Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA
FOURTEENTH DIVISION
LT. RODELLO B. LARAYA, PN, and ATTY. ADELINA B. BENAVENTE-VILLENA, Petitioners, - versus CA-G.R. SP. No. 80927 Members: REYES, JR., A.B., (Chairman) BERSAMIN, L.P., & LIBREA-LEAGOGO,C.C., JJ.
HON. PERFECTO E. PE, Presiding Judge of Branch 52, Regional Trial Court of Palawan, And TAN ZI XIAN, TAN GUO CUN, HUANG JUN XIANG, TAN ZI DENG, ZHENG WEN JIE, LIU XIN YAN, TAN BING SHUN, CHEN YI XIAN, XIE XI WEI, CHEN GUO KUAN, TAN PING YIN (YAN), ZHENG CHAO FU, FANG MING JIE, TAN GUO HUI, XIE TAN FU, TAN HUO SHUN, LUO ZENG JIA, LAI GUO YUAN and TAN BING YAO, ZHOU JIAN GANG, QI HUI GUAN, QI JIA BING, QI HUI WEN, Promulgated: LAI GUO ZHI, CHEN ZI SHUN, ZHOU JIAN KAI, HUANG RI AN, HUANG ZI HUA, ZHAO QIAN SHAO, _____________ CHEN QI CHANG, HUANG SHAO QIANG, FANG YING XI, HUANG HONG BING, NIE ZHUANG QIANG, QI CHI SHENG, QI LU JIAN and ZHENG ZHI XIONG, Respondents. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
Before Us is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the
Court of Palawan, Fourth Judicial Region, Branch 52, Puerta Princessa City in Criminal Case Numbers: 17717, 17718, 17696 and 17697.
It
appears
that
on
12
September
2002,
thirty
eight (38) Chinese nationals on board their fishing vessels were caught within the Malampaya Natural Gas Platform Project Exclusive Zone, in El Nido, Palawan in the act of illegal fishing. Groupers (locally (locally known, as known, Mameng) as and Hundreds of kilos of Lapu-Lapu), Snappers Wrasse (locally
known, as Maya-Maya) were found in the said fishing vessels.1 were Also found within the vessels, among others, and pillets, suspected to be noxious A
powders
substances or component ingredients of explosives. bottle of home-made dynamite was also retrieved.2
Subsequent Cyanide
specimen Test
tests
conducted of the
by Bureau
the of
Detection
Laboratory
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources on the fishes found on the vessels yielded positive for the presence of
cyanide.3
powders
and
pillets
seized
from
the
vessels
confirmed
the
fact
that
they
were
indeed
either
Corresponding criminal complaints5 were thus filed on 17 September 2002 by the herein petitioners, Atty. Adelina Benavente-Villena, Chief of Legal Services of the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development [PCSD] and Lt. Rodello B. Laraya, a commanding officer of the Philippine respondents Navy for the against violation the of accused-private Republic Act No.
8550, otherwise known as the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998, 88 specifically, (Fishing Section 87 (Poaching) Noxious and or
Section
through
Explosives,
Subsequently, criminal informations for violation of Republic Act No. 8550 were filed against all 38 Chinese Palawan. nationals All with the the Regional Trial Court of
of
accused-private
respondents
During
the
pre-trial
of
the
criminal
cases,
their
intention
to
enter
into
plea
bargaining
by
entering a plea of guilty to a lesser offense under paragraph 2 of Section 88 of Republic Act 8550.
However, the then prosecuting officer of the cases, Provincial Prosecutor Alen Ross B. Rodriguez did not accede. Consequently, trial on the merits ensued.
After prosecution presented its first witness and initial cross-examination was conducted by the counsel for the defense, or after only two hearing dates,
subsequent trial schedules were reset until a hearing finally pushed through on 15 July 2003. On such date,
however, Provincial Prosecutor Alen Ross B. Rodriguez manifested his intention to inhibit from further
Continuation of the
On 16 July 2003, with the appearance of a new prosecutor, counsel for the defense asked the court to re-open the pre-trial stage of the criminal cases and reiterated the accused-private respondents earlier
the contrary, Prosecutor Cayetano manifested that the government was amenable to re-open pre-trial for the
purpose of plea-bargaining.
During
the
re-opened respondents
pre-trial through
stage, their
all
the
accused-private
counsel
plead guilty to violation of Paragraph 2, Section 88 of Republic Act 8550. The public prosecutor
interposed no objection with the change of plea and informed the court that the prosecutors conformity
with the plea bargaining was in consonance with the directive of the Chief State Prosecutor.
On 17 July 2003, the trial court promulgated the assailed decisions,6 which convicted all the accusedprivate respondents for violation of Paragraph 2,
Section 88 of Republic Act 8550 (Possession of Noxious or Poisonous Substances) and sentenced each of the
accused-private respondents to a penalty of ten (10) months imprisonment. were also All the of accused-private violating of
respondents
convicted
Section 87 of the same Act (the crime of Poaching) and were ordered to pay a fine of USD100,000.00 in favor of the government. Fishing paraphernalia, equipment
On 18 July 2003, the herein petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, by way of an Omnibus
Motion7 seeking, among others, reconsideration of the decision of the trial court allowing the re-opening of the pre-trial, despite vigorous objections from the
petitioners.
must not be allowed to plea bargain without seeking the conformity of the herein petitioners being the
complainants.
On 04 August 2003, the trial court denied8 the petitioners Omnibus Motion, declaring the same as a mere scrap of paper, for failure on the part of the petitioners to notify the provincial prosecutor and
the accused-private respondents. court cannot said observed properly that the
represent
motion,
since of
supervision cases
control lodged
prosecution
criminal
with
public prosecutor.
7 8
I. WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT JUDGE ACTED BEYOND HIS AUTHORITY IN RULING THAT HEREIN COMPLAINANTS-PETITIONERS CANNOT REPRESENT THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HENCE, NO STANDING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDINGS, PLEA BARGAINING PROCESS; II. WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT JUDGE ACTED IN EXCESS OF HIS JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN HE ALLOWED THE RE-OPENING OF PRE-TRIAL FOR PURPOSES OF PLEA-BARGAINING WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE COMPLAINANTS AND CONTRARY TO SECTION 2, RULE 116 OF THE REVISED RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, AS AMENDED; III. WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT JUDGE ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION BY NOT PROVIDING FOR SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT IN CASE THE ACCUSED POACHERS ARE NOT ABLE TO PAY THE FINE OF $200,000 IMPOSED UPON UNDER SECTION 87, REPUBLIC ACT 8550; IV. WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT JUDGE ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION I DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID MOTION WAS A MERE SCRAP OF PAPER.
At
the
outset,
considering
that
the
instant
petition arose out of a criminal case, it is peculiar that it is the chief legal counsel of PCSD and a
commanding officer of the Philippine Navy who brings this instant action before Us assailing the decision of the trial court in the said criminal cases.
Therefore, before this petition can be given due course, it is imperative to resolve whether the herein petitioners have legal standing to bring up the
present action.
SECTION 1. Petition for Certiorari. When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial and quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the
proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) XXX XXX XXX
Hence, for the herein petitioners to lodge the instant action, they must they first would be be a person legal
aggrieved,
otherwise,
without
That having been said, this Court rules that the herein petitioners are not persons aggrieved by the assailed decision of the trial court in the subject criminal cases.
It is elementary in criminal law that a crime is an offense against the State, and is hence prosecuted in the name of the People of the Philippines.10 this Rules reason, of Section 5 of Rule 110 of the For
Revised all or
Procedure commenced
provides by a under
that
criminal
complaint the
information
be
prosecuted
direction
10
10
Furthermore, Section 1 of P.D. 1275, provides, to wit: SECTION 1. Creation of the National Prosecution Service; Supervision and Control of the Secretary of Justice. There is hereby created and established a National Prosecution Service under the supervision and control of the Secretary of Justice, to be composed of the Prosecution Staff in the Office of the Secretary of Justice and such number of Regional State Prosecution Offices, and Provincial and City Fiscals Offices as are hereinafter provided, which shall be primarily responsible for the investigation and prosecution of all cases involving violations of penal laws. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Clearly, it is within the exclusive domain of the prosecutory arm of the government as how best to deal with the prosecution of criminal cases. Hence, any
grievance in course thereof affecting the interest of the State must proceed only from such an arm of the government.
Moreover,
at
this
stage,
only
the
Solicitor
General can bring or defend actions on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines.11 Section 35 (1), Chapter
12, Title III, Book IV of Administrative Code of 1987 provides duty Court
11
for
the
Office the of
of
the
Solicitor in in
to
Government Appeals
the all
and
11
proceedings; represent the Government and its officers in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and all other courts or tribunals in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the Government or any
Therefore, successfully
the by
present the
action
cannot without
be the
lodged
petitioners
concurrence and presence of the Solicitor General, who legally represents the interest of the State at this stage of the proceedings.
To restate, the criminal violation of our fishery laws is an offense The the against the is People of the none
offended and
party
State
certainly
herein
petitioners, who are public officials under the employ of the PCSD and the Philippine Navy. The State for
its part, in the prosecution of criminal offenses, is represented by the National Prosecution Service,
directly supervised and controlled by the Department of Justice. At this stage, the competent agency to
represent the cause of the State should be the Office of the Solicitor General and none other. and underscoring supplied.) (Emphasis
12
Considering the foregoing, it is futile for the petitioners Republic to Act invoke 7611, Plan for the known Palawan statutory as Act the to mandate of
Strategic the
Environmental
initiate
prosecute criminal cases, nay represent the State in actions arising from such criminal cases as aggrieved parties.
To be sure, the PCSD was created for the purpose of exercising governance and implementing the policy direction of the Strategic Environmental Plan [SEP]. The SEP on the other hand, as referred to in Republic Act No. 7611, is a comprehensive framework for the sustainable protecting endangered development and enhancing of of Palawan compatible resources with and The
the the
natural said
environment
province.12
SEPs express purpose is thus to serve as a framework to guide the local government of Palawan and other government agencies concerned in the formulation and implementation of plans, programs and projects
Section 4, Chapter II of Republic Act No. 7611, otherwise known as the Strategic Environmental Plan for Palawan Act. 13 Section 4 and Section 6, Ibid.
13
A reading of the Republic Act No. 7611 therefore clearly spells out that PCSDs and function is purely in
administrative,
regulatory
policy-making
With respect to the legal standing of Lt. Rodello B. Laraya to file the instant petition, suffice it to again reiterate that the aggrieved party in this case is the State and not Lt. Laraya in his personal
capacity, or the Philippine Navy or the Naval Forces West, both of which Laraya is a member of. petitioners Forces West own is allegation, simply to the task of the By the Naval
undertake of
patrolling, of our
monitoring
and
apprehension
violators
fishery laws and other laws affecting our waters and seas.
In petition,
fine, the
to
successfully must
lodge have a
the
instant and
petitioners
personal
substantial interest in the case such that they have sustained or stand to sustain direct injury as a
We find
no such injury, whether sustained or otherwise to the herein petitioners. If at all, it was the State who
14
was injured.
With the lack of legal personality of the herein petitioners to instigate the instant petition, there is no need to further consider the other issues and arguments raised therein. WHEREFORE, petition is premises considered, for the of instant legal
hereby
DISMISSED
lack
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. ANDRES B. REYES, JR. Associate Justice Chairman, 14th Division