Scribd
Upload
122 views

Sea Lion Case Digest

The Sea Lion Fishing Corporation claimed ownership of the fishing vessel F/V Sea Lion that was confiscated by the government. However, the corporation did not provide any evidence of ownership during the criminal proceedings where 17 Chinese fishermen aboard the vessel were convicted of illegal fishing. Under Philippine law, an instrument used in a crime can only be claimed by a third party if they establish ownership and that they are not liable for the offense. The court upheld the confiscation of the vessel since the corporation did not submit any proof of ownership during the trial or seek other legal remedies in a timely manner. The corporation was not denied due process as it had sufficient opportunity to raise its claim of ownership but failed to comply with requirements in law.

Uploaded by

mrpowerplus
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
122 views

Sea Lion Case Digest

The Sea Lion Fishing Corporation claimed ownership of the fishing vessel F/V Sea Lion that was confiscated by the government. However, the corporation did not provide any evidence of ownership during the criminal proceedings where 17 Chinese fishermen aboard the vessel were convicted of illegal fishing. Under Philippine law, an instrument used in a crime can only be claimed by a third party if they establish ownership and that they are not liable for the offense. The court upheld the confiscation of the vessel since the corporation did not submit any proof of ownership during the trial or seek other legal remedies in a timely manner. The corporation was not denied due process as it had sufficient opportunity to raise its claim of ownership but failed to comply with requirements in law.

Uploaded by

mrpowerplus
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

SEA LION FISHING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

When an instrument or tool used in a crime is being claimed by a third-party not liable to the offense,
such third-party must first establish its ownership over the same.

Factual Antecedents

In response to fishermen's report of poaching off Mangsee Island in Balabac, Palawan, a combined team
of Philippine Marines, Coast Guard and barangay officials conducted search and seizure operations
therein. There they found F/V Sea Lion anchored three nautical miles northwest of Mangsee Island.
Beside it were five boats and a long fishing net already spread over the water. The team boarded the
vessel and apprehended her captain, a Filipino, and a crew composed of three Filipinos and three
Chinese. Also arrested were 17 Chinese fishermen aboard F/V Sea Lion.

Various charges were thereafter filed as follows: (1) Violation of Section 97[7] of Republic Act (RA) No.
8550[8] against all those arrested, docketed as I.S. No. 2004-032; (2) Violation of Section 90[9] of the
same law against the captain of F/V Sea Lion, the Chief Engineer, and the President of the corporation
which owned said vessel, docketed as I.S. No. 2004-061; and (3) Violation of Section 27(a) and (f)[10] of
RA 9147[11] and of Section 87[12] of RA 8550 against all those arrested and the President of the
corporation which owned the vessel, respectively docketed as I.S. Nos. 2004-68, 2004-69, and 2004-70.

The Provincial Prosecutor of Palawan nevertheless found probable cause for the remaining charges[13]
but only against the 17 Chinese fishermen.[14] This was after it was found out that the crew of F/V Sea
Lion did not assent to the illegal acts of said 17 Chinese fishermen who were rescued by the crew of the
F/V Sea Lion from a distressed Chinese vessel. The prosecutor concluded that the crew, unarmed,
outnumbered and hampered by language barrier, acted only out of uncontrollable fear of imminent
danger to their lives and property which hindered them from asserting their authority over these
Chinese nationals. The Fishing Vessel F/V Sea Lion 1 as well as the fishing paraphernalia and equipments
used by the accused in committing the crime [are] hereby ordered confiscated in the favor of the
government.

Petitioner contends that F/V Sea Lion should be released to it because it is the registered owner of said
vessel and her captain and crew members were not among those accused of and convicted in Criminal
Case Nos. 18965 and 19422. To buttress its contention, petitioner invokes Article 45 of the Revised
Penal Code which provides:

ART. 45. Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of the crime. - Every penalty
imposed for the commission of a felony shall carry with it the forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and
the instruments or tools with which it was committed.
Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government,
unless they be the property of a third person not liable for the offense, but those articles which are not
subject of lawful commerce shall be destroyed. (Emphasis supplied.)

Petitioner also claims that it was denied its right to due process of law when it was not notified of the
judicial proceedings relative to the confiscation of the fishing vessel. It argues that such notification was
necessary considering that the provincial prosecutor was duly informed of its claim of ownership of the
F/V Sea Lion.

Issue:

Whether the forfeiture of F/V Sea Lion in favor of the government was proper

Held:

Yes. The government was correct when it forfeited F/V Sea Lion since its motion was only filed after the
judgment has been rendered and it failed to seek all remedies given the sufficient time to do so.

The lack of any factual basis for the third-party claim of ownership was not cured at all when the
petitioner filed its motion for reconsideration before the trial court. At that point, evidence should have
been adduced to support the petitioner's claim (so that a new trial or reopening of the trial on the
confiscation aspect should have been prayed for, rather than a mere motion for reconsideration.) There
is firstly the factual issue - to be proved by proper evidence in order to be properly considered by the
court - that the vessel is owned by a third party other than the accused. Article 45 required too that
proof be adduced that the third party is not liable for the offense. After the admission by the accused
through their guilty plea that the vessel had been used in the commission of a crime, we believe and so
hold that this additional Article 45 requirement cannot be simply inferred from the mere fact that the
alleged owner is not charged in the same case before the court.[

The lower court had jurisdiction over the case and the petitioner was not denied of due process and
gets it failed to comply with the other requirements provided in the law.

You might also like