People of the Philippines v. Vergara G.R. No.

110286, April 2, 1997, 270 SCRA 624

Syllabus: Trial courts are tasked to initially rule on the credibility of witnesses for both the prosecution
and the defense. Appellate courts seldom would subordinate, with their own, the findings of trial courts
which concededly have good vantage points in assessing the credibility of those who take the witness
stand. Nevertheless, it is not all too uncommon for appellate courts to peruse through the transcript of
proceedings in order to satisfy itself that the records of a case do support the conclusions of trial courts.

It would appear that at about 7:30 in the morning of 04 July 1992, a team composed of deputized Fish Warden
and President of the Leyte Fish Warden Association Jesus P. Bindoy, Police Officers Casimiro Villas and
Diosdado Moron of the Palo PNP Station, Leyte, Fish Wardens Mario Castillote and Estanislao Cabreros and
Fish Examiner Nestor Aldas of the Department of Agriculture were on board, "Bantay-Dagat," a pumpboat, on
"preventive patrol" along the municipal waters fronting barangays Baras and Candahug of Palo, Leyte, when
they chanced upon a blue-colored fishing boat at a distance of approximately 200 meters away. The boat, 30
feet long, had on board appellant Renerio Vergara and his three co-accused Bernardo Cuesta, Pedro Dagaño
and Ernesto Cuesta, Jr., and was on parallel course toward the general direction of Samar.  Momentarily, the
2

team saw appellant throw into the sea a bottle known in the locality as "badil" containing ammonium nitrate and
having a blasting cap on top which, when ignited and thrown into the water, could explode. The explosion
would indiscriminately kill schools and various species of fish within a certain radius. Approximately three
seconds after appellant had thrown the "badil" into the sea, the explosion occurred. Vergara and Cuesta dove
into the sea with their gear while Dagaño and Cuesta, Jr., stayed on board to tend to the air hose for the
divers.
3

The team approached the fishing boat. SP02 Casimiro Villas boarded the fishing boat while Fish Warden Jesus
Bindoy held on to one end of the boat. Moments later, Vergara and Cuesta surfaced, each carrying a fishnet or
"sibot" filled with about a kilo of "bolinao" fish scooped from under the water. Having been caught red-handed,
the four accused were apprehended and taken by the patrol team to the "Bantay-Dagat" station at Baras, and
later to the police station in Palo, Leyte. The fishing boat and its paraphernalia, as well as the two fishnets of
"bolinao," were impounded. The accused, however, refused to sign and acknowledge the corresponding
receipts therefor.
Facts: On July 4, 1992, a team composed of deputized fish warden, the president of the Leyte
Fish Warden, and some police officers were on board, Bantay-Dagat, a pumpboat, on
“preventive patrol” along the municipal waters fronting barangays Baras and Candahug of Palo,
Leyte, when they chanced upon a fishing boat. The boat had on board appellant Renerio
Vergara and his three co-accused Bernardo Cuesta, Pedro Dagaño and Ernesto Cuesta, Jr.,.
The team saw appellant throw into the sea a bottle known in the locality as badil containing
ammonium nitrate and having a blasting cap on top which, when ignited and thrown into the
water, could explode. The explosion would indiscriminately kill schools and various species of
fish within a certain radius. Approximately three seconds after appellant had thrown the "badil"
into the sea, the explosion occurred. Vergara and Cuesta dove into the sea with their gear.
When the accused surfaced, they were caught red-handed with about a kilo of "bolinao" fish
scooped from under the water. The four accused were apprehended and taken by the patrol
team to the Bantay-Dagat station at Baras, and later to the police station in Palo, Leyte. The
fishing boat and its paraphernalia, as well as the two fishnets of bolinao, were impounded. The
trial court found the accused guilty of violating PD No. 704 as amended by P.D. No. 1508

Issue: Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict the accused?

Ruling: Yes. The evidence presented was enough to convict the accused. The first set of
evidence were the testimonies, the first of which came from Fish Warden Jesus Bindoy, while
the second testimony came from Nestor Aldas, an Agricultural Technologist and Fish Examiner
working with the Department of Agriculture, Palo, Leyte, who examined the fish samples taken
from the accused, and testified that he was with the team patrolling. The second evidence
considered was the possession of explosives.

Under Sections 33 and 38 of PD No. 704, as amended by PD No. 1058, read :

Sec. 33. Illegal fishing; illegal possession of explosives intended for illegal fishing; dealing in
illegally caught fish or fishery/aquatic products. — It shall be unlawful for any person to catch,
take or gather or cause to be caught, taken or gathered fish or fishery/aquatic products in
Philippine waters with the use of explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substance, or by the use
of electricity: Provided, That mere possession of such explosives with intent to use the same for
illegal fishing as herein defined shall be punishable as hereinafter provided: Provided, That the
Secretary may, upon recommendation of the Director and subject to such safeguards and
conditions he deems necessary, allow for research, educational or scientific purposes only, the
use of explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substance or electricity to catch, take or gather fish
or fishery/aquatic products in specified area: Provided further, That the use of chemicals to
eradicate predators in fishponds in accordance with accepted scientific fishery practices without
causing deleterious effects in neighboring waters shall not be construed as the use of obnoxious
or poisonous substance within the meaning of this section: Provided, finally, That the use of
mechanical bombs for killing whales, crocodiles, sharks or other large dangerous fishes, may be
allowed, subject to the approval of the Secretary.

Sec. 38. (1) By the penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years to twenty-five (25)
years in the case of mere possession of explosives intended for illegal fishing; by imprisonment
ranging from twenty (20) years to life imprisonment, if the explosive is actually used: Provided,
That if the use of the explosive results in 1) physical injury to any person, the penalty shall be
imprisonment ranging from twenty-five (25) years to life imprisonment, or 2) in the loss of human
life, then the penalty shall be life imprisonment to death.

2. Metro Manila Development Authority v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay64 Another famous and
heralded case is MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay. In 1999, the Concerned Residents of
Manila Bay filed a complaint against several government agencies for the cleanup, rehabilitation, and
protection of the historic waters of Manila Bay. They alleged that the continued neglect by these
agencies of their legal duty to abate the pollution in Manila Bay constituted a violation of several laws,
including the Environment Code, Pollution Control Law, and the Water Code, among others. They
presented proof that the waters of the Bay were unsafe for bathing and other contact recreational
activities. They prayed that these government agencies be ordered to cleanup Manila Bay and submit a
concrete plan of action for the purpose. The Regional Trial Court, Court of Appeals and the Supreme
Court all unanimously ordered the government agencies to coordinate for the cleanup of Manila Bay
and its restoration to its healthy state. The Supreme Court held that, under numerous laws, the cleanup
of the Bay is the ministerial duty of the concerned agencies and they have no discretion to do otherwise.
In a nutshell, the Court ordered the agencies to immediately enforce the laws and perform their duty to
protect the environment. Of particular interest in this case was the issuance by the Supreme Court of an
order of continuing mandamus – the first ever in the country. This novel legal instrument compelled the
agencies to perform their respective tasks for the cleanup and it continues indefinitely. The Court
likewise required the formation of an advisory committee to ensure compliance with the order. This
highlights the Court’s abounding interest in safeguarding the environment. We are hopeful that these
judicial actions will help bring about the successful cleanup of the Bay.
FACTS:

Respondents Concerned Residents of Manila Bay filed a complaint before the RTC in Imus, Cavite
against several government agencies, among them the petitioners, for the cleanup, rehabilitation, and
protection of the Manila Bay.

The complaint alleged that the water quality of the Manila Bay had fallen way below the allowable
standards set by law, specifically PD.. 1152 or the Philippine Environment Code.

Respondents, as plaintiffs a quo, prayed that petitioners be ordered to clean the Manila Bay and submit to
the RTC a concerted concrete plan of action for the purpose.

The RTC Ordered Petitioners to Clean Up and Rehabilitate Manila Bay.

The DENR, DPWH, Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), Philippine Coast Guard ,
PNP Maritime Group, and five other executive departments and agencies filed directly with this Court a
petition for review under Rule 45.

Petitioners were one in arguing in the main that the pertinent provisions of the Environment Code  relate
only to the cleaning of specific pollution incidents and do not cover cleaning in general. And apart from
raising concerns about the lack of funds appropriated for cleaning purposes, petitioners also asserted that
the cleaning of the Manila Bay is not a ministerial act which can be compelled by mandamus.

The CA denied petitioners appeal and affirmed the Decision of the RTC in toto, stressing that the trial
courts decision did not require petitioners to do tasks outside of their usual basic functions under existing
laws.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioners can be compelled by mandamus to clean up and rehabilitate the Manila Bay.

RULING:

The Cleaning or Rehabilitation of Manila Bay Can be Compelled by Mandamus.

Generally, the writ of mandamus lies to require the execution of a ministerial duty. A ministerial duty is
one that requires neither the exercise of official discretion nor judgment. It connotes an act in which
nothing is left to the discretion of the person executing it. It is a simple, definite duty arising under
conditions admitted or proved to exist and imposed by law.  Mandamus is available to compel action,
when refused, on matters involving discretion, but not to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion one
way or the other.

First off, we wish to state that petitioners obligation to perform their duties as defined by law, on one
hand, and how they are to carry out such duties, on the other, are two different concepts. While the
implementation of the MMDAs mandated tasks may entail a decision-making process, the enforcement of
the law or the very act of doing what the law exacts to be done is ministerial in nature and may be
compelled by mandamus. We said so in Social Justice Society v. Atienza[11] in which the Court directed
the City of Manila to enforce, as a matter of ministerial duty, its Ordinance No. 8027 directing the three
big local oil players to cease and desist from operating their business in the so-called Pandacan Terminals
within six months from the effectivity of the ordinance. But to illustrate with respect to the instant case,
the MMDA’s duty to put up an adequate and appropriate sanitary landfill and solid waste and liquid
disposal as well as other alternative garbage disposal systems is ministerial, its duty being a statutory
imposition. The MMDA’s duty in this regard is spelled out in Sec. 3(c) of RA 7924 creating the MMDA.

The MMDA’s duty in the area of solid waste disposal, as may be noted, is set forth not only in the
Environment Code (PD 1152) and RA 9003, but in its charter as well. This duty of putting up a proper
waste disposal system cannot be characterized as discretionary, for, as earlier stated, discretion
presupposes the power or right given by law to public functionaries to act officially according to their
judgment or conscience.

A discretionary duty is one that allows a person to exercise judgment and choose to perform or not to
perform. Any suggestion that the MMDA has the option whether or not to perform its solid waste
disposal-related duties ought to be dismissed for want of legal basis.

A perusal of other petitioners respective charters or like enabling statutes and pertinent laws would yield
this conclusion: these government agencies are enjoined, as a matter of statutory obligation, to perform
certain functions relating directly or indirectly to the cleanup, rehabilitation, protection, and preservation
of the Manila Bay. They are precluded from choosing not to perform these duties.

FACTS:

Respondents filed a complaint before the RTC against several government

agencies, among them the petitioners, for the cleanup, rehabilitation, and
protection of the Manila Bay. The complaint alleged that the water quality of the
Manila Bay had fallen way below the allowable standards set by law, specifically
PD 1152. Respondents, as plaintiffs, prayed that petitioners be ordered to clean
the Manila Bay and submit to the RTC a concerted concrete plan of action for the
purpose.
 RTC rendered a Decision in favor of respondents, ordering the defendant-
government agencies to clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay.

Petitioners, before the CA, argued that PD 1152 relates only to the cleaning of
specific pollution incidents and do not cover cleaning in general. Apart from
raising concerns about the lack of funds, petitioners also asserted that the
cleaning of the Manila Bay is not a ministerial act, which can be compelled by
mandamus.

The CA denied petitioners’ appeal and affirmed the Decision of the RTC in
toto. Hence, this petition.

ISSUES:

1. Does PD 1152 include a cleanup in general or is it limited only to the cleanup of

specific pollution incidents?
2. Whether or not petitioners may be compelled by mandamus to clean up and
rehabilitate the Manila Bay?

RULING:

Issue 1:

PD 1152 does not in any way state that the government agencies concerned
ought to confine themselves to the containment, removal, and cleaning
operations when a specific pollution incident occurs. The underlying duty to
upgrade the quality of water is not conditional on the occurrence of any pollution
incident.

Even assuming the absence of a categorical legal provision specifically prodding

petitioners to clean up the bay, they and the men and women representing them
cannot escape their obligation to future generations of Filipinos to keep the
waters of the Manila Bay clean and clear as humanly as possible.

Issue 2:

Yes, petitioners may be compelled.

The MMDA’s duty in the area of solid waste disposal is set forth not only in the
Environment Code (PD 1152) and RA 9003, but in its charter as well. This duty of
putting up a proper waste disposal system cannot be characterised as
discretionary, for, as earlier stated, discretion presupposes the power or right
given by law to public functionaries to act officially according to their judgment
or conscience.

A perusal of other petitioners’ respective charters would yield to the conclusion

that these government agencies are enjoined, as a matter of statutory obligation,
to perform certain functions relating directly or indirectly to the cleanup,
rehabilitation, protection, and preservation of the Manila Bay. They are
precluded from choosing not to perform these duties.

The petition is DENIED.