People v. Cubelo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Appellant Moises Cubelo was charged with illegal fishing with explosives under Act No. 4003, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 471 and Republic Act No. 462. The information alleged that on March 7, 1955, within the jurisdictional waters of Surigao, Cubelo unlawfully and feloniously exploded one stick of dynamite, which resulted in the disabling, killing, and stupefying of fish valued at P10.00. Procedural History: In the Court of First Instance of Surigao, Cubelo pleaded guilty to the charge. Considering his plea as a mitigating circumstance, the court sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of one (1) year and six (6) months, as minimum, to two (2) years, as maximum, a fine of P1,500.00, or subsidiary imprisonment, and costs. Despite his guilty plea, Cubelo appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme Court due to it involving only questions of law. The Appeal: Appellant contended that he could not be convicted because the information failed to allege the specific intent to fish with explosives. He argued that as a special law, Act No. 4003, as amended, does not provide for subsidiary imprisonment, making the trial court's imposition of such penalty erroneous.
Issue(s)
Whether the information sufficiently charged the crime of illegal fishing with explosives despite not explicitly stating the intent to fish. Whether subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency is applicable to offenses penalized by special laws like Act No. 4003, as amended.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. The information was deemed sufficient, and the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the information was sufficient to charge the crime of illegal fishing with explosives. While the information did not explicitly state the phrase "for the purpose of fishing," the act described – exploding dynamite in the water which resulted in the killing of fish valued at P10.00 – coupled with the title of the case ("Illegal Fishing with Explosives"), the accused's plea of guilty, and the confiscation of fishing paraphernalia (fish bag, goggles, fish nets, paddle, and baroto) clearly indicated the intent to fish. The Court found it unreasonable to presume that the explosion was for mere amusement and coincidentally killed fish, or that the accused would handle explosives without purpose. The intent was logically presumed from the result of the act. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court affirmed the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Citing Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code, which states that the Code is supplementary to special laws unless they provide otherwise, the Court held that Articles 100 (civil liability) and 39 (subsidiary penalty) are applicable to offenses under special laws. This ruling was supported by previous jurisprudence, including People vs. Dizon and People vs. Moreno. Therefore, the trial court did not err in ordering subsidiary imprisonment.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for illegal fishing with explosives, holding that the information was sufficient even without explicitly stating the intent to fish, as the act of exploding dynamite in the water resulting in the death of fish, coupled with the accused's possession of fishing paraphernalia and his plea of guilty, clearly indicated the intent to fish. The Court also reiterated that subsidiary imprisonment for insolvency in paying fines is applicable to offenses under special laws, drawing from the supplementary provisions of the Revised Penal Code.