Hizon vs.

Court of Appelas

G.R. No. 119619 December 13, 1996

PUNO, J.:

FACTS:

The crew members and fishermen of F/B Robinson owned by First Fishermen Fishing Industries,
Inc., were accused of Illegal fishing. While fishing along the shoreline of Barangay San Rafael,
Puerto Pincesa City on September 30, 1992, the Task Force Bantay dagat together with the PNP
Maritime Command of the same city of Palawan conducted a search and seizure operation. Upon
inspection of the team, no trace of chemicals nor equipment that can be possibly used for illegal
fishing activities were found, rather a cage of more or less one ton of live fishes. The team
extracted, through the boat Engineer Ernesto Andaya, five pieces of fish from the cage for
laboratory testing purposes. Andaya testified that he got five pieces of fish but for unknown
reason, the certification that they made him sign, while he was allegedly threatened by the
apprehending officer, only stated four pieces.

The result of the laboratory from the NBI Head Office in Manila affirmed that the specimens
tested contained with sodium cyanide. The sodium cyanide is a violent poison.

The accused upon availing

Having affirmed that the use obnoxious or poisonous substance, the court held the accused
guilty of Illegal Fishing in violation of P.D. 704.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.

ISSUE

Whether of not the petitioners are guilty of P.D 704.

ARGUMENTS

Petitioner, represented by Richard Hizon filed a petition for certiorari claiming that the Court of
Appeal erred in not reversing the decision of the Trial Court. Moreover, the evidence should not
be admissible in court since it was acquired illegally by an unwarranted search and seizure
operation. In addition, the petitioner contend that the court erred in the presumption of guilt on
the mere basis that the specimen turned out to be positive of the obnoxious chemical and the
accused were deprived of their right to be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
DISCUSSION

Upon examination of the facts provided, there is a conflict in the two laboraty tests conducted by
the NBI, Manila. As the accused have the right to rebut the evidence provided against them, the
specimen extracted from the guarded vessel were found to be negative of any poinsonous
substance, contractictory to the first laboraty test made. It has to be noted that the former
laboratory test made was done without the presence of any representative of the petioner from
the time the specimen were extracted from the fishing vessel to the office of the apprehending
office until it is being delivered to the NBI Office.

DECISION:

Supreme Court held that the petioners are not guilty of P.D. 704.