You are on page 1of 10

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-32166 October 18, 1977
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
HON. MAIMO A. MA!EREN !FI, St". !r#$, L"%#&", 'OSE ()ENA*ENT)RA,
GO+OFRE+O RE,ES, (EN'AMIN RE,ES, NA-ARIO A.)INO "&/ !ARLO +EL
ROSARIO, accused-appellees.
Office of the Solicitor General for appellant.
Rustics F. de los Reyes, Jr. for appellees.

A.)INO, J.:t.hqw
This is a case involving the validity of a 1967 regulation, penalizing electro fishing in
fresh water fisheries, promulgated by the ecretary of !griculture and "atural
#esources and the $ommissioner of %isheries under the old %isheries &aw and the law
creating the %isheries $ommission.
'n (arch 7, 1969 )ose *uenaventura, +odofredo #eyes, *en,amin #eyes, "azario
!-uino and $arlito del #osario were charged by a $onstabulary investigator in the
municipal court of ta. $ruz, &aguna with having violated %isheries !dministrative 'rder
"o. ./-1.
0t was alleged in the complaint that the five accused in the morning of (arch 1, 1969
resorted to electro fishing in the waters of *arrio an 1ablo "orte, ta. $ruz by 2using
their own motor banca, e-uipped with motor3 with a generator colored green with
attached dynamo colored gray or somewhat white3 and electrocuting device locally
4nown as sensored with a somewhat webbed copper wire on the tip or other end of a
bamboo pole with electric wire attachment which was attached to the dynamo direct and
with the use of these devices or e-uipments catches fish thru electric current, which
destroy any a-uatic animals within its cuffed reach, to the detriment and pre,udice of the
populace2 5$riminal $ase "o. 6/798.
9pon motion of the accused, the municipal court -uashed the complaint. The
prosecution appealed. The $ourt of %irst 0nstance of &aguna affirmed the order of
dismissal 5$ivil $ase "o. $-:68. The case is now before this $ourt on appeal by the
prosecution under #epublic !ct "o. 6//;.
The lower court held that electro fishing cannot be penalize because electric current is
not an obno<ious or poisonous substance as contemplated in section 0 0 of the %isheries
&aw and that it is not a substance at all but a form of energy conducted or transmitted
by substances. The lower court further held that, since the law does not clearly prohibit
electro fishing, the e<ecutive and ,udicial departments cannot consider it unlawful.
!s legal bac4ground, it should be stated that section 11 of the %isheries &aw prohibits
2the use of any obno<ious or poisonous substance2 in fishing.
ection 76 of the same law punishes any person who uses an obno<ious or poisonous
substance in fishing with a fine of not more than five hundred pesos nor more than five
thousand, and by imprisonment for not less than si< months nor more than five years.
0t is noteworthy that the %isheries &aw does not e<pressly punish .electro fishing.2
"otwithstanding the silence of the law, the ecretary of !griculture and "atural
#esources, upon the recommendation of the $ommissioner of %isheries, promulgated
%isheries !dministrative 'rder "o. ./ 567 '.+. 177/8, prohibiting electro fishing in all
1hilippine waters. The order is -uoted below= +.wph!
9*)>$T= 1#'?0*0T0"+ >&>$T#' %0?0"+ 0" !&& @!T># +.
wph!
'% T?> 1?0&0110">.
1ursuant to ection / of !ct "o. /;;:, as amended, and ection / of #.!. "o. :617,
the following rules and regulations regarding the prohibition of electro fishing in all
waters of the 1hilippines are promulgated for the information and guidance of all
concerned.+.wph!
>$T0'" 1. A "efinition. A @ords and terms used in this 'rder 11
construed as follows=
5a8 1hilippine waters or territorial waters of the 1hilippinesB includes all
waters of the 1hilippine !rchipelago, as defined in the t between the
9nited tates and pain, dated respectively the tenth of Cecember,
eighteen hundred ninety eight and the seventh of "ovember, nineteen
hundred. %or the purpose of this order, rivers, la4es and other bodies of
fresh waters are included.
5b8 #lectro Fishin$. A >lectro fishing is the catching of fish with the use of
electric current. The e-uipment used are of many electrical devices which
may be battery or generator-operated and from and available source of
electric current.
5c8 B1ersonsB includes firm, corporation, association, agent or employee.
5d8 B%ishB includes other a-uatic products.
>$. 7. A %rohi&ition. A 0t shall be unlawful for any person to engage in
electro fishing or to catch fish by the use of electric current in any portion
of the 1hilippine waters e<cept for research, educational and scientific
purposes which must be covered by a permit issued by the ecretary of
!griculture and "atural #esources which shall be carried at all times.
>$. :. A %enalty. A !ny violation of the provisions of this !dministrative
'rder shall sub,ect the offender to a fine of not e<ceeding five hundred
pesos 516;;.;;8 or imprisonment of not e<tending si< 568 months or both
at the discretion of the $ourt.
>$. /. A Repealin$ %ro'isions. A !ll administrative orders or parts
thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this !dministrative 'rder are
hereby revo4ed.
>$. 6. A #ffecti'ity. A This !dministrative 'rder shall ta4e effect si<
56;8 days after its publication in the 'ffice +azette.
'n )une 7., 1967 the ecretary of !griculture and "atural #esources, upon the
recommendation of the %isheries $ommission, issued %isheries !dministrative 'rder
"o. ./-1, amending section 7 of !dministrative 'rder "o. ./, by restricting the ban
against electro fishing to fresh water fisheries 56: '.+. 996:8.
Thus, the phrase 2in any portion of the 1hilippine waters2 found in section 7, was
changed by the amendatory order to read as follows= 2in fresh water fisheries in the
1hilippines, such as rivers, la4es, swamps, dams, irrigation canals and other bodies of
fresh water.2
The $ourt of %irst 0nstance and the prosecution 5p. 11 of brief8 assumed that electro
fishing is punishable under section .: of the %isheries &aw 5not under section 76
thereof8, which provides that any other violation of that law 2or of any rules and
regulations promulgated thereunder shall sub,ect the offender to a fine of not more than
two hundred pesos 517;;8, or in t for not more than si< months, or both, in the discretion
of the court.2
That assumption is incorrect because : of the afore-uoted !dministrative 'rder "o. ./
imposes a fm of not e<ceeding 16;; on a person engaged in electro fishing, which
amount the .:. 0t seems that the Cepartment of %isheries prescribed their own penalty
for swift fishing which penalty is less than the severe penalty imposed in section 76 and
which is not 0dentified to the at penalty imposed in section .:.
?ad !dministrative 'rder "o. ./ adopted the fighter penalty prescribed in on .:, then
the crime of electro fishing would be within the e(clusi'e ori$inal )urisdiction of the
inferior court 5ec. // DfE, )udiciary &aw3 1eople vs. #agasi, &-7.66:, eptember 77,
@e have discussed this pre point, not raised in the briefs, because it is obvious that the
crime of electro fishing which is punishable with a sum up to 16;;, falls within the
concurrent ori$inal )urisdiction of the inferior courts and the $ourt of %irst instance
51eople vs. "azareno, &-/;;:7, !pril :;, 1976, 7; $#! 6:1 and the cases cited
therein8.
!nd since the instant case was filed in the municipal court of ta. $ruz, &aguna, a
provincial capital, the order of d rendered by that municipal court was directly
appealable to the $ourt, not to the $ourt of %irst 0nstance of &aguna 5ec. /6 and last
par. of section .7 of the )udiciary &aw3 >sperat vs. !vila, &-76997, )une :;, 1967, 7;
$#! 6968.
0t results that the $ourt of %irst 0nstance of &aguna had no appellate ,urisdiction over the
case. 0ts order affirming the municipal courtBs order of dismissal is void for lac4 of
motion. This appeal shall be treated as a direct appeal from the municipal court to this
$ourt. 5ee 1eople vs. Cel #osario, 97 1hil. 678.
0n this appeal, the prosecution argues that !dministrative 'rders "os. ./ and ./-1 were
not issued under section 11 of the %isheries &aw which, as indicated above, punishes
fishing by means of an obno<ious or poisonous substance. This contention is not well-
ta4en because, as already stated, the 1enal provision of !dministrative 'rder "o. ./
implies that electro fishing is penalized as a form of fishing by means of an obno<ious or
poisonous substance under section 11.
The prosecution cites as the legal sanctions for the prohibition against electro fishing in
fresh water fisheries 518 the rule-ma4ing power of the Cepartment ecretary under
section / of the %isheries &aw3 578 the function of the $ommissioner of %isheries to
enforce the provisions of the %isheries &aw and the regulations 1romulgated thereunder
and to e<ecute the rules and regulations consistent with the purpose for the creation of
the %isheries $ommission and for the development of fisheries 5ec. /DcE and DhE
#epublic !ct "o. :6173 5:8 the declared national policy to encourage, 1romote and
conserve our fishing resources 5ec. 1, #epublic !ct "o. :6178, and 5/8 section .: of
the %isheries &aw which provides that 2any other violation of2 the %isheries &aw or of
any rules and regulations promulgated thereunder 2shall sub,ect the offender to a fine of
not more than two hundred pesos, or imprisonment for not more than si< months, or
both, in the discretion of the court.2
!s already pointed out above, the prosecutionBs reference to section .: is out of place
because the penalty for electro fishing under !dministrative order "o. ./ is not the
same as the penalty fi<ed in section .:.
@e are of the opinion that the ecretary of !griculture and "atural #esources and the
$ommissioner of %isheries e<ceeded their authority in issuing %isheries !dministrative
'rders "os. ./ and ./-1 and that those orders are not warranted under the %isheries
$ommission, #epublic !ct "o. :617.
The reason is that the %isheries &aw does not e<pressly prohibit electro fishing. !s
electro fishing is not banned under that law, the ecretary of !griculture and "atural
#esources and the $ommissioner of %isheries are powerless to penalize it. 0n other
words, !dministrative 'rders "os. ./ and ./-1, in penalizing electro fishing, are devoid
of any legal basis.
?ad the lawma4ing body intended to punish electro fishing, a penal provision to that
effect could have been easily embodied in the old %isheries &aw.
That law punishes 518 the use of obno<ious or poisonous substance, or e<plosive in
fishing3 578 unlawful fishing in deepsea fisheries3 5:8 unlawful ta4ing of marine molusca,
5/8 illegal ta4ing of sponges3 568 failure of licensed fishermen to report the 4ind and
-uantity of fish caught, and 568 other violations.
"owhere in that law is electro fishing specifically punished. !dministrative 'rder "o. ./,
in punishing electro fishing, does not contemplate that such an offense fails within the
category of 2other violations2 because, as already shown, the penalty for electro fishing
is the penalty ne<t lower to the penalty for fishing with the use of obno<ious or
poisonous substances, fi<ed in section 76, and is not the same as the penalty for 2other
violations2 of the law and regulations fi<ed in section .: of the %isheries &aw.
The lawma4ing body cannot delegate to an e<ecutive official the power to declare what
acts should constitute an offense. 0t can authorize the issuance of regulations and the
imposition of the penalty provided for in the law itself. 51eople vs. ><conde 1;1 1hil. 11
76, citing 11 !m. )ur. 966 on p. 11 :78.
'riginally, !dministrative 'rder "o. ./ punished electro fishing in all waters. &ater, the
ban against electro fishing was confined to fresh water fisheries. The amendment
created the impression that electro fishing is not condemnable per se. 0t could be
tolerated in marine waters. That circumstances strengthens the view that the old law
does not eschew all forms of electro fishing.
?owever, at present, there is no more doubt that electro fishing is punishable under the
%isheries &aw and that it cannot be penalized merely by e<ecutive revolution because
1residential Cecree "o. 7;/, which is a revision and consolidation of all laws and
decrees affecting fishing and fisheries and which was promulgated on (ay 16, 1976 571
'.+. /7698, e<pressly punishes electro fishing in fresh water and salt water areas.
That decree provides= +.wph!
S#*. ++. A ,lle$al fishin$, dealin$ in ille$ally cau$ht fish or fishery-a.uatic
products. A 0t shall he unlawful for any person to catch, ta4e or gather or
cause to be caught, ta4en or gathered fish or fisheryFa-uatic products in
1hilippine waters with the use of e<plosives, obno<ious or poisonous
substance, or by the use of electricity as defined in paragraphs 518, 5m8
and 5d8, respectively, of ection : hereof= ...
The decree !ct "o. /;;:, as amended, #epublic !cts "os. /7., :;/., :617 and :6.6,
1residential Cecrees "os. /:, 6:/ and 66:, and all , !cts, ><ecutive 'rders, rules and
regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with it 5ec. /9, 1. C. "o. 7;/8.
The inclusion in that decree of provisions defining and penalizing electro fishing is a
clear recognition of the deficiency or silence on that point of the old %isheries &aw. 0t is
an admission that a mere e<ecutive regulation is not legally ade-uate to penalize
electro fishing.
"ote that the definition of electro fishing, which is found in section 1 5c8 of %isheries
!dministrative 'rder "o. ./ and which is not provided for the old %isheries &aw, is now
found in section :5d8 of the decree. "ote further that the decree penalty electro fishing
by 2imprisonment from two 578 to four 5/8 years2, a punishment which is more severe
than the penalty of a time of not e<cluding 16;; or imprisonment of not more than si<
months or both fi<ed in section : of %isheries !dministrative 'rder "o. ./.
!n e<amination of the rule-ma4ing power of e<ecutive officials and administrative
agencies and, in particular, of the ecretary of !griculture and "atural #esources 5now
ecretary of "atural #esources8 under the %isheries &aw sustains the view that he e<
his authority in penalizing electro fishing by means of an administrative order.
!dministrative agent are clothed with rule-ma4ing powers because the lawma4ing body
finds it impracticable, if not impossible, to anticipate and provide for the multifarious and
comple< situations that may be encountered in enforcing the law. !ll that is re-uired is
that the regulation should be germane to the defects and purposes of the law and that it
should conform to the standards that the law prescribes 51eople vs. ><conde 1;1 1hil.
11763 Cirector of %orestry vs. (uG3oz, &-7/796, )une 7., 196., 7: $#! 11.:, 119.3
+eu4e4o vs. !raneta, 1;7 1hil. 7;6, 7178.
The lawma4ing body cannot possibly provide for all the details in the enforcement of a
particular statute 59.. vs. Tupasi (olina, 79 1hil. 119, 176, citing 9.. vs. +rimaud 77;
9.. 6;63 0nterprovincial !utobus $o., 0nc. vs. $oll. of 0nternal #evenue, 9. 1hil. 79;,
796-68.
The grant of the rule-ma4ing power to administrative agencies is a rela<ation of the
principle of separation of powers and is an e<ception to the nondeleption of legislative,
powers. !dministrative regulations or 2subordinate legislation calculated to promote the
public interest are necessary because of 2the growing comple<ity of modem life, the
multiplication of the sub,ects of governmental regulations, and the increased difficulty of
administering the law2 $alalang vs. @illiams, 7; 1hil. 7763 1eople vs. #osenthal and
'smeG3a, 6. 1hil. :7.8.
!dministrative regulations adopted under legislative authority by a particular department
must be in harmony with the provisions of the law, and should be for the sole purpose of
carrying into effect its general provisions. *y such regulations, of course, the law itself
cannot be e<tended. 59.. vs. Tupasi (olina, supra8. !n administrative agency cannot
amend an act of $ongress 5antos vs. >stenzo, 1;9 1hil. /19, /773 Teo<on vs.
(embers of the d of !dministrators, &-76619, )une :;, 197;, :: $#! 6.63 (anuel vs.
+eneral !uditing 'ffice, &-7.967, Cecember 79, 1971, /7 $#! 66;3 Celuao vs.
$asteel, &-719;6, !ugust 79, 1969, 79 $#! :6;8.
The rule-ma4ing power must be confined to details for regulating the mode or
proceeding to carry into effect the law as it his been enacted. The power cannot be
e<tended to amending or e<panding the statutory re-uirements or to embrace matters
not covered by the statute. #ules that subvert the statute cannot be sanctioned.
59niversity of anto Tomas vs. *oard of Ta< ! 9: 1hil. :76, :.7, citing 17 $.). ./6-/6.
!s to invalid regulations, see of 0nternal #evenue vs. Hillaflor 69 1hil. :19, @ise I $o.
vs. (eer, 7. 1hil. 666, 6763 Cel (arch vs. 1hil. Heterans !dministrative, &-77799, )une
77, 197:, 61 $#! :/;, :/98.
There is no -uestion that the ecretary of !griculture and "atural #esources has rule-
ma4ing powers. ection / of the %isheries law provides that the ecretary 2shall from
time to time issue instructions, orders, and regulations consistent2 with that law, 2as may
be and proper to carry into effect the provisions thereof.2 That power is now vested in
the ecretary of "atural #esources by on 7 of the #evised %isheries law, 1residential
Cecember "o. 7;/.
ection /5h8 of #epublic !ct "o. :617 empower the $o of %isheries 2to prepare and
e<ecute upon the approval of the ecretary of !griculture and "atural #esources, forms
instructions, rules and regulations consistent with the purpose2 of that enactment 2and
for the development of fisheries.2
ection 795*8 of the #evised !dministrative $ode provides that 2the Cepartment ?ead
shall have the power to promulgate, whenever he may see fit do so, all rules, regulates,
orders, memorandums, and other instructions, not contrary to law, to regulate the
proper wor4ing and harmonious and efficient administration of each and all of the offices
and dependencies of his Cepartment, and for the strict enforcement and proper
e<ecution of the laws relative to matters under the ,urisdiction of said Cepartment3 but
none of said rules or orders shall prescribe penalties for the violation thereof, e<cept as
e<pressly authorized by law.2
!dministrative regulations issued by a Cepartment ?ead in conformity with law have the
force of law 5Halerie vs. ecretary of culture and "atural #esources, 117 1hil. 779, 7::3
!nti-ue awmills, 0nc. vs. Jayco, &- 7;;61, (ay :;, 1966, 17 $#! :168. !s he
e<ercises the rule-ma4ing power by delegation of the lawma4ing body, it is a re-uisite
that he should not transcend the bound demarcated by the statute for the e<ercise of
that power3 otherwise, he would be improperly e<ercising legislative power in his own
right and not as a surrogate of the lawma4ing body.
!rticle 7 of the $ivil $ode embodies the basic principle that administrative or e<ecutive
acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or
the $onstitution.2
!s noted by )ustice %ernando, 2e<cept for constitutional officials who can trace their
competence to act to the fundamental law itself, a public office must be in the statute
relied upon a grant of power before he can e<ercise it.2 2department zeal may not be
permitted to outrun the authority conferred by statute.2 5#adio $ommunications of the
1hilippines, 0nc. vs. antiago, &-797:6, !ugust 71, 197/, 6. $#! /9:, /96-.8.
2#ules and regulations when promulgated in pursuance of the procedure or authority
conferred upon the administrative agency by law, parta4e of the nature of a statute, and
compliance therewith may be enforced by a penal sanction provided in the law. This is
so because statutes are usually couched in general terms, after e<pressing the policy,
purposes, ob,ectives, remedies and sanctions intended by the legislature. The details
and the manner of carrying out the law are oftentimes left to the administrative agency
entrusted with its enforcement. 0n this sense, it has been said that rules and regulations
are the product of a delegated power to create new or additional legal provisions that
have the effect of law.2 The rule or regulation should be within the scope of the statutory
authority granted by the legislature to the administrative agency. 5Cavis, !dministrative
&aw, p. 19/, 197, cited in Hictories (illing $o., 0nc. vs. ocial ecurity $ommission, 11/
1hil. 666, 66.8.
0n case of discrepancy between the basic law and a rule or regulation issued to
implement said law, the basic law prevails because said rule or regulation cannot go
beyond the terms and provisions of the basic law 51eople vs. &im, 1;. 1hil. 1;918.
This $ourt in its decision in the &im case, supra, promulgated on )uly 76, 196;, called
the attention of technical men in the e<ecutive departments, who draft rules and
regulations, to the importance and necessity of closely following the legal provisions
which they intend to implement so as to avoid any possible misunderstanding or
confusion.
The rule is that the violation of a regulation prescribed by an e<ecutive officer of the
government in conformity with and based upon a statute authorizing such regulation
constitutes an offense and renders the offender liable to punishment in accordance with
the provisions of the law 59.. vs. Tupasi (olina, 79 1hil. 119, 17/8.
0n other words, a violation or infringement of a rule or regulation validly issued can
constitute a crime punishable as provided in the authorizing statute and by virtue of the
latter 51eople vs. ><conde 1;1 1hil. 1176, 11:78.
0t has been held that 2to declare what shall constitute a crime and how it shall be
punished is a power vested e<clusively in the legislature, and it may not be delegated to
any other body or agency2 51 !m. )ur. 7nd, sec. 177, p. 9:.3 Te<as $o. vs.
(ontgomery, 7: %. upp. 6778.
0n the instant case the regulation penalizing electro fishing is not strictly in accordance
with the %isheries &aw, under which the regulation was issued, &ecause the law itself
does not e(pressly punish electro fishin$.
The instant case is similar to %eople 's. Santos, 6: 1hil. :;;. The Santos case involves
section 7. of %ish and +ame !dministrative 'rder "o. 7 issued by the ecretary of
!griculture and "atural #esources pursuant to the aforementioned section / of the
%isheries &aw.
ection 7. contains the proviso that a fishing boat not licensed under the %isheries &aw
and under the said administrative order may fish within three 4ilometers of the shoreline
of islands and reservations over which ,urisdiction is e<ercised by naval and military
reservations authorities of the 9nited tates only upon receiving written permission
therefor, which permission may be granted by the ecretary upon recommendation of
the military or naval authorities concerned. ! violation of the proviso may be proceeded
against under section /6 of the %ederal 1enal $ode.
!ugusto !. antos was prosecuted under that provision in the $ourt of %irst 0nstance of
$avite for having caused his two fishing boats to fish, loiter and anchor without
permission from the ecretary within three 4ilometers from the shoreline of $orrigidor
0sland.
This $ourt held that the %isheries &aw does not prohibit boats not sub,ect to license
from fishing within three 4ilometers of the shoreline of islands and reservations over
which ,urisdiction is e<ercised by naval and military authorities of the 9nited tates,
without permission from the ecretary of !griculture and "atural #esources upon
recommendation of the military and naval authorities concerned.
!s the said law does not penalize the act mentioned in section 7. of the administrative
order, the promulgation of that provision by the ecretary 2is e-uivalent to legislating on
the matter, a power which has not been and cannot be delegated to him, it being
e<pressly reserved2 to the lawma4ing body. 2uch an act constitutes not only an e<cess
of the regulatory power conferred upon the ecretary but also an e<ercise of a
legislative power which he does not have, and therefore2 the said provision 2is null and
void and without effect2. ?ence, the charge against antos was dismiss.
! penal statute is strictly construed. @hile an administrative agency has the right to
ma4e ran4s and regulations to carry into effect a law already enacted, that power should
not be confused with the power to enact a criminal statute. !n administrative agency
can have only the administrative or policing powers e<pressly or by necessary
implication conferred upon it. 5+lustrom vs. tate, 7;6 +a. 7:/, 6. econd 7d 6:/3 ee
7 !m. )r. 7nd 179-1:;8.
@here the legislature has delegated to e<ecutive or administrative officers and boards
authority to promulgate rules to carry out an e<press legislative purpose, the rules of
administrative officers and boards, which have the effect of e<tending, or which conflict
with the authority granting statute, do not represent a valid precise of the rule-ma4ing
power but constitute an attempt by an administrative body to legislate 5tate vs. (iles,
@ash. 7nd :77, 1;6 1ac. 7nd 618.
0n a prosecution for a violation of an administrative order, it must clearly appear that the
order is one which falls within the scope of the authority conferred upon the
administrative body, and the order will be scrutinized with special care. 5tate vs. (iles
supra8.
The /iles case involved a statute which authorized the tate +ame $ommission 2to
adopt, promulgate, amend andFor repeal, and enforce reasonable rules and regulations
governing andFor prohibiting the ta0in$ of the various classes of game.
9nder that statute, the +ame $ommission promulgated a rule that 2it shall be unlawful
to offer, pay or receive any reward, prize or compensation for the hunting, pursuing,
ta4ing, 4illing or displayin$ of any game animal, game bird or game fish or any part
thereof.2
*eryl . (iles, the owner of a sporting goods store, regularly offered a ten-down cash
prize to the person displaying the largest deer in his store during the open for hunting
such game animals. %or that act, he was charged with a violation of the rule
1romulgated by the tate +ame $ommission.
0t was held that there was no statute penalizing the display of game. @hat the statute
penalized was the ta4ing of game. 0f the lawma4ing body desired to prohibit the display
of game, it could have readily said so. 0t was not lawful for the administrative board to
e<tend or modify the statute. ?ence, the indictment against (iles was -uashed. The
(iles case is similar to this case.
@?>#>%'#>, the lower courtBs decision of )une 9, 197; is set aside for lac4 of
appellate ,urisdiction and the order of dismissal rendered by the municipal court of ta.
$ruz, &aguna in $riminal $ase "o. 6/79 is affirmed. $osts de oficio.
' '#C>#>C.
1arredo, *oncepcion, Jr., Santos and Guerrero, JJ., concur.!2wph3!.4t
Fernando and 5ntonio, JJ., too0 no part.
Guerrero, J., was desi$nated to sit in the Second "i'ision.