Anarna, Ma. Jelly Joyce Y.

Criminal Law II Atty David Yap

Class Student No. 3 ILLEGAL FISHING DAY 6

HIZON VS. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 119619 December 13, 1996 265 SCRA 517

PUNO, J:

FACTS:
A report for illegal fishing was brought on 30 September 1992 at around 2:00pm. The policemen
headed in the place within the shoreline and found the boat of F/B Robinson, fishing using hooks. The
policemen went inside, and advised them that it is not allowed, and got four fishes as samples to be
investigated in the NBI laboratory.
According to the initial laboratory results, the fishes were positive in containing “sodium
cyanide”, a violent posion, so they filed a case against thirty one out of 35 accussed-appellants.
The trial court found the accused appellants guilty of illegal fishing with the use of obnoxious or
poisonous substance commonly known as sodium cyanide.
The Court of Appeals confirmed the decision of the trial court.
Accused-appellants contends that the evidences presented should not be appreciated since it
was seized illegally from them.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the decision was correct in convicting the accused-appellants guilty of illegal
fishing?

HELD:
No, decision was incorrect in convicting the accused-appellants guilty of illegal fishing. The
offense of illegal fishing is committed when a person catches, takes or gathers or causes to be caught,
taken or gathered fish, fishery or aquatic products in Philippine waters with the use of explosives,
electricity, obnoxious or poisonous substances. The law creates a presumption that illegal fishing has
been committed when: '(a) explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substances or equipment or device for
electric fishing are found in a fishing boat or in the possession of a fisherman; or (b) when fish caught or
killed with the use of explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substances or by electricity are found in a
fishing boat. Under these instances, the boat owner, operator or fishermen are presumed to have
engaged in illegal fishing. The validity of laws establishing presumptions in criminal cases is a settled
matter. It is generally conceded that the legislature has the power to provide that proof of certain facts
can constitute prima facie evidence of the guilt of the accused and then shift the burden of proof to the
accused provided there is a rational connection between the facts proved and the ultimate fact
presumed. To avoid any constitutional infirmity, the inference of one from proof of the other must not
be arbitrary and unreasonable. In fine, the presumption must be based on facts and these facts must be
part of the crime when committed.
The same exception ought to apply to seizures of fishing vessels and boats breaching our fishery
laws. These vessels are normally powered by high-speed motors that enable them to elude arresting
ships of the Philippine Navy, the Coast Guard and other government authorities enforcing our fishery
laws. Search and seizure without search warrant of vessels and aircrafts for violations of customs laws
have been the traditional exceptions to the constitutional requirement of a search warrant. It is rooted
on the recognition that a vessel and an aircraft, like motor vehicles, can be quickly moved out of the
locality or jurisdiction in which the search warrant must be sought and secured. Yielding to this reality,
judicial authorities have not required a search warrant of vessels and aircrafts before their search and
seizures can be constitutionally effected.
According to the Supreme Court, the petition is granted and the decision of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CR No. 15417 is reversed and set aside. Petitioners are acquitted of the crime of illegal fishing
with the use of poisonous substances defined under Section 33 of Republic Act No. 704, the Fisheries
Decree of 1975. No costs. SO ORDERED