G.R. No. 172678 - Sea Lion Fishing Corp. vs People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 172678)

Criminal charges filed

Multiple charges were filed: (1) violation of Section 97, RA 8550 (against all those arrested) — I.S. No. 2004-032; (2) violation of Section 90, RA 8550 (against the captain, chief engineer and corporate president) — I.S. No. 2004-061; and (3) violations under Sections 27(a) and (f) of RA 9147 and Section 87 of RA 8550 (against all those arrested and the corporate president) — I.S. Nos. 2004-68, 2004-69, and 2004-70.

Provincial Prosecutor’s findings and conditional release resolution

The Provincial Prosecutor dismissed several matters but found probable cause only against the 17 Chinese nationals, concluding the F/V Sea Lion crew were not consenting participants and acted out of fear and inability to control the situation. The petitioner, claiming ownership of the vessel, filed an urgent motion for release of evidence. The Provincial Prosecutor issued a resolution recommending release of F/V Sea Lion to the movant upon proper proof of ownership and the posting of a bond equal to or double the vessel’s appraised value, and later amended the resolution to require approval of the Provincial Committee on Illegal Entrants. Petitioner did not comply with these conditions.

RTC proceedings, guilty pleas and sentences

The prosecutions proceeded in two criminal cases before the RTC of Puerto Princesa: Criminal Case No. 18965 (violation of Section 97 of RA 8550) and Criminal Case No. 19422 (violation of Section 87, RA 8550). In Criminal Case No. 18965 the Chinese accused changed their plea to guilty for the lesser offense under Section 88(3) (use of explosives/noxious substances/electrofishing) and were sentenced to imprisonment; the RTC ordered confiscation of F/V Sea Lion I and related equipment and placed the items under temporary custody of the Philippine Coast Guard. In Criminal Case No. 19422 the 17 accused pled guilty to Section 87 (poaching) and were sentenced to pay the statutory fine (US$100,000) and the same confiscation order was included; the Coast Guard was directed to inventory and preserve the confiscated items.

petitioner’s post-sentence efforts and procedural history

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on June 24, 2005 seeking deletion of the confiscation order; the Provincial Prosecutor opposed. The trial court denied the motion. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA denied the petition by Decision dated January 10, 2006 and denied a subsequent motion for reconsideration by Resolution dated May 5, 2006. Petitioner then elevated the matter by Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court, raising the sole issue whether the confiscation of F/V Sea Lion was valid.

parties’ substantive contentions

Petitioner argued it was the registered owner of F/V Sea Lion and invoked Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code to assert that confiscation should not apply to property of a third person not liable for the offense; petitioner also claimed denial of due process because it was not notified of judicial proceedings on confiscation despite the Provincial Prosecutor being informed of its ownership claim. The respondent (People) countered that RA 8550, as a special law, governs forfeiture under its provisions and that Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code makes the RPC provisions supplementary; hence forfeiture under RA 8550 applies regardless of the owner. The respondent further argued petitioner failed to present a timely third-party claim or to comply with conditions set by the prosecutor for release, and thus cannot now object to confiscation.

procedural issue: certiorari versus appeal

The Supreme Court agreed with the CA that petitioner pursued the wrong remedy in invoking certiorari under Rule 65. Certiorari is available only for acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion where no adequate remedy exists; the RTC had jurisdiction over the alleged offenses and the penalties and therefore had authority to order confiscation. Where an appeal is a plain, speedy and adequate remedy, certiorari is inappropriate. Because the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction and there was no grave abuse of discretion demonstrated, the special civil action for certiorari was not the correct procedural vehicle.

substantive analysis on third‑party ownership and Article 45

The Court affirmed the CA’s finding that petitioner failed to establish third-party ownership and non-liability required under Article 45, RPC. The only relevant document on record was petitioner’s request for release to the Provincial Prosecutor; the prosecutor conditioned release on proof of ownership and posting of a bond, conditions petitioner did not satisfy. Petitioner did not intervene or otherwise present admissible evidence of ownership during arraignment and trial; it only attempted relief by a motion for reconsideration after issuance of the sentences, attaching a copy of an alleged MARINA Certificate of Registration which was not formally offered and admitted under the Rules of Court (Section 34, Rule 132). The Court emphasized th

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 172678)

Issues Presented

The sole issue raised in the petition: whether the confiscation of the fishing vessel F/V Sea Lion was valid.
Whether the petitioner pursued the correct procedural remedy before the Court of Appeals when it filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 instead of an appeal after the trial court’s disposition recognizing petitioner’s opportunity to assert ownership.

Factual Antecedents

Fishermen reported poaching off Mangsee Island in Balabac, Palawan, prompting a combined team of Philippine Marines, Coast Guard, and barangay officials to conduct search and seizure operations.
The team found F/V Sea Lion anchored three nautical miles northwest of Mangsee Island, with five boats nearby and a long fishing net spread over the water.
The team boarded F/V Sea Lion and apprehended: the captain (a Filipino), a crew composed of three Filipinos and three Chinese, and 17 Chinese fishermen aboard F/V Sea Lion.
Various criminal charges were filed against those apprehended following the discovery.

Charges Filed and Dockets

Violation of Section 97 of Republic Act No. 8550 (Fishing or Taking of Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species) filed against all those arrested, docketed as I.S. No. 2004-032.
Violation of Section 90 of RA No. 8550 (Use of Active Gear in Municipal Waters and Bays and Other Fishery Management Areas) filed against the captain of F/V Sea Lion, the Chief Engineer, and the President of the corporation owning the vessel, docketed as I.S. No. 2004-061.
Violations under Section 27(a) and (f) of RA 9147 (Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act) and Section 87 of RA 8550 (Poaching in Philippine Waters) were filed against others, docketed as I.S. Nos. 2004-68, 2004-69, and 2004-70.

Provincial Prosecutor’s Ruling and Action on Vessel

The Provincial Prosecutor of Palawan dismissed I.S. Nos. 2004-061, 2004-68, and 2004-69, but found probable cause only against the 17 Chinese fishermen for remaining relevant charges.
The Provincial Prosecutor’s factual finding: the crew of F/V Sea Lion did not assent to the illegal acts of the 17 Chinese fishermen; the crew had rescued the Chinese nationals from a distressed Chinese vessel and, being unarmed, outnumbered, and hampered by a language barrier, acted out of uncontrollable fear of imminent danger and could not assert authority.
Informations were filed in court against the 17 Chinese fishermen; the petitioning corporation and its crew were effectively exculpated by the prosecutor’s findings.
Petitioner Sea Lion Fishing Corporation filed an Urgent Motion for Release of Evidence alleging ownership of the vessel.
The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor issued a Resolution dated August 25, 2004 recommending release of F/V Sea Lion to the movant upon proper showing of ownership and upon posting a bond double the vessel’s appraised value (or equal value in cash bond), conditioned on availability for inspection during trial. The Resolution stated in part:
- "WHEREFORE, F/[V] Sea Lion is hereby recommended to be released to the movant upon proper showing of evidence of its ownership of the aforesaid vessel and the posting of a bond double the value of said vessel as appraised by the MARINA, if through any court accredited company surety, or equal to the aforesaid value[,] if by cash bond. Said bond shall be on the condition that [the] vessel owner shall make [the vessel] available for inspection during the course of the trial."
A Supplemental Resolution dated September 10, 2004 amended the conditions to include release subject to approval of the Provincial Committee on Illegal Entrants, which has jurisdiction over apprehended vessels involved in poaching.
Petitioner did not comply with the conditions prescribed by the Provincial Prosecutor and failed to act in accordance with those Resolutions.

RTC Proceedings, Pleas, and Sentences

Criminal Case No. 18965 was docketed for Violation of Section 97 of RA 8550; Criminal Case No. 19422 was docketed for Violation of Section 87 of RA 8550.
The 17 Chinese nationals initially pleaded "not guilty" but in Criminal Case No. 18965 later changed their plea to "guilty" for the lesser offense of Violation of Section 88(3) of RA 8550.
In a Sentence dated May 16, 2005 in Criminal Case No. 18965, the RTC found the 17 accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals of Violation of Section 88(3) and sentenced them to imprisonment of five (5) years to six (6) years, six (6) months and seven (7) days. The dispositive portion ordered:
- Confiscation of Fishing Vessel F/V Sea Lion I as well as fishing paraphernalia and equipment used by the accused in committing the crime in favor of the government.
- Temporary custody of the confiscated vessel and items to be placed under the Philippine Coast Guard, with a directive to prepare and submit an inventory within 15 days and to observe the diligence of a good father of the family in preservation and maintenance until final disposition.
- Credit for the period of detention since January 19, 2004.
In a Sentence also dated May 16, 2005 in Criminal Case No. 19422, the RTC found the 17 accused guilty of Violation of Section 87 of RA 8550 (Poaching) and sentenced them to pay a fine of One Hundred Thousand (US$100,000.00) to the Republic of the Philippines. The dispositive portion similarly ordered:
- Confiscation of Fishing Vessel F/V Sea Lion I and fishing paraphernalia and equipment in favor of the government.
- Temporary custody and inventory directives for the Philippine Coast Guard and instruction to preserve and maintain the items.
- Order to the Provincial Jail Warden of Palawan to release the accused unless held for some other lawful cause.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated June 24, 2005 seeking deletion of the confiscation of F/V Sea Lion; the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor filed Opposition; petitioner filed a Reply; the trial court denied the Motion for Reconsideration.
Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with the Court of Appeals challengin