PD 704
THE PHILIPPINE FISHERIES CODE (R.A. 8550)
Objectives:
- Conservation, protection and sustained management of the country’s fishery and aquatic resources.
- Poverty alleviation and the provision of supplementary livelihood among municipal fisherfolk;
- Improvement of productivity of aquaculture within ecological limits;
- Optimal utilization of offshore and deep-sea resources; and
- Upgrading of post-harvest technology.
In Oposa v. Factora, Jr. the Court stated that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology need not even be written in the Constitution for it is assumed, like other civil and political rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to exist from the inception of mankind and it is an issue of transcendental importance with intergeneration implications. Even assuming the absence of a categorical legal provision specifically prodding petitioners to clean up the bay, they and the men and women representing them cannot escape their obligation to future generations of Filipinos to keep the waters of the Manila Bay clean and clear humanly as possible. Anything less would be a betrayal of the trust reposed in them.
PEOPLE vs. PRISCILLA BALASA, (GR No. 106357, September 3, 1998)
Where the accused committed qualified violation of PD704 (fishing with the use of explosives), the imposable penalty for which is life imprisonment to death. If the accused is entitled to a mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the court should impose life imprisonment applying, in a suppletory character, Article 13 and 63 of the Revised Penal Code.
RP vs. CA (Sep. 30,1999, G.R. 122269)
The trial court has no jurisdiction to make a disposition of inalienable public land.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. MACARAEN, G.R. No. L-32166 18 October 1977
However, at present, there is no more doubt that electro fishing is punishable under the Fisheries Law and that it cannot be penalized merely by executive revolution because Presidential Decree No. 704, which is revision and consolidation of all laws and decrees affecting fishing and fisheries and which was promulgated on May 16, 1975 (71 O.G. 4269), expressly punishes electro fishing in fresh water and salt water areas.
That decree provides:
SEC. 33. – Illegal fishing, dealing in illegally caught fish or fishery/aquatic products. – It shall he unlawful for any person to catch, take or gather or cause to be caught, taken or gathered fish or fisheries/aquatic products in Philippine waters with the use of explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substance, or by the use of electricity as defined in paragraphs (1), (m) and (d), respectively, of Section 3 hereof:…
The decree Act. No. 4003, as amended, Republic Acts Nos. 428, 3048, 3512 and 3586, Presidential Decrees Nos. 43, 534 and 533, and all, Acts, Executive Orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with it (Sec. 49, P.D. No. 704).
The inclusion in that decree of provisions defining and penalizing electro fishing is a clear recognition of the deficiency or silence on that point of the old Fisheries Law. It is an admission that a mere executive regulation is not legally adequate to penalize electro fishing.
Note that the definition of electro fishing, which is found in section 1(c) of Fisheries Administrative Order No. 84 and which is not provided for the old Fisheries Law, is now found in section 3(d) of the decree. Note further that the decree penalty electro fishing by “imprisonment from two (2) to four (4) years”, a punishment which is more severe that the penalty of a time of not excluding P500 or imprisonment of not more than six months or both fixed in section 3 of Fisheries Administrative Order No. 84.
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT
JURISPRUDENCE:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. HU, G.R. NO. 182232, OCTOBER 6, 2008
Illegal recruitment is committed when two elements concur, namely: (1) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (2) he undertakes any activity within the meaning of “recruitment and placement” defined under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code. Recruitment and placement is “any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers; and includes referrals, contact services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, that any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.”
The crime becomes Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale when the foregoing two elements concur, with the addition of a third element – the recruiter committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as group.
A conviction for large scale illegal recruitment must be based on a finding in each case of illegal recruitment of three or more persons whether individually or as a group. While it is true that the law does not require that at least three victims testify at the trial, nevertheless, it is necessary that there is sufficient evidence proving that the offense was committed against three or more persons.
While there were six private complainants in this case, four of whom were presented during the trial, the prosecution, nonetheless, failed to establish that Hu engaged in illegal recruitment acts against at least three of these complainants. In offenses in which the number of victims is essential, such as in the present petition, failure of the prosecution to prove by convincing evidence that the offense is committed against the minimum number of persons required by law is fatal to its cause of action. Underscoring the significance of the number of victims was the disquisition of Justice Florenz Regalado in People v. Ortiz-Miyake:
It is evident that in illegal recruitment cases, the number of persons victimized is determinative. Where illegal recruitment is committed against a lone victim, the accused may be convicted of simple illegal recruitment which is punishable with a lower penalty under Article 39(c) of the Labor Code. Corollarily, where the offense is committed against three or more persons, it is qualified to illegal recruitment in large scale which provides a higher penalty under Article 39(a) of the same Code. (Emphasis supplied.)
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. LO, G.R. NO. 175229, JANUARY 29, 2009
In a litany of cases, we held that to constitute illegal recruitment in large scale three (3) elements must concur: (a) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; (b) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of “recruitment and placement” under Art. 13, par. (b), of the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under Art. 34 of the same Code (now Sec. 6, RA 8042); and, (c) the offender committed the same against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. NOGRA, G.R. 170834, AUGUST 29, 2008
The defense of being a mere employee is not a shield against his conviction for large scale illegal recruitment. In People v. Gasacao and People v. Sagayaga, the Court reiterated the ruling in People v. Cabais, People v. Chowdury and People v. Corpuz that an employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal by direct participation, together with its employer, if it is shown that he actively and consciously participated in the recruitment process.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. LARRY DOMINGO, G.R. 181475, APRIL 7, 2009
That no receipt or document in which appellant acknowledged receipt of money for the promised jobs was adduced in evidence does not free him of liability. For even if at the time appellant was promising employment no cash was given to him, he is still considered as having been engaged in recruitment activities, since Article 13(b) of the Labor Code states that the act of recruitment may be for profit or not. It suffices that appellant promised or offered employment for a fee to the complaining witnesses to warrant his conviction for illegal recruitment.
LAPASARAN VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. NO. 179907, FEBRUARY 12, 2009
It is well established in jurisprudence that a person may be convicted of both illegal recruitment and estafa. The reason, therefore, is not hard to discern: illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, while estafa is malum in se. In the first, the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction. In the second, such an intent is imperative.
