G.R. No. 118816 July 10, 1998
SANTIAGO ARGONCILLO, RICHARDO BALBONA and POLICARPIO UMITEN, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

On May 7, 1990, a surveillance team composed of personnel from the Bureau of Fisheries, the Barangay Captain of Basiao, Ivisan, Capiz, and local policemen, heard an explosion while on patrol in Ivisan Bay. They proceeded to the scene near an islet and found six persons. Three (petitioners Policarpio Umiten, Santiago Argoncillo, and Richard Balbona) were diving and throwing fish into an unmotorized banca, while three others were standing on the rocky shore. The team apprehended them and found various deep-sea fish in their banca. No explosives or paraphernalia were found at the scene. External and internal examinations of the fish samples revealed signs consistent with dynamite fishing: blood oozing from operculums, protruding eyes, ruptured air bladders, broken vertebral columns and ribs, and blood clots. The accused denied the charges, claiming they were gathering fish from a net (“patuloy”) or shells. The Regional Trial Court found petitioners guilty of illegal fishing with the use of an explosive under P.D. No. 704, as amended. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Petitioners argue that the absence of explosives or paraphernalia in their possession indicates innocence.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioners’ conviction for illegal fishing with the use of an explosive despite the absence of direct evidence, such as the recovery of explosives or paraphernalia, and in light of their alternative explanations for their presence and possession of fish.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision with modification on the penalty. The absence of explosives or paraphernalia does not negate guilt. Section 33 of P.D. No. 704, as amended, penalizes the act of catching fish with the use of explosives. The discovery of such items in a fishing boat or in the possession of a fisherman is merely prima facie evidence that the same were used for fishing. The prosecution successfully proved the corpus delicti through circumstantial evidence: (1) the team heard an explosion; (2) they immediately proceeded to the source and found petitioners retrieving fish; (3) the fish exhibited physical injuries consistent with dynamite fishing as certified by fishery technicians; and (4) petitioners failed to provide credible explanations for their possession of such injured fish. The defense of using a fish net was deemed fabricated, as the alleged net was never presented in evidence. The penalty imposed by the trial court was a straight penalty of twenty years. The Supreme Court modified this to an indeterminate penalty, as the law prescribes a penalty of imprisonment from 20 years to life or a fine. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the proper penalty is an indeterminate sentence of twenty (20) years as minimum to twenty-five (25) years as maximum.