G.R. No. 172678; March 23, 2011
SEA LION FISHING CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

A combined team of Philippine Marines, Coast Guard, and barangay officials, responding to reports of poaching, found F/V Sea Lion anchored off Mangsee Island, Palawan, with five boats and a long fishing net deployed. They apprehended the vessel’s Filipino captain, three Filipino crew, three Chinese crew, and 17 Chinese fishermen aboard. Various charges for violations of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8550 (The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998) and R.A. No. 9147 (Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act) were filed. The Provincial Prosecutor found probable cause only against the 17 Chinese fishermen, exculpating the Filipino crew who were found to have acted under uncontrollable fear as they were outnumbered and unarmed, having rescued the Chinese from a distressed vessel. Petitioner Sea Lion Fishing Corporation, claiming ownership of F/V Sea Lion, filed an Urgent Motion for Release of Evidence. The Provincial Prosecutor issued a Resolution dated August 25, 2004, recommending the vessel’s release to the movant upon proof of ownership and posting of a bond, subject to further conditions in a Supplemental Resolution dated September 10, 2004. Petitioner failed to comply with these conditions.
The cases proceeded to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Puerto Princesa City. In Criminal Case No. 18965 (Violation of Section 97, R.A. 8550), the 17 Chinese fishermen pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of Violation of Section 88(3) of R.A. 8550. In Criminal Case No. 19422 (Violation of Section 87, R.A. 8550), they pleaded guilty. In twin Sentences both dated May 16, 2005, the RTC convicted the fishermen and ordered the confiscation of “Fishing Vessel F/V Sea Lion I as well as the fishing paraphernalia and equipments used by the accused in committing the crime” in favor of the government. Only after these Sentences were issued did petitioner file a Motion for Reconsideration on June 24, 2005, praying for the deletion of the confiscation order. The RTC denied the motion.
Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was denied in a Decision dated January 10, 2006. The CA ruled that the RTC acted within its jurisdiction, that petitioner failed to adduce evidence of ownership, and that petitioner availed of the wrong remedy (certiorari under Rule 65 instead of an appeal). The CA denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration in a Resolution dated May 5, 2006.

ISSUE

Whether the confiscation of F/V Sea Lion by the Regional Trial Court was valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution. The confiscation of F/V Sea Lion was valid.
The Court held that the trial court had the authority to order the confiscation of the vessel as an instrument of the crime under Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code, which applies suppletorily to special laws like R.A. 8550. The vessel was explicitly mentioned in the Informations as the instrument used in committing the offenses of poaching and illegal fishing. The Court emphasized that for a third party not liable for the crime to recover a confiscated instrument, it must first establish its ownership over the property. Petitioner failed to do so. Despite the Provincial Prosecutor’s earlier resolution recommending release upon proof of ownership and bond, petitioner did not act in accordance with those conditions prior to the RTC’s judgment of conviction and confiscation. Its belated Motion for Reconsideration before the RTC contained no proof of ownership. Consequently, petitioner had no right to demand the vessel’s release. The Court also noted that petitioner availed of the wrong remedy by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 instead of appealing the RTC’s Order denying its Motion for Reconsideration, which recognized its personality to intervene.