CID vs.

Judge De la Rosa
G.R. Nos. 95122-23
May 31, 1991

FACTS:

On July 12, 1960, Santiago Gatchalian, grandfather of William Gatchalian,

was recognized by the Bureau of Immigration as a native born Filipino citizen
following the citizenship of his Filipino-born mother, Marciana Gatchalian.

On June 27, 1961, William Gatchalian, then a twelve-year old minor, arrived
in Manila from Hongkong together with Gloria, Francisco, and Johnson, all
surnamed Gatchalian. They had with them Certificates of Registration and
Identity issued by the Philippine Consulate in Hongkong based on a
cablegram bearing the signature of the then Secretary of Foreign Affairs,
Felixberto Serrano, and sought admission as Filipino citizens. Gloria and
Francisco are the daughter and son, respectively, of Santiago Gatchalian;
while William and Johnson are the sons of Francisco. After investigation, the
Board of Special Inquiry No. 1 rendered a decision dated July 6, 1961,
admitting William Gatchalian and his companions as Filipino citizens

On January 24, 1962, the then Secretary of Justice issued Memorandum No. 9
setting aside all decisions purporting to have been rendered by the Board of
Commissioners on appeal or on review motu proprio of decisions of the
Board of Special Inquiry. The same memorandum directed the Board of
Commissioners to review all cases where entry was allowed on the ground
that the entrant was a Philippine citizen. Among those cases was that of
William and others.

On July 6, 1962, the new Board of Commissioners, after a review motu

proprio of the proceedings had in the Board of Special Inquiry, reversed the
decision of the latter and ordered the exclusion of, among others, respondent
Gatchalian. A warrant of exclusion also dated July 6, 1962 was issued
alleging that "the decision of the Board of Commissioners dated July 6, 1962,
has now become final and executory.

Sometime in 1973, respondent Gatchalian, as well as the others covered by

the July 6, 1962 warrant of exclusion, filed a motion for re-hearing with the
Board of Special Inquiry where the deportation case against them was
assigned. Gatchalian and others were later admitted as Filipino Citizens and
the warrants of arrest were recalled.

On June 7, 1990, the acting director of the National Bureau of Investigation

wrote the Secretary of Justice recommending that respondent Gatchalian
along with the other applicants covered by the warrant of exclusion dated
July 6, 1962 be charged with violation of Sec. 37 (a), pars. 1 and 2, in relation
to Secs. 45 (c), and (d) and (e) of Commonwealth Act No. 613, as amended,
also known as the Immigration Act of 1940. In August 1990, petitioner
Commissioner Domingo of the Commission of Immigration and
Deportation issued a mission order commanding the arrest of respondent
William Gatchalian.

On August 29, 1990, William Gatchalian filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition with injunction before the Regional Trial Court of Manila.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the warrants of arrest issued for the deportation of William
Gatchalian and others is constitutional.

RULING:

In implementing the Immigration Act, the Commissioner of Immigration

may issue warrants of arrest only after a determination by the Board of
Commissioners of the existence of the ground for deportation as charged
against the alien. In other words, a warrant of arrest issued by the
Commissioner of Immigration, to be valid, must be for the sole purpose of
executing a final order of deportation. A warrant of arrest issued by the
Commissioner of Immigration for purposes of investigation only, as in the
case at bar, is null and void for being unconstitutional.

A reading of the mission order/warrant of arrest issued by the

Commissioner of Immigration, clearly indicates that the same was issued
only for purposes of investigation of the suspects, William Gatchalian
included. Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the mission order directs the Intelligence
Agents/Officers to:

1. Make a warrantless arrest under the Rules of Criminal Procedure,

Rule 113, Sec. 5, for violation of the Immigration Act, Sec. 37, para. a;
Secs. 45 and 46 Administrative Code;

3. Deliver the suspect to the Intelligence Division and immediately

conduct custodial interrogation, after warning the suspect that he has
a right to remain silent and a right to counsel;

Petitioners' argument that the arrest of respondent was based,

ostensibly, on the July 6, 1962 warrant of exclusion has obviously no leg to
stand on. The mission order/warrant of arrest made no mention that the
same was issued pursuant to a final order of deportation or warrant of
exclusion.
 Furthermore, Section 37 (b) of the Immigration Act states that
deportation "shall not be effected . . . unless the arrest in the deportation
proceedings is made within five (5) years after the cause of deportation
arises." In the case at bar, petitioners' alleged cause of action and
deportation against herein respondent arose in 1962. However, the warrant
of arrest of respondent was issued by Commissioner Domingo only on August
15, 1990 — 28 long years after. It is clear that petitioners' cause of action
has already prescribed and by their inaction could not now be validly
enforced by petitioners against respondent William Gatchalian. Additionally,
the warrant of exclusion dated July 6, 1962 was already recalled and the
Identification certificate of respondent, among others, was revalidated on
March 15, 1973 by the then Acting Commissioner Nituda.

"Although a deportation proceeding does not partake of the nature of a

criminal action, however, considering that it is a harsh and extraordinary
administrative proceeding affecting the freedom and liberty of a person, the
constitutional right of such person to due process should not be denied.
Thus, the provisions of the Rules of Court of the Philippines particularly on
criminal procedure are applicable to deportation proceedings”. Under Sec. 6,
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a final judgment may not be executed after the
lapse of five (5) years from the date of its entry or from the date it becomes
final and executory. Thereafter, it may be enforced only by a separate action
subject to the statute of limitations. Under Art. 1144 (3) of the Civil Code, an
action based on judgment must be brought within 10 years from the time the
right of action accrues. Undoubtedly, petitioners' cause of action has already
prescribed. Neither may an action to revive and/or enforce the decision
dated July 6, 1962 be instituted after ten (10) years (Art. 1144 [3], Civil
Code).

Disclaimer: Additional notes in Tagalog: Filipino talaga si William Gatchalian,

ayon sa korte. Although nakipagtalo pa talaga ang RTC saying that he is not
kasi nga noong ikinasal ang papa at mama niya sa China, wala raw records
na nagsasabing valid ang kasal, therefore, ang citizenship ng mama nila ang
masusunod. Pero ang ang korte kasi, they honored the testimony of
Santiago Gatchalian (ama ni William) kasi nawala iyong mga records nila
noong World War II. So pag ganitong wala na silang choice, iyong personal
testimony is considered as primary evidence na. So in-assume ng court na
valid iyong kasal ng ama at ina ni William. At ayon sa civil court kahit saang
lugar ka pa ikinasal, if batas na umiiral sa bansa kung saan kayo ikinasal ay
honored naman sa Pilipinas. So Filipino nga siya.

Cast of Characters
CID (Commission on Immigration and Deportation) – the petitioner
na gustong magpalayas kay William Gatchalian sa Pilipinas kasi nga
alien daw. Gusto nilang i-set aside ang TRO.

Judge De La Rosa – siya ang Judge na nag issue ng TRO para pigilan
ang pagpapalayas kay William Gatchalian

William Gatchalian – ang inaapi.

Hizon vs. CA
G.R. No. 119619
December 13, 1996

FACTS:

The Philippine National Police (PNP) Maritime Command of Puerto

Princesa City, Palawan received reports of illegal fishing operations in the
coastal waters of the city. In response to these reports, the city mayor
organized Task Force Bantay Dagat to assist the police in the detection and
apprehension of violators of the laws on fishing.
The Task Force Bantay Dagat reported to the PNP Maritime Command
that a boat and several small crafts were fishing by muro ami within the
shoreline of Barangay San Rafael of Puerto Princesa. The police, headed by
SPO3 Romulo Enriquez, and members of the Task Force Bantay Dagat,
headed by Benito Marcelo, Jr., immediately proceeded to the area and found
several men fishing in motorized sampans and a big fishing boat identified as
F/B Robinson within the seven-kilometer shoreline of the city. They boarded
the F/B Robinson and inspected the boat with the acquiescence of the boat
captain, Silverio Gargar. In the course of their inspection, the police saw two
foreigners in the captain’s deck. SPO3 Enriquez examined their passports
and found them to be mere photocopies. The police also discovered a large
aquarium full of live lapu-lapu and assorted fish weighing approximately one
ton at the bottom of the boat. They checked the license of the boat and its
fishermen and found them to be in order. Nonetheless, SPO3 Enriquez
brought the boat captain, the crew and the fishermen to Puerto Princesa for
further investigation.
Subsequent investigation was undertaken using four (4) live lapu-lapu as
specimens. The result was affirmative. The fish samples contained sodium
cyanide – a violent poison.
On July 9, 1993, the trial court found the thirty one (31) petitioners guilty
and sentenced them to imprisonment for a minimum of eight (8) years and
one (1) day to a maximum of nine (9) years and four (4) months. The court
also ordered the confiscation and forfeiture of the F/B Robinson, the 28
sampans and the ton of assorted live fishes as instruments and proceeds of
the offense.
Petitioners were arraigned and they pled not guilty to the charge. As
defense, they claimed that they are legitimate fishermen of the First
Fishermen Industries, Inc., a domestic corporation licensed to engage in
fishing. They alleged that they catch fish by the hook and line method.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the admission of the evidence against petitioners in view
of the warrantless search of the fishing boat and their subsequent arrest is
valid.

RULING:
Our constitution proscribes search and seizure and the arrest of persons
without a judicial warrant. As a general rule, any evidence obtained without a
judicial warrant is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. The rule
is, however, subject to certain exceptions. Some of these are: (1) a search
incident to a lawful arrest; (2) seizure of evidence in plain view; (3) search of
a moving motor vehicle; and (4) search in violation of customs laws.
Search and seizure without search warrant of vessels and aircrafts for
violations of customs laws have been the traditional exception to the
constitutional requirement of a search warrant. It is rooted on the recognition
that a vessel and an aircraft, like motor vehicles, can be quickly moved out
of the locality or jurisdiction in which the search warrant must be sought and
secured. Yielding to this reality, judicial authorities have not required a
search warrant of vessels and aircrafts before their search and seizure can be
constitutionally effected.
 The same exception ought to apply to seizures of fishing vessels and
boats breaching our fishery laws. These vessels are normally powered by
high-speed motors that enable them to elude arresting ships of the Philippine
Navy, the Coast Guard and other government authorities enforcing our
fishery laws.
We thus hold as valid the warrantless search on the F/B Robinson, a
fishing boat suspected of having engaged in illegal fishing. The fish and other
evidence seized in the course of the search were properly admitted by the
trial court. Moreover, petitioners failed to raise the issue during trial and
hence, waived their right to question any irregularity that may have attended
the said search and seizure.
Given the evidence admitted by the trial court, the next question now is
whether petitioners are guilty of the offense of illegal fishing with the use of
poisonous substances. Again, the petitioners, joined by the Solicitor General,
submit that the prosecution evidence cannot convict them.
The court now conducts a review of the evidence presented by way of
doing another test to the same specimen obtained from the same fish cage
of the boat where the first set of fish specimen was taken. Three (3) tests
were conducted on the specimens and found the fish negative for the
presence of sodium cyanide. The two tests resulted in conflicting findings. It
is important to note that the F/B Robinson never left the custody of the PNP
Maritime Command. The fishing boat was anchored near the city harbor and
was guarded by members of the Maritime Command. It was later turned over
to the custody of the Philippine Coast Guard Commander of Puerto Princesa
City. The prosecution failed to explain the contradictory findings on the fish
samples and this omission raises a reasonable doubt that the one ton of
fishes in the cage were caught with the use of sodium cyanide.
The absence of cyanide in the second set of fish specimens supports
petitioners claim that they did not use the poison in fishing. According to
them, they caught the fishes by the ordinary and legal way, i.e., by hook and
line on board their sampans. This claim is buttressed by the prosecution
evidence itself. The apprehending officers saw petitioners fishing by hook
and line when they came upon them in the waters of Barangay San Rafael,
proven through the testimony of SPO1 Demetrio Saballuca.
Prosecution witness SPO1 Bernardino Visto testified that for the first
laboratory test , boat engineer Ernesto Andaya did not only get four (4)
samples of fish but actually got five (5) from the fish cage of the F/B
Robinson. This Certification that four (4) fish samples were taken from the
boat shows on its face the number of pieces as originally five (5) but this was
erased with correction fluid and four (4) written over it. The specimens were
taken, sealed inside the plastic bag and brought to Manila by the police
authorities in the absence of petitioners or their representative. SPO2
Enriquez testified that the same plastic bag containing the four specimens
was merely sealed with heat from a lighter. Emilia Rosaldes, the NBI forensic
chemist who examined the samples, testified that when she opened the
package, she found two ends of the same plastic bag knotted. These
circumstances as well as the time interval from the taking of the fish samples
and their actual examination fail to assure the impartial mind that the
integrity of the specimens had been properly safeguarded.
Muro ami according to SPO1 Saballuca is made with the use of a big net
with sinkers to make the net submerge in the water with the fishermen
surround[ing] the net. This method of fishing needs approximately two
hundred (200) fishermen to execute. What the apprehending officers instead
discovered were twenty eight (28) fishermen in their discovered were twenty
eight (28) fishermen in their sampans fishing by hook and line. The
authorities found nothing on the boat that would have indicated any form of
illegal fishing. All the documents of the boat and the fishermen were in
order. It was only after the fish specimens were tested, albeit under
suspicious circumstances, that petitioners were charged with illegal fishing
with the use of poisonous substances.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is granted and the decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 15417 is reversed and set aside. Petitioners are
acquitted of the crime of illegal fishing with the use of poisonous substances
defined under the Section 33 of Republic Act No. 704, the Fisheries Decree of
1975. No costs.