9/8/2020 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 095

[No. L-6866. September 28, 1954]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and

appellant, vs. SOTERO ANITO, defendant and appellee.

CRIMINAL LAW; ILLEGAL FISHING AND ILLEGAL

POSSESSION OF ExPLOSIVES ARE Two DISTINCT
OFFENSES.—Fishing with the use of explosives without
obtaining the necessary permit, and possession of explosives
without license are two distinct offenses penalized by different
statutes. A person fishing with the use of explosives may be
guilty of illegal fishing, without being guilty of illegal
possession of explosives, if he has a permit of the Chief of
Constabulary.

APPEAL from an order of the Court of First Instance of

Negros Oriental. Narvasa, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
866

866 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Anito

Solicitor General Juan R. Liwag and Solicitor Esmeraldo

Umali for appellant.
Benjamin C. Villarin for appellee.

BENGZON, J.:
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746d8429667803eb4c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/4
9/8/2020 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 095

On April 15, 1953, Sotero Anito was caught in the act of

fishing with dynamite in Manjuyod Negros Oriental. In his
pocket was found a package of explosive powder with
blasting cap. But he had no license either from the
Secretary of Agriculture or the Chief of Constabulary.
Prosecuted -for violation of Commonwealth Act No. 471
(illegal fishing) he pleaded not guilty. In another
information he was charged with illegal possession of the
explosive powder and cap in violation of Act No. 3023. He
moved for dismissal of this second information, citing the
first prosecution for illegal fishing and contended that he
was being placed in double jeopardy for one single offense.
The trial judge sustained the motion. Hence this appeal by
the fiscal.
Having reviewed the papers, we find that the issue is
covered by our decision in P. vs. Tinamisan, G. R. No. L-
4801, promulgated January 29, 1952, the pertinent portion
of which reads as follows:

"On August 1, 1949, the accused Teodoro Tinamisan and Apolonio

Bandaño went out to fish in the Zamboanga sea, bringing with
them five bottles of explosives. After throwing one into the water,
they were caught and arrested, and the four bottles in the canoe
seized. Charged with the crime of illegal fishing with explosives
in Criminal case No. 586 of the Court of First Instance, they
were convicted, the four bottles having been exhibited by the
prosecution.
Prosecuted again for illegal possession of explosives in
Criminal Case No. 899 of the same court, they pleaded double
jeopardy, on the ground that the explosives mentioned in the
information are the identical four bottles presented in the
previous criminal case. After hearing both sides, the judge
sustained their plea and dismissed the second case.
Hence this appeal, wherein the single issue is whether the
first prosecution bars the second.
The use of explosives in fishing—except when permitted under
special circumstances by the Secretary of Agriculture is
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746d8429667803eb4c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/4
9/8/2020 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 095

prohibited and penalized under Act No. 4003 as amended by Act

No. 471.

867

VOL. 95, SEPTEMBER 28, 1954 867

Blue Bar Coconut Company, et al. vs. Boo

The possession of dynamite or explosives—without license from

the Chief of Constabulary—is prohibited and punished by Act
No. 2225 as amended by Act No. 3023.
One offense is distinct from the other. When a man fishes with
explosives, he violates the first mentioned law or the second, or
both, or he may commit no offense at all. No offense, if he
obtained licenses from both the Secretary of Agriculture and the
Chief of Constabulary. He infringes the first (and not the second)
if he has no license from the Agriculture Secretary, but he has
license from the Chief of Constabulary. He transgresses the
second but not the first if he holds no license from the
Constabulary, but he wields a permit ex rom the Agriculture
Secretary. He transgresses both laws as in this case, when he
exhibits no license at all.
Wherefore, one violation of the law does not necessarily
include and is not necessarily included in the other. The double
jeopardy rule does not attach." * * *

The trial judge reasoned out that "one cannot fish by the
use of explosives without possessing the explosives to be
used" and "prior to actually committing the offense of
illegal fishing the accused must be technically liable ex or
the offense of illegal possession." The error in this
reasoning lies in the assumption that anyone illegally
fishing with explosives is necessarily guilty of illegal
possession of explosives. Such assumption is groundless,
because as explained in the above decision, a person may

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746d8429667803eb4c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/4
9/8/2020 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 095

be guilty of the first, without being guilty of the second—

if he has a permit of the Chief of Constabulary.
Judgment reversed. Case remanded ex or further
proceedings.

Parás, C. J., Pablo, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A.,

Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ.,
concur.

Judgment reversed.

——o0o——

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001746d8429667803eb4c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/4