F.
Upon a laboratory examination of the fish seized by the police and agents
of the Fisheries Commission, it was indubitably determined that the fish
they were selling were caught with the use of explosives. Accordingly, the
three vendors were criminally charged with the violation of Section 33 of
P.D. 704 which makes it unlawful for any person to knowingly possess,
deal in, or sell for profit any fish which have been illegally caught. During
the trial, the three vendors claimed that they bought the fish from a
fishing boat which they duly identified. The prosecution however
claimed that the three vendors should nevertheless be held liable for the
offense as they were the ones caught in possession of the fish illegally
caught. Did they commit a crime?
No crime. Mere possession of such fish without knowledge of the fact that the
same were caught with the use of explosives does not by itself render the seller-
possessor criminally liable under P.D. 704. Although the act penalized in said
Decree may be a malum prohibitum, the law punishes the possession, dealing in
or selling of such fish only when "knowingly" done that the fish were caught with
the use of explosives; hence criminal intent is essential. The claim by the fish
vendors that they only bought the fish from fishing boats which they "duly
identified", renders their possession of such fish innocent unless the prosecution
could prove that they have knowledge that explosives were used in catching such
fish, and the accused had knowledge thereof.
G. A is the driver of B's Mercedes Benz car. When B was on a trip to Paris, A
used the car for a joy ride with C whom he is courting. Unfortunately, A
met an accident. Upon his return, B came to know about the
unauthorized use of the car and sued A for qualified theft. B alleged that
A took and used the car with intent to gain as he derived some benefit or
satisfaction from its use. On the other hand, A argued that he has no
intent of making himself the owner of the car as he in fact returned it to
the garage after the joy ride. What crime or crimes, if any, were
committed? Explain.
H. Two [2] Philippine National Police (PNP) officers. X and Y, on board on
motorboat with Z, a civilian as motor-man, arrested A and B who were in
a banca, for dynamite fishing. The latter's banca was towed towards the
municipality. On the way, the PNP motorboat was intercepted by a third
banca whose occupants, C, D, and E, tried to negotiate for the release of A
and B and their banca. The PNP officers refused and instead shouted at C,
D. and E that they are all under arrest. Thereupon, C, D, and E
simultaneously threw dynamite sticks at the PNP motorboats. The first
explosion killed X. A and B also reacted by throwing dynamite at the PNP
motorboat: its explosion killed Y and Z. What crime or crimes did A, B, C,
D and E commit?
C. D. and E are liable for the complex crime of Murder qualified by
explosion, with direct assault for the death of X. A and B are liable for the
complex crime of Murder qualified by explosion as to death of Y, and simple
murder qualified by explosion for the death of Z.
No crime of direct assault can be filed insofar as the death of Z is
concerned, he being a civilian.
This, of course, assumes that there is no conspiracy among A, B, C, D and E,
otherwise all would have the same criminal liability as the act of one becomes
the act of all.
Additionally, A and B committed a violation of Pres. Decree No. 534 9on
illegal fishing) as amended by P.D. No. 704 and 1058. Fishing with the use of
explosives is punishable under said Decree.
