10/8/2016

A.M.No.RTJ951293

TodayisSaturday,October08,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION

A.M.No.RTJ951293May9,1995
GILV.MANLAVI,complainant,
vs.
JUDGEEUSTAQUIOZ.GACOTT,JR.,RegionalTrialCourt,Branch47,CityofPuertoPrincesa,respondent.

QUIASON,J.:
This is an administrative complaint filed against respondent, the presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch47,PuertoPrincessCity.
I
Complainant, a senior police officer, charged respondent with partiality, miscarriage of justice and knowingly
renderinganunjustdecisioninconnectionwiththedismissalofCriminalCasesNos.9210(IllegalPossessionof
Explosives Intended for Illegal Fishing) and 9211 (Illegal Possession of Illegally Caught Fish). The cases were
consolidatedfortrial.
TheaccusedmovedtoquashCriminalCaseNo.9210onthegroundthattheevidenceoftheprosecutionwasthe
productofawarrantlessandillegalsearchandseizure.RespondentgrantedthemotionintheOrderdatedJuly9,
1992,citingtheadmissionoftheprosecutionthatthesearchandseizurewasnotcoveredbyasearchwarrant,
andthatthesearchwarrantpresentedincourtwasissuedafterthefact.
Complainant contended that the confiscation of the fish in the absence of a search warrant was allowed under
CircularNo.130(s.1967)oftheOfficeofthePresident.
The accused moved to quash Criminal Case No. 9211 on the ground that the information failed to charge the
offenseofillegalpossessionoffishcaughtbyexplosivesforitsfailuretoallegetheelement"forprofit."
Theinformationinsaidcasereadsasfollows:
That on or about the 18th day of January, 1991, at Bgy. Mandaragat, Puerto Princesa City,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused conspiring and
confederatingtogetherwithJohnDoe,PeterDoeandWilliamDoewhosetrueidentitiesandpresent
whereaboutsarestillunknownandoneVirgilioLaguna,amilitaryofficer,whichcasewasforwarded
to the JAGO, did then and wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess illegally caught assorted fish
withtheuseofexplosives,weighingmoreorlessEight(8,000)ThousandKilos.
In his comment, the City Prosecutor admitted the omission in the information of the phrase "for profit" but he
claimedthatsaidomissionwasameretechnicality.
InhisOrderdatedJune25,1992,respondentgrantedtheMotiononthegroundthattheinformationareafatally
defective, because it failed to allege two essential elements: (1) that the accused had knowledge that the fish
wereillegallycaughtwiththeuseofexplosivesand(2)thattheyintendedtodisposeoforsellthefishforprofit.
Theprosecutionmovedforthereconsiderationoftheorderarguing:(1)thattheword"knowingly"wassubstituted
withtheword"wilfully"and(2)thatP.D.No.704punishestheseparateactsofpossessing,dealingin,sellingor
disposingofillegallycaughtfishoraquaticproducts.Themotionforreconsiderationwasdenied.
II
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/may1995/am_rtj%20_95_1293_1995.html

1/3

10/8/2016

A.M.No.RTJ951293

Inhiscomment,respondentdeniedthechargesagainsthimandassertedthathisordersweresupportedbylaw
andevidence.Hemovedforthedismissaloftheinstantcomplaint.
As to the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 9210, complainant himself admitted that the search and seizure was
conducted in the absence of a warrant. The search warrant produced by the complainant was issued after the
searchandseizuretookplace.
Moreover,complainantcannotjustifythewarrantlesssearchandseizurebyinvokingCircularNo.130(s.1967)of
the Office of the President. The circular pertains to the procedure in the confiscation of fish caught through the
use of explosives. Such confiscation may be exercised only by the Commissioner of fisheries or his
representatives,whocanonlytakeasampleofthefish(nottoexceedonekilo)fortestingifthefishwereindeed
caughtthroughtheuseofexplosives.Itisonlyuponthedeterminationthatthefishwerecaughtthroughtheuse
ofexplosiveswhentheseizureoftheentirecatchmaybeauthorized.Thereafter,anappraisalofthevalueofthe
fishcaughtshallbemade,whichshallbepaidtotheaccusedshouldhebesubsequentlyacquittedinthecriminal
casefiledagainsthim.
Wenotethatthearrestingofficersfailedtoshowcompliancewiththeprocedureprescribedbytheverycircular
theyinvoke.
AstothedismissalofCriminalCaseNo.9211,respondenterredinholdingthattheinformationwasdefectivein
notallegingthattheoffensewascommitted"knowingly."Theelementofknowledgewasencompassedwithinthe
word"wilfully"usedbytheprosecutor.
However, the information suffers from infirmity for failure to allege the element "for profit." Section 33 (Illegal
fishing, dealing in illegally caught fish or fishery/aquatic products) of Presidential Decree No. 704, as amended,
provides:
...Itshallpersonlikewise,beunlawfulforanypersonknowinglytopossess,dealin,sellorinany
mannerdisposeof, for profit, any fish or fishery/aquatic products which have been illegally caught,
takenorgathered(Emphasissupplied).
It is true that the provision prohibits the separate acts of possessing, dealing in, selling or disposing of illegally
caughtfishandaquaticproducts,butsaidactsmustnotonlybedone"knowingly"butalso"forprofit,"anessential
elementoftheoffense.
Complainant's argument that a quashal of the complainant or information cannot be done without the prior
writtenapprovaloftheprovincialprosecutorismisplaced.
ComplainantinvokesSection4,Rule112oftheNewRulesonCriminalProcedure,whichprovides:
xxxxxxxxx
No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an investigating fiscal without the prior
writtenapprovaloftheprovincialorcityfiscalorchiefstateprosecutor.
xxxxxxxxx
Said provision applies to the conduct of the preliminary investigation, which is within the control of the public
prosecutor.Ithasnoapplicationinacasewheretheinformationisalreadyfiledbeforethepropercourt.Infact,
theepigraphofRule112is"Dutyofinvestigatingfiscal."
In the case at bench, the accused moved for the quashal of the criminal cases after their arraignment. As a
generalrule,anaccusedcanmoveforthequashaloftheinformationonanygroundbeforearraignment(Revised
RulesofCourt,Rule117,Sec.1).However,theruleadmitsofsomeexceptionssuchaswherethereisnooffense
charged(RevisedRulesofCourt,Rule117,Section8Cruz,Jr.v.CourtofAppeals,194SCRA145[1991]),for
whatcontrolsisnotthedesignationoftheoffensechargedintheinformationbuttheallegationsoftheconstitutive
elements of the offense (People v. Aczon, 225 SCRA 237 a [1993]). Any ambiguity in the information shall be
resolvedinfavoroftheaccused(Peoplev.Bondoy,222SCRA216[1993]).
Wellsettledistherulethattheactsofajudgewhichpertaintohisjudicialcapacityarenotsubjecttodisciplinary
power, unless when they are committed with fraud, dishonesty, corruption or bad faith (Abiera v. Maceda 233
SCRA520[1994]).
WHEREFORE,thecomplaintisDISMISSED.
SOORDERED.
Padilla,Davide,Jr.,BellosilloandKapunan,JJ.,concur.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/may1995/am_rtj%20_95_1293_1995.html

2/3

10/8/2016

A.M.No.RTJ951293

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/may1995/am_rtj%20_95_1293_1995.html

3/3