550 against the arrested individuals and the corporate President, docketed as I.S. Nos. 2004-68, 2004-69, and 2004-70.

The Provincial Prosecutor’s Disposition and the Third-Party Claim

The Provincial Prosecutor dismissed I.S. Nos. 2004-61, 2004-68, and 2004-69, but found probable cause for the remaining charges only against the seventeen Chinese fishermen. The prosecutor’s finding relied on the conclusion that the crew did not assent to the illegal acts. It was also found that the crew, being unarmed and outnumbered and hindered by a language barrier, acted from fear of imminent danger to their lives and property while the Chinese nationals were rescued by the crew from a distressed Chinese vessel.

With the crew effectively exculpated from the prosecutions that proceeded, petitioner filed an Urgent Motion for Release of Evidence before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, asserting ownership of F/V Sea Lion. The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor issued a Resolution dated August 25, 2004 recommending the release of the vessel upon proof of ownership and the posting of a bond double the vessel’s value as appraised by MARINA, either through a court-accredited surety or through cash bond. The Resolution required that the bond be conditioned on making the vessel available for inspection during the trial. A Supplemental Resolution dated September 10, 2004 added that release would be subject to approval of the Provincial Committee on Illegal Entrants, which had jurisdiction over apprehended vessels involved in poaching.

Petitioner did not act in accordance with the prosecutor’s Resolutions.

RTC Proceedings and the Twin Sentences

The case for Violation of Section 97 of RA No. 8550 was docketed as Criminal Case No. 18965, while the case for Violation of Section 87 of the same law was docketed as Criminal Case No. 19422. The Chinese nationals initially pleaded not guilty in both cases. Later, in Criminal Case No. 18965, they changed their pleas from not guilty to guilty for the lesser offense of Violation of Section 88, sub-paragraph (3) of RA No. 8550. As a result, the RTC issued a Sentence dated May 16, 2005 in Criminal Case No. 18965. The dispositive portion adjudged the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced them to imprisonment ranging from five (5) years to six (6) years, six (6) months and seven (7) days. The RTC also ordered confiscation of F/V Sea Lion and the fishing paraphernalia and equipments, placed the confiscated vessel and items under the temporary custody of the Philippine Coast Guard, and directed submission of an inventory within fifteen days.

On the same date, the RTC issued a Sentence in Criminal Case No. 19422 after the accused pleaded guilty to Violation of Section 87 of RA No. 8550. The dispositive portion ordered the payment of a fine of One Hundred Thousand (US$100,000.00) Dollars to the Republic of the Philippines and, as in the other sentence, ordered confiscation of the vessel and fishing paraphernalia. The RTC again required temporary custody by the Philippine Coast Guard and ordered release of the accused from detention unless held for other lawful causes.

Petitioner’s Post-Sentence Move and the RTC’s Denial

Only after the issuance of the twin Sentences did petitioner file a Motion for Reconsideration dated June 24, 2005. Petitioner asked the trial court to delete from the Sentences the confiscation of F/V Sea Lion. The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor opposed the Motion. After petitioner filed a Reply, the RTC denied the Motion for Reconsideration.

Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with the CA, assailing both the January 10, 2006 CA Decision and the May 5, 2006 CA Resolution denying reconsideration.

The CA’s Ruling on Jurisdiction, Remedy, and Proof

The CA denied the petition. It found no lack of jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction, or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC. The CA held that the trial court had jurisdiction over the crimes charged and the penalties imposable. It further concluded that, as a necessary consequence, the trial court had authority to determine the disposition of the subject fishing vessel, which was mentioned in the Informations.

The CA also ruled that petitioner’s attempt to claim ownership through its motion for reconsideration was undeserving of merit due to its failure to adduce evidence. Finally, the CA ruled that petitioner failed to avail of the proper procedural remedy. The CA reasoned that once the trial court recognized petitioner’s right to intervene in the Order dated August 4, 2005, petitioner should have appealed rather than pursue certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, because certiorari would not lie when an appeal is the plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.

Issues Raised: Validity of Confiscation and Alleged Denial of Due Process

Before the Supreme Court, petitioner raised a sole issue on whether the confiscation of F/V Sea Lion was valid. Petitioner argued that the vessel should be released because it was the registered owner. It emphasized that the captain and crew members were not among those accused and convicted in Criminal Case Nos. 18965 and 19422. Petitioner invoked Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides for confiscation and forfeiture of instruments of crime, with the exception that forfeiture does not apply to property of a third person not liable for the offense.

Petitioner additionally claimed that it was denied due process because it was not notified of the judicial proceedings relating to confiscation. It argued that such notification was necessary because the Provincial Prosecutor had been informed of its ownership claim.

The OSG countered that Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code should not apply because the convictions were based on violations of RA No. 8550, a special law. It invoked Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code, which states that acts punishable by special laws are not covered by the Revised Penal Code provisions, except when the Revised Penal Code provisions are specifically made applicable. The OSG maintained that forfeiture under RA No. 8550 is not the same as forfeiture under the Revised Penal Code as an additional penalty, and it pointed out that RA No. 8550 provides forfeiture of the vessel used in connection with or in direct violation of its provisions without any distinction as to ownership.

The OSG further argued that even if Article 45 applied, petitioner’s claim still failed because it did not present its third-party claim at the earliest opportunity. It stressed that petitioner did not comply with the prosecutor’s conditions for release, and that petitioner chose to wait for the trial court’s final disposition instead of following the release procedure. The OSG also asserted there was no due process violation because petitioner was given ample opportunity to be heard when its motion for release was considered and granted conditionally, and petitioner still did not comply and did not meaningfully intervene during the criminal proceedings until after the sentences were issued.

Remedy and Jurisdiction: Why Certiorari Was Improper

The Court held that the petition before the CA pursued an incorrect remedy. A Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. The CA found no jurisdictional error because the offenses were committed within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction and the penalties were within its competence. Consequently, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the RTC’s issuance of the confiscation order, given the absence of evidence showing that the vessel was owned by a third party.

The Court also agreed with the CA that petitioner impliedly received recognition of its right to intervene and, therefore, the proper remedy was appeal rather than certiorari. The Court reiterated that certiorari under Rule 65 is unavailing when appeal is the plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. It further noted that jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties was present, which prevented correction of controversies through certiorari.

Merits: Absence of Proof to Satisfy the Third-Party Exception

Assuming arguendo that the procedural issue did not bar review, the Court still found no basis to invalidate confiscation. It emphasized that petitioner’s ownership claim was not supported by proof in the record. The only document relevant to ownership was petitioner’s request for release based on alleged ownership submitted to the Provincial Prosecutor. Although the prosecutor authorized release, the authorization was conditional on submission of proof and posting of a bond, and petitioner failed to comply.

The Court also found that petitioner did not present any meaningful participation during the period from arraignment through the rendition of sentence. Even petitioner’s explanation before the CA—that financial difficulties prevented compliance with the bond requirement—did not justify a deliberate failure to act at all. Petitioner only reappeared after confiscation was ordered in the twin Sentences, when it filed a motion for reconsideration attaching a copy of an alleged MARINA Certificate of Registration.

The Court agreed with the CA that petitioner’s lack of factual basis was not cured. At that stage, petitioner should have adduced evidence and sought an a

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms