People v. Hernandez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Defendants were charged with infraction of a municipal ordinance regulating fishing privileges in Batangas. Specifically, they were accused of fishing by torchlight with small hand-nets in a portion of the sea marked off as No. 106, intended for a fish weir and leased to Lino Mendoza, without his knowledge or consent. Another defendant, Cornelio Arellano, was charged with fishing with a drag-net (bayacus) in a portion of the sea set apart for fish weirs (No. 111) without the lessee's consent, and similar charges were filed against him for using an alangang munti in weirs Nos. 111 and 112. Procedural History: The cases originated from the justice of the peace court and were appealed to the Court of First Instance. In the Court of First Instance, the defendants filed demurrers, arguing the ordinance was unconstitutional, illegal, and inapplicable, and that the acts alleged were not penalized. The Court of First Instance dismissed all four complaints, finding Section 10 of the ordinance illegal and void, and alternatively, that the infraction was not covered by the penal sanction in Section 15. The Petition: The prosecution appealed the dismissal orders to the Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court erred in taking judicial notice of the ordinance, in discussing its validity, in declaring Section 10 void, and in dismissing the complaints.
Issue(s)
Whether a Court of First Instance can take judicial notice of a municipal ordinance in a case appealed from a justice of the peace court. Whether a municipality has the authority to grant exclusive fishing rights in a specific area of marine waters to a licensee. Whether the penal sanction in Section 15 of Ordinance No. 4 applies to the disturbance of exclusive fishing rights defined in Section 10.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of dismissal. While it held that Section 10 of the ordinance was legal and valid, it agreed with the lower court that the infraction of Section 10 was not included within the penal sanction prescribed by Section 15 of the ordinance. Therefore, the dismissal was proper on this ground.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that Courts of First Instance (CFI) have the authority and duty to take judicial notice of municipal ordinances when hearing cases on appeal from inferior courts. Although the Municipal Code (Act No. 82) is silent on this matter compared to the Manila Charter (Act No. 183), the silence does not imply a lack of authority. Applying the principle from Smith vs. City of Emporia, the Court noted that when a case is appealed to a higher court for a trial de novo, the higher court is substituted for the inferior court. Therefore, whatever the inferior court was required to take judicial notice of, the appellate court must also notice. To hold otherwise would frustrate the exercise of appellate jurisdiction as defined in Act No. 136. Furthermore, Section 313 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides methods for proving municipal acts, and the record in this case contained certified copies of the ordinance, which the prosecution did not object to. On Issue 2: The Court declared Section 10 of the ordinance legal and valid. Under Section 43(c) of the Municipal Code and Act No. 1634, municipalities are expressly authorized to grant fishing privileges within their jurisdictions as a delegation of State authority. The Court reasoned that the right to grant a "privilege" necessarily implies the power to grant exclusivity; otherwise, the license would be a mere general permit available to everyone. By designating specific areas for weirs and allowing licensees to utilize the surrounding 50 meters exclusively, the municipality acted within its mandate to regulate fisheries and raise revenue. The possibility of "abusive combinations" mentioned by the lower court does not render the provision void per se, as there are other legal remedies to address such abuses. On Issue 3: Notwithstanding the validity of the ordinance, the Court held that the dismissal was proper because the specific acts were not penalized by Section 15. Section 10 prohibits other fishermen from disturbing a licensee or using the granted area without consent. However, Section 15 only imposes a fine or imprisonment on "any person who makes use of the concession for fishing on the surface of the water without the corresponding license." The defendants were not charged with fishing without a license in general, but with fishing in a restricted area designated for another person. Under the principle of strict construction of penal laws, the court cannot extend a penalty to an act not clearly defined by the penal clause. Since Section 15 did not explicitly punish the disturbance of another's area mentioned in Section 10, no conviction could be sustained.
Main Doctrine
While Courts of First Instance in the provinces can take judicial notice of municipal ordinances, a conviction for violating an ordinance requires that the infraction be clearly included within the penal sanction prescribed by the ordinance.