FOURTEENTH DIVISION

[CA-G.R. SP. No. 80927. February 4, 2005]

LT. RODELLO B. LARAYA, PN, and ATTY. ADELINA B. BENAVENTE-VILLENA,
petitioners, vs. HON. PERFECTO E. PE, Presiding Judge of Branch 52, Regional Trial
Court of Palawan, And TAN ZI XIAN, TAN GUO CUN, HUANG JUN XIANG, TAN
ZI DENG, ZHENG WEN JIE, LIU XIN YAN, TAN BING SHUN, CHEN YI XIAN,
XIE XI WEI, CHEN GUO KUAN, TAN PING YIN (YAN), ZHENG CHAO FU, FANG
MING JIE, TAN GUO HUI, XIE TAN FU, TAN HUO SHUN, LUO ZENG JIA, LAI
GUO YUAN and TAN BING YAO, ZHOU JIAN GANG, QI HUI GUAN, QI JIA
BING, QI HUI WEN, LAI GUO ZHI, CHEN ZI SHUN,ZHOU JIAN KAI, HUANG RI
AN, HUANG ZI HUA, ZHAO QIAN SHAO, CHEN QI CHANG, HUANG SHAO
QIANG, FANG YING XI, HUANG HONG BING, NIE ZHUANG QIANG, QI CHI
SHENG, QI LU JIAN and ZHENG ZHI XIONG, respondents.
DECISION
REYES, JR., A.B., J.:
Before Us is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure
assailing the decisions dated 17 July 2003 of the Regional Trial Court of Palawan, Fourth
Judicial Region, Branch 52, Puerta Princessa City in Criminal Case Numbers: 17717,
17718, 17696 and 17697.
It appears that on 12 September 2002, thirty eight (38) Chinese nationals on board their
fishing vessels were caught within the Malampaya Natural Gas Platform Project
Exclusive Zone, in El Nido, Palawan in the act of illegal fishing. Hundreds of kilos of
Groupers (locally known, as Lapu-Lapu), Wrasse (locally known, as Mameng) and
Snappers (locally known, as Maya-Maya) were found in the said fishing vessels.[1] Also
found within the vessels, among others, were powders and pillets, suspected to be
noxious substances or component ingredients of explosives. A bottle of home-made
dynamite was also retrieved.[2]
Subsequent specimen tests conducted by the Cyanide Detection Test Laboratory of the
Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources on the fishes found on the vessels yielded
positive for the presence of cyanide.[3] Tests conducted by the Forensic Chemistry
Division of the National Bureau of Investigation on the powders and pillets seized from
the vessels confirmed the fact that they were indeed either noxious substances or
contained component ingredients of an explosive.[4]
Corresponding criminal complaints[5] were thus filed on 17 September 2002 by the herein
petitioners, Atty. Adelina Benavente-Villena, Chief of Legal Services of the Palawan
Council for Sustainable Development [PCSD] and Lt. Rodello B. Laraya, a commanding
officer of the Philippine Navy against the accused-private respondents for the violation of
Republic Act No. 8550, otherwise known as the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998,

specifically, Section 87 (Poaching) and Section 88 (Fishing through Explosives, Noxious

or Poisonous Substances) of the said Act.
Subsequently, criminal informations for violation of Republic Act No. 8550 were filed
against all 38 Chinese nationals with the Regional Trial Court of Palawan. All of the
accused-private respondents thereafter pleaded not guilty to the charges on 07 May 2003.
During the pre-trial of the criminal cases, counsel for the accused-private respondents
manifested their intention to enter into plea bargaining by entering a plea of guilty to a
lesser offense under paragraph 2 of Section 88 of Republic Act 8550. However, the then
prosecuting officer of the cases, Provincial Prosecutor Alen Ross B. Rodriguez did not
accede. Consequently, trial on the merits ensued.
After prosecution presented its first witness and initial cross-examination was conducted
by the counsel for the defense, or after only two hearing dates, subsequent trial schedules
were reset until a hearing finally pushed through on 15 July 2003. On such date, however,
Provincial Prosecutor Alen Ross B. Rodriguez manifested his intention to inhibit from
further prosecuting the criminal cases. Continuation of the trial was, hence, rescheduled
the following day.
On 16 July 2003, with the appearance of a new prosecutor, counsel for the defense asked
the court to re-open the pre-trial stage of the criminal cases and reiterated the accusedprivate respondents earlier intention of availing plea bargaining. This time, the
Provincial Prosecutors Office, represented by Prosecutor Olegario Cayetano, Jr., did not
object. On the contrary, Prosecutor Cayetano manifested that the government was
amenable to re-open pre-trial for the purpose of plea-bargaining. Consequently, the trial
court ordered the re-opening of the pre-trial.
During the re-opened pre-trial stage, all the accused-private respondents through their
counsel plead guilty to violation of Paragraph 2, Section 88 of Republic Act 8550. The
public prosecutor interposed no objection with the change of plea and informed the court
that the prosecutors conformity with the plea bargaining was in consonance with the
directive of the Chief State Prosecutor.
On 17 July 2003, the trial court promulgated the assailed decisions,[6] which convicted all
the accused-private respondents for violation of Paragraph 2, Section 88 of Republic Act
8550 (Possession of Noxious or Poisonous Substances) and sentenced each of the
accused-private respondents to a penalty of ten (10) months imprisonment. All the
accused-private respondents were also convicted of violating of Section 87 of the same
Act (the crime of Poaching) and were ordered to pay a fine of USD100,000.00 in favor of
the government. Fishing paraphernalia, equipment and vessels were ordered forfeited in
favor of the State.
On 18 July 2003, the herein petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, by way of an
Omnibus Motion[7] seeking, among others, reconsideration of the decision of the trial
court allowing the re-opening of the pre-trial, despite vigorous objections from the

petitioners. The latter contend that the prosecutor must not be allowed to plea bargain
without seeking the conformity of the herein petitioners being the complainants.
On 04 August 2003, the trial court denied[8] the petitioners Omnibus Motion, declaring
the same as a mere scrap of paper, for failure on the part of the petitioners to notify the
provincial prosecutor and the accused-private respondents. Moreover, the trial court
observed that the petitioners by themselves cannot properly represent the People in filing
the said motion, since supervision and control in the prosecution of criminal cases is
lodged with the public prosecutor.
Hence, the instant petition.
Petitioners raise the following issues to wit:[9]
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT JUDGE ACTED BEYOND HIS
AUTHORITY IN RULING THAT HEREIN COMPLAINANTS-PETITIONERS
CANNOT REPRESENT THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HENCE, NO
STANDING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDINGS, PLEA
BARGAINING PROCESS;
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT JUDGE ACTED IN EXCESS OF HIS
JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN HE
ALLOWED THE RE-OPENING OF PRE-TRIAL FOR PURPOSES OF PLEABARGAINING WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE COMPLAINANTS AND
CONTRARY TO SECTION 2, RULE 116 OF THE REVISED RULES ON CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, AS AMENDED;
III.
WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT JUDGE ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE
OF DISCRETION BY NOT PROVIDING FOR SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT IN
CASE THE ACCUSED POACHERS ARE NOT ABLE TO PAY THE FINE OF
$200,000 IMPOSED UPON UNDER SECTION 87, REPUBLIC ACT 8550;
IV.
WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT JUDGE ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE
OF DISCRETION I DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON THE
GROUND THAT THE SAID MOTION WAS A MERE SCRAP OF PAPER.
We resolve to dismiss the instant petition.

At the outset, considering that the instant petition arose out of a criminal case, it is
peculiar that it is the chief legal counsel of PCSD and a commanding officer of the
Philippine Navy who brings this instant action before Us assailing the decision of the trial
court in the said criminal cases.
Therefore, before this petition can be given due course, it is imperative to resolve whether
the herein petitioners have legal standing to bring up the present action.
We rule in the negative.
Section 1, Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court expressly provides:
SECTION 1. Petition for Certiorari. When any tribunal, board or officer exercising
judicial and quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no
appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a
person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the
facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the
proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law
and justice may require. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
XXX

XXX

XXX

Hence, for the herein petitioners to lodge the instant action, they must first be a person
aggrieved, otherwise, they would be without legal standing to pursue this legal recourse.
That having been said, this Court rules that the herein petitioners are not persons
aggrieved by the assailed decision of the trial court in the subject criminal cases.
It is elementary in criminal law that a crime is an offense against the State, and is hence
prosecuted in the name of the People of the Philippines.[10] For this reason, Section 5 of
Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that all criminal actions
commenced by a complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and
control of the prosecutor.
Furthermore, Section 1 of P.D. 1275, provides, to wit:
SECTION 1. Creation of the National Prosecution Service; Supervision and Control of
the Secretary of Justice. There is hereby created and established a National
Prosecution Service under the supervision and control of the Secretary of Justice, to
be composed of the Prosecution Staff in the Office of the Secretary of Justice and
such number of Regional State Prosecution Offices, and Provincial and City Fiscals
Offices as are hereinafter provided, which shall be primarily responsible for the
investigation and prosecution of all cases involving violations of penal laws.
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Clearly, it is within the exclusive domain of the prosecutory arm of the government as
how best to deal with the prosecution of criminal cases. Hence, any grievance in course
thereof affecting the interest of the State must proceed only from such an arm of the
government.
Moreover, at this stage, only the Solicitor General can bring or defend actions on behalf
of the Republic of the Philippines.[11] Section 35 (1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of
Administrative Code of 1987 provides for the Office of the Solicitor Generals duty to
Represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all
criminal proceedings; represent the Government and its officers in the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals, and all other courts or tribunals in all civil actions and
special proceedings in which the Government or any officer thereof in his official
capacity is a party.
Therefore, the present action cannot be successfully lodged by the petitioners without the
concurrence and presence of the Solicitor General, who legally represents the interest of
the State at this stage of the proceedings.
To restate, the criminal violation of our fishery laws is an offense against the People
of the Philippines. The offended party is therefore none other than the State and
certainly not the herein petitioners, who are public officials under the employ of the
PCSD and the Philippine Navy. The State for its part, in the prosecution of criminal
offenses, is represented by the National Prosecution Service, directly supervised and
controlled by the Department of Justice. At this stage, the competent agency to
represent the cause of the State should be the Office of the Solicitor General and
none other. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
Considering the foregoing, it is futile for the petitioners to invoke the statutory mandate
of Republic Act 7611, known as the Strategic Environmental Plan for Palawan Act to
initiate the present petition. Indeed, there is nothing in the said law which authorizes the
PCSD to directly prosecute criminal cases, nay represent the State in actions arising from
such criminal cases as aggrieved parties.
To be sure, the PCSD was created for the purpose of exercising governance and
implementing the policy direction of the Strategic Environmental Plan [SEP]. The SEP
on the other hand, as referred to in Republic Act No. 7611, is a comprehensive
framework for the sustainable development of Palawan compatible with protecting and
enhancing the natural resources and endangered environment of the said province.[12] The
SEPs express purpose is thus to serve as a framework to guide the local government of
Palawan and other government agencies concerned in the formulation and
implementation of plans, programs and projects affecting the province of Palawan.[13]
A reading of the Republic Act No. 7611 therefore clearly spells out that PCSDs function
is purely administrative, regulatory and policy-making in nature, and certainly not
prosecutory.

With respect to the legal standing of Lt. Rodello B. Laraya to file the instant petition,
suffice it to again reiterate that the aggrieved party in this case is the State and not Lt.
Laraya in his personal capacity, or the Philippine Navy or the Naval Forces West, both of
which Laraya is a member of. By the petitioners own allegation, the task of the Naval
Forces West is simply to undertake patrolling, monitoring and apprehension of violators
of our fishery laws and other laws affecting our waters and seas.
In fine, to successfully lodge the instant petition, the petitioners must have a personal and
substantial interest in the case such that they have sustained or stand to sustain direct
injury as a result of the act that is being challenged. We find no such injury, whether
sustained or otherwise to the herein petitioners. If at all, it was the State who was injured.
Thus, it is only the State who may bring the instant action.
With the lack of legal personality of the herein petitioners to instigate the instant petition,
there is no need to further consider the other issues and arguments raised therein.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack
of legal standing on the part of the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Lucas Bersamin and Celia Librea-Leagogo, JJ., concur.

[1]

Rollo, pp. 55-58.

[2]

Ibid, p. 55.

[3]

Ibid, pp. 46-52.

[4]

Ibid, pp. 53-54.

[5]

Ibid, pp. 38-45.

[6]

Ibid, pp. 24-31.

[7]

Ibid, pp. 32-35.

[8]

Ibid, pp. 36-37.

[9]

Ibid, pp. 11-12.

[10]

People v. Arcilla, G.R. No. 116237, 15 May1996.

[11]

People v. Partisala, G.R. No. L-61997, 15 November 1982.

Section 4, Chapter II of Republic Act No. 7611, otherwise known as the Strategic
Environmental Plan for Palawan Act.
[12]

[13]

Section 4 and Section 6, Ibid.