G.R. No. 249563 . March 09, 2022
ENCARNACION GO, PETITIONER, VS. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Encarnacion Go and ASB Fishing Development Corporation (ASB) were charged with violating Section 92 of Republic Act No. 8550 (The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998) for allegedly using the prohibited “Muro-Ami” fishing method in the waters of Brooke’s Point, Palawan, on November 20, 1999. The information alleged that the accused, while on board Fishing Vessel Prince Arnold, used diving and physical acts to pound and destroy coral reefs to catch fish. During pre-trial, it was stipulated that ASB was engaged in fishing via “pa-aling” in 1999; that the F/B Prince Arnold was owned and managed by ASB; that the vessel was apprehended in Brooke’s Point waters in November 1999 without a warrant while conducting a fishing operation; that the vessel was licensed; and that an inventory and investigation report were submitted by the BFAR.
At trial, prosecution witness Joegie Baldado testified he was recruited for “muro-ami” fishing for ASB on board the F/V Prince Arnold. He described the method involving about 400 workers, including minors, using weighted hoses to pound the seabed to drive fish into nets, with divers assisting. The vessel was apprehended by the Philippine Navy after attempting to evade inspection. Navy documents listed petitioner as the owner of the vessel. Petitioner testified she was a stockholder and treasurer of ASB but denied the vessel used “muro-ami,” claiming it used “pa-aling.” She stated she did not perform actual treasurer functions, was not involved in hiring, and was not on board during apprehension.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted both accused, sentencing ASB to a fine and Go to imprisonment. The RTC held that Baldado’s testimony established the use of “muro-ami,” and that Go, as treasurer/director of ASB, was criminally liable under the doctrine from People vs. Tan Boon Kong, as she participated in or had knowledge of the corporation’s illegal activities and benefited from them. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision. Go filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner Encarnacion Go’s criminal conviction for violation of Section 92 of R.A. No. 8550 based on the doctrine of corporate criminal liability.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the CA decision. The Court acquitted Encarnacion Go on reasonable doubt. The Court held that the doctrine in People vs. Tan Boon Kong—that all corporate officers who participate in the criminal act are liable—does not apply to violations of special laws like R.A. No. 8550 unless the law clearly includes corporate officers as liable parties. Section 92 of R.A. No. 8550 specifically penalizes only the “operator, boat captain, master fisherman, and recruiter or organizer of fishworkers.” Petitioner, as a corporate treasurer and stockholder, is not among those expressly enumerated. The law’s plain language excludes other corporate officers from criminal liability for the specific offense. The prosecution failed to prove that Go fell under any of the categories of liable individuals under Section 92. Her mere position in the corporation, without evidence she acted as an “operator” or fell under the listed categories, is insufficient for criminal conviction. The Court distinguished the case from Tan Boon Kong, which involved a violation of the Revised Penal Code, and emphasized that for special laws, the rule of strict construction in favor of the accused applies. Therefore, Go’s conviction was not warranted.