G.R. No. 118806, July 10, 1998
Santiago Argoncillo, Ricardo 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 barangay officials, Bureau of Fisheries personnel, and policemen heard an explosion while in the waters of Ivisan Bay. They proceeded to the area and found six individuals near an islet. Three of them (petitioners Policarpio Umiten, Santiago Argoncillo, and Richard Balbona) were in the water retrieving fish and throwing them into a banca, while three others were standing on the rocky shore. The team apprehended them and seized fish samples. No explosives or paraphernalia were found on the banca or the islet. External and internal examinations of the fish samples conducted by fishery technicians revealed physical injuries consistent with dynamite fishing, such as ruptured air bladders, broken vertebral columns and ribs, protruding eyes, and blood oozing from the operculums. The petitioners denied the charge, claiming they were merely collecting fish from a net (“patuloy”) they had set earlier. The Regional Trial Court convicted the petitioners of illegal fishing with the use of an explosive under Presidential Decree No. 704, as amended. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in toto.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal fishing with the use of an explosive, notwithstanding the fact that no explosives or paraphernalia were found in their possession.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The offense of illegal fishing with the use of an explosive under Section 33 of P.D. No. 704, as amended, is committed by the mere act of catching fish with the use of explosives. The discovery and presentation of the explosive substance are not necessary for conviction. The law punishes the use of the prohibited method. In this case, the prosecution evidence, particularly the credible testimonies of the surveillance team and the conclusive results of the internal examination of the fish samples by qualified technicians, sufficiently established that the fish were caught using explosives. The petitioners’ defenses were correctly rejected by the lower courts. However, the penalty was modified. The Supreme Court held that the penalty for the offense, being a special law, is an indeterminate sentence. Thus, petitioners were sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from twenty (20) years as minimum to twenty-five (25) years as maximum.