Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-17923 May 26, 1962
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
rere!e"#e$ %y &BR&H&M C&MPO, '" ('! )aa)'#y a! Co**a"$er '" #(e P('+''"e
Na,y, petitioner-appellant,
vs.
HON. ROM&N C&NSINO -R., a! -.$/e o0 #(e M."')'a+ Co.r# o0 Ma"'+a,
SHERIFF OF M&NIL& a"$ M&G1&2O R&MIRE3, respondents-appellees.
Office of the Solicitor General for petitioner-appellant.
R. M. Angeles for respondents-appellees.
CONCEPCION, J.:
Appeal from an order of the Court of First nstance of Manila dismissin! the petition for
prohibition and in"unction in this case.
#n #ctober $, %&'(, Ma!da)o Ramire* filed +ith the Municipal Court of Manila, presided over
b) respondent ,ud!e, -on. Roman Cansino, ,r., a complaint .Civil Case No. /%%/' of said court0
for replevin a!ainst the mana!er of the Ro)al Cold 1tora!e, located in Aviles 1treet, Manila, and
Philippine Nav) Commander Abraham Campo, alle!in! that he .Ramire*0 is the o+ner of /2
tubs of fish +hich +ere ille!all) sei*ed b) Campo and his a!ents or representatives on #ctober
%, %&'( and impounded in the premises of said Ro)al Cold 1tora!e. 3pon the filin! b) Ramire*
of a P4,((( bond, said respondent ,ud!e forth+ith issued .on #ctober $, %&'(0 a +arrant of
sei*ure, directin! the 1heriff of Manila to ta5e possession of said /2 tubs of fish, 5eep the same
for five .20 da)s and, thereafter, deliver it to Ramire*.
#n #ctober 6, %&'(, Commander Campo filed +ith said municipal court an ur!ent petition for
the return of said fish, upon the !round that the same +as ta5en from the fishin! boat 78#N9
:E; 7 in the +aters off Navotas, Ri*al, b) a unit of the Philippine Nav) dul) en!a!ed in the
enforcement of our fishin! la+s, 7after a findin! b) Fisher) Product E<aminer of the Bureau of
Fisheries from samples ta5en earlier that the fish in =uestion had been 5illed or cau!ht +ith the
use of d)namite, the mere possession of +hich7 fish is a crime under Republic Act No. >4/, as
amended? that, as conse=uence, t+o .40 criminal complaints @ copies of +hich +ere attached to
said petition @ +ere filed a!ainst Ramire* +ith the ,ustice of the Peace Court of Navotas, Ri*al,
one for ille!al possession of d)namited fish and another for disobedience to a person in
authorit)? that the fish aforementioned should not be delivered to Ramire*, at least, durin! the
pendenc) of said criminal case, because, amon! other reasons, said fish is the sub"ect or proceeds
of a crime, because, in the event of the conviction of Ramire*, the forfeiture of the fish +ould be
frustrated, and because the prosecution +ould be deprived of a material evidence? and that since
the petition had been filed on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, it +as unnecessar) for
the same to file a redeliver) bond.
Ahen the ur!ent petition +as heard on #ctober /, %&'(, respondent ,ud!e announced that, unless
said redeliver) bond +as posted b) >B(( p.m., on #ctober %(, %&'(, he +ould order the 1heriff to
turn the fish over to Ramire*.
Accordin!l), on #ctober %(, %&'(, Commander Campo, actin! on behalf of the Republic of the
Philippines, instituted the present action for prohibition and in"unction in the Court of First
nstance of Manila .Case No. >>>$/ thereof0 a!ainst respondent ,ud!e, the 1heriff of Manila and
Ramire*, based upon the facts adverted to above, +ith the pra)er that a +rit of preliminar)
in"unction be issued restrainin! the deliver) of the fish to Ramire* and that, after trial, said +rit
be made permanent. #n the same date the +rit of preliminar) in"unction pra)ed for +as issued. A
motion filed b) Ramire*, on #ctober %4, %&'(, for the dissolution of said +rit, +as denied on
#ctober %>, %&'(. After service of summons, or on #ctober 4>, %&'(, Ramire* filed his ans+er
to the complaint and a separate motion for reconsideration of the order of #ctober %>, %&'(. 8he
motion +as !ranted on November 6, %&'(, on +hich date the +rit of preliminar) in"unction +as
dissolved. A motion of the Covernment for the reconsideration of the order of November 6,
%&'(, +as denied on December %(, %&'(. #n the same date, the lo+er court issued another order
dismissin! the petition for prohibition and in"unction. Conse=uentl), the Covernment interposed
this appeal directl) to the 1upreme Court, onl) =uestion of la+ bein! raised therein.
8his case hin!es on the applicabilit) of the case at bar of the second para!raph of section > of
Republic Act No. >4/, as amended b) Republic Act No. %2$2, readin!B
An) officer or person mentioned in the precedin! para!raph is authori*ed to ta5e from
amon! the fishes or a=uatic animals believed to have been stupefied or 5illed in violation
of this Act the necessar) samples, in not more than one 5ilo, for e<amination? issuin! a
receipt therefore +ith specification of the 5ind and the =ualit) of fish or other a=uatic
animals ta5en b) him as +ell as their value obtainin! in the mar5et that da). f after the
e<amination, such fish or a=uatic animals are found not to have been stupefied or 5illed
in violation of this Act, the person from +hom the) are ta5en as samples shall be paid
their value as herein stated, said pa)ment to be borne and defra)ed b) the !overnment
office or a!enc) to +hich the person or officer mentioned in the first para!raph of this
section is connected from funds appropriated for said purpose. 8he officer or person in
authorit) or a!ent of authorit) +ho does not submit the sample ta5en for e<amination or
does not !ive the person from +hom it +as ta5en a report of such e<amination +ithin ten
da)s shall be punished upon conviction b) a fine of not e<ceedin! five hundred pesos, or
b) imprisonment for not more than si< months, or both such fine and imprisonment, in
the discretion of the court.
8he lo+er court held that the issue herein is controlled b) this provision? that pursuant thereto,
petitioner +as entitled to ta5e samples of the fish in =uestion 7in not more than one 5ilo7? and
that, accordin!l), the sei*ure of /2 tubs of fish +as ille!al. t should be noted, ho+ever, that said
provision refers to 7fishes . . . believed to have been . . . 5illed in violation7 of said Act, and that
the same authori*es the officer entertainin! said belief to ta5e 7the necessar) samples, in not
more than one 5ilo, for examination of the 5ind and the =ualit) of fish . . . ta5en b) him7.
1uch is not the situation obtainin! in the case at bar. n the ur!ent petition filed b) the
Covernment +ith the municipal court on #ctober 6, %&'(, as +ell as in its petition for
prohibition and in"unction in the present case, it is specificall) alle!ed that, 7after a finding made
b) a Fisher) Product E<aminer of the Bureau of Fisheries from samples taken earlier that the
fish in =uestion had been 5illed or cau!ht +ith the use of d)namite7, the 7mere possession7 of
+hich fish is 7a crime7 under 7Republic Act No. >4/, as amended b) Republic Act No. %2$2,7
said fish +as sei*ed b) a!ents of the la+, and the correspondin! criminal complaints +ere filed
+ith the ,ustice of the Peace Court of Navotas, Ri*al. 8he above =uoted provision is, therefore,
inapplicable to the present case and the same is !overned b) the rule to the effect that the sub"ect
of an offense and the proceeds thereof are proper ob"ects of sei*ure, particularl) +hen @ as it is
in the present case @ the mere possession of the ob"ects sei*ed constitutes a crime, for the holder
of said ob"ects is then committin! a crime in the presence of the officer effectin! the sei*ure, and
the same is valid, despite the absence of a search +arrant .Ma!oncia vs. Palacio, /( Phil., 66(,
664? 2' C.,. %%''0.1ph!1."#t
Furthermore, respondent ,ud!e erred in re=uirin! the postin! of a redeliver) bond as a condition
precedent to the dissolution of the +arrant of sei*ure issued b) said officer, for petitioner is the
Republic of the Philippines and the same is e<empt from the obli!ation to post such bond .De
:eon vs. -on. ,ud!e Macapanton, C.R. No. :-%2$&>, April 4&, %&'%? Amparo ,oa=uin-Cutierre*
vs. Camus, C.R. No. :-'642, #ctober $(, %&2>0.
A-EREF#RE, the order appealed from is reversed and respondent ,ud!e and the 1heriff of
Manila are hereb) en"oined from proceedin! +ith the deliver) of the /2 tubs of fish in =uestion
to respondent Ma!da)o Ramire*, unless other+ise directed b) the court havin! "urisdiction over
the aforementioned criminal action a!ainst him for ille!al possession of d)namited fish, +ith the
costs of both instances a!ainst said Ma!da)o Ramire*. t is so ordered.
$adilla% &a'tista Angelo% (abrador% Re)es% *.&.(.% &arrera% $aredes and +i,on% **.% conc'r.
&eng,on% -.*.% is on leave.