G.R. No. L-13678; November 20, 1959
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MOISES CUBELO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Moises Cubelo, was charged in the Court of First Instance of Surigao with the crime of illegal fishing with explosives. The information alleged that on or about March 7, 1955, within the jurisdictional waters of Surigao, he willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously exploded one stick of dynamite without a permit, as a result of which fish (tamban) valued at P10.00 were disabled, killed, and/or stupefied, in violation of Act No. 4003 , as amended. Upon arraignment, the information was read and translated to him in the local dialect, and he pleaded guilty. The trial court, considering his plea as a mitigating circumstance, sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of one year and six months minimum to two years maximum, a fine of P1,500.00, subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and costs. Despite his guilty plea, Cubelo appealed. The Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court as it involved only questions of law.

ISSUE

1. Whether the information is defective for failing to allege that the explosion of dynamite was done with the intention to fish.
2. Whether the trial court erred in imposing subsidiary imprisonment for non-payment of the fine, as Act No. 4003 is a special law that does not provide for such subsidiary penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision.
1. On the Sufficiency of the Information: The Court held the information sufficient. Appellant contended that the phrase “use explosives in fishing” in the applicable law ( Republic Act No. 462 , amending Act No. 4003 ) required the information to explicitly allege the intent to fish. The Court examined Section 12 of Act No. 4003 , which Republic Act No. 462 penalizes. Section 12 makes it unlawful to use dynamite “for the stupefying, disabling, killing or taking of fish or other aquatic animals.” The information charged appellant with exploding dynamite, which resulted in the killing of fish. The Court found that while the Fiscal could have inserted the phrase “for the purpose of fishing” to dissipate doubt, the allegation that the explosion resulted in the killing of fish necessarily implies the act was done for that purpose. It would be unreasonable to presume appellant exploded dynamite in the water merely for fun, especially given the dangers and cost of explosives, and the specific result of killing fish. Furthermore, the information was titled “Illegal Fishing with Explosives,” and listed confiscated items (a bag of dried fish, goggles, fish nets, a paddle, and a baroto) that clearly indicated fishing activity. Appellant’s guilty plea also confirmed his understanding of the charge. Therefore, intent could be rightly presumed from the result of the act.
2. On the Imposition of Subsidiary Imprisonment: The Court held that the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment was correct. Appellant argued that as a special law, Act No. 4003 does not provide for subsidiary imprisonment and thus the Revised Penal Code provisions should not apply. The Court cited Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code, which states that the Code shall be supplementary to special laws unless the latter provide otherwise. It referenced previous rulings (People vs. Dizon, People vs. Moreno, Copiaco vs. Luzon Brokerage) which held that Articles 39 (subsidiary penalty) and 100 (civil liability) of the Revised Penal Code are applicable to offenses under special laws. Therefore, the trial court did not err in ordering subsidiary imprisonment for non-payment of the fine.