REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA

FOURTEENTH DIVISION
LT. RODELLO B. LARAYA, PN,
and ATTY. ADELINA B.
BENAVENTE-VILLENA,
Petitioners,
- versus -

CA-G.R. SP. No. 80927

Members:
REYES, JR., A.B.,
(Chairman)
BERSAMIN, L.P., &
LIBREA-LEAGOGO,C.C., JJ.

HON. PERFECTO E. PE,

Presiding Judge of
Branch 52, Regional
Trial Court of Palawan,
And TAN ZI XIAN, TAN GUO
CUN, HUANG JUN XIANG, TAN ZI
DENG, ZHENG WEN JIE, LIU XIN
YAN, TAN BING SHUN, CHEN YI
XIAN, XIE XI WEI, CHEN GUO
KUAN, TAN PING YIN (YAN),
ZHENG CHAO FU, FANG MING
JIE, TAN GUO HUI, XIE TAN FU,
TAN HUO SHUN, LUO ZENG JIA,
LAI GUO YUAN and TAN BING
YAO, ZHOU JIAN GANG, QI HUI
GUAN, QI JIA BING, QI HUI WEN,
Promulgated:
LAI GUO ZHI, CHEN ZI SHUN,
ZHOU JIAN KAI, HUANG RI AN,
HUANG ZI HUA, ZHAO QIAN SHAO,
_____________
CHEN QI CHANG, HUANG SHAO
QIANG, FANG YING XI, HUANG
HONG BING, NIE ZHUANG QIANG,
QI CHI SHENG, QI LU JIAN and
ZHENG ZHI XIONG,
Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

D E C I S I O N

REYES, JR., A.B., J.:

Before Us is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule

65

of

the

Rules

of

Civil

Procedure

assailing

the

decisions dated 17 July 2003 of the Regional Trial

CA-G.R. SP. No. 80927

DECISION

Court of Palawan, Fourth Judicial Region, Branch 52,

Puerta Princessa City in Criminal Case Numbers: 17717,
17718, 17696 and 17697.

It

appears

that

on

12

September

2002,

thirty

eight (38) Chinese nationals on board their fishing

vessels were caught within the Malampaya Natural Gas
Platform Project Exclusive Zone, in El Nido, Palawan
in the act of illegal fishing.
Groupers
(locally

(locally
known,

known,

as

Hundreds of kilos of

as

Mameng)

Lapu-Lapu),

and

Snappers

Wrasse
(locally

known, as Maya-Maya) were found in the said fishing

vessels.1
were

Also found within the vessels, among others,

powders

and

pillets,

suspected

to

be

noxious

substances or component ingredients of explosives.

bottle of home-made dynamite was also retrieved.2

Subsequent
Cyanide

specimen

Detection

Test

tests

conducted

Laboratory

of

the

by
Bureau

the
of

Fisheries and Aquatic Resources on the fishes found on

the

vessels

cyanide.3

yielded

positive

for

the

presence

of

Tests conducted by the Forensic Chemistry

Division of the National Bureau of Investigation on

the
1

powders

Rollo, pp. 55-58.

Ibid, p. 55.
3
Ibid, pp. 46-52.
2

and

pillets

seized

from

the

vessels

CA-G.R. SP. No. 80927

DECISION

confirmed

the

fact

that

they

were

indeed

either

noxious substances or contained component ingredients

of an explosive.4

Corresponding criminal complaints5 were thus filed

on 17 September 2002 by the herein petitioners, Atty.
Adelina Benavente-Villena, Chief of Legal Services of
the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development [PCSD]
and Lt. Rodello B. Laraya, a commanding officer of the
Philippine
respondents

Navy
for

against

the

the

violation

of

accused-private
Republic

Act

No.

8550, otherwise known as the Philippine Fisheries Code

of

1998,

Section

88

specifically,
(Fishing

Section

through

87

(Poaching)

Explosives,

Noxious

and
or

Poisonous Substances) of the said Act.

Subsequently, criminal informations for violation

of Republic Act No. 8550 were filed against all 38
Chinese

nationals

Palawan.

All

with

of

the

the

Regional

Trial

accused-private

Court

of

respondents

thereafter pleaded not guilty to the charges on 07 May

2003.

During

the

pre-trial

of

the

criminal

cases,

counsel for the accused-private respondents manifested

4
5

Ibid, pp. 53-54.

Ibid, pp. 38-45.

CA-G.R. SP. No. 80927

DECISION

their

intention

to

enter

into

plea

bargaining

by

entering a plea of guilty to a lesser offense under

paragraph

of

Section

88

of

Republic

Act

8550.

However, the then prosecuting officer of the cases,

Provincial Prosecutor Alen Ross B. Rodriguez did not
accede.

Consequently, trial on the merits ensued.

After prosecution presented its first witness and

initial cross-examination was conducted by the counsel
for

the

defense,

or

after

only

two

hearing

dates,

subsequent trial schedules were reset until a hearing

finally pushed through on 15 July 2003.

On such date,

however, Provincial Prosecutor Alen Ross B. Rodriguez

manifested

his

intention

to

prosecuting the criminal cases.

inhibit

from

further

Continuation of the

trial was, hence, rescheduled the following day.

On 16 July 2003, with the appearance of a new

prosecutor, counsel for the defense asked the court to
re-open the pre-trial stage of the criminal cases and
reiterated

the

accused-private

respondents

intention of availing plea bargaining.

Provincial

Prosecutors

Office,

earlier

This time, the

represented

Prosecutor Olegario Cayetano, Jr., did not object.

by
On

the contrary, Prosecutor Cayetano manifested that the

government was amenable to re-open pre-trial for the

CA-G.R. SP. No. 80927

DECISION

purpose of plea-bargaining.

Consequently, the trial

court ordered the re-opening of the pre-trial.

During

the

accused-private

re-opened

pre-trial

respondents

stage,

through

their

all

the

counsel

plead guilty to violation of Paragraph 2, Section 88

of

Republic

Act

8550.

The

public

prosecutor

interposed no objection with the change of plea and

informed

the

court

that

the

prosecutors

conformity

with the plea bargaining was in consonance with the

directive of the Chief State Prosecutor.

On 17 July 2003, the trial court promulgated the

assailed decisions,6 which convicted all the accusedprivate

respondents

for

violation

of

Paragraph

2,

Section 88 of Republic Act 8550 (Possession of Noxious

or

Poisonous

Substances)

and

sentenced

each

of

the

accused-private respondents to a penalty of ten (10)

months

imprisonment.

respondents

were

All

also

the

convicted

accused-private
of

violating

of

Section 87 of the same Act (the crime of Poaching) and

were ordered to pay a fine of USD100,000.00 in favor
of the government.

Fishing paraphernalia, equipment

and vessels were ordered forfeited in favor of the

State.
6

Ibid, pp. 24-31.

CA-G.R. SP. No. 80927

DECISION

On 18 July 2003, the herein petitioners filed a

Motion

for

Reconsideration,

by

way

of

an

Omnibus

Motion7 seeking, among others, reconsideration of the

decision of the trial court allowing the re-opening of
the

pre-trial,

petitioners.

despite

vigorous

objections

from

the

The latter contend that the prosecutor

must not be allowed to plea bargain without seeking

the

conformity

of

the

herein

petitioners

being

the

complainants.

On 04 August 2003, the trial court denied8 the

petitioners Omnibus Motion, declaring the same as a
mere scrap of paper, for failure on the part of the
petitioners

to

notify

the

provincial

the accused-private respondents.

court

observed

cannot
said

properly

motion,

prosecution

that

represent

since
of

the

petitioners

by

the

in

People

cases

public prosecutor.

Hence, the instant petition.

7
8

Ibid, pp. 32-35.

Ibid, pp. 36-37.

and

Moreover, the trial

supervision

criminal

prosecutor

and
is

themselves
filing

control
lodged

the

in

the

with

the

CA-G.R. SP. No. 80927

DECISION

Petitioners raise the following issues to wit:9

I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT JUDGE
ACTED BEYOND HIS AUTHORITY IN RULING THAT
HEREIN
COMPLAINANTS-PETITIONERS
CANNOT
REPRESENT THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
HENCE, NO STANDING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
PRE-TRIAL
PROCEEDINGS,
PLEA
BARGAINING
PROCESS;
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT JUDGE
ACTED IN EXCESS OF HIS JURISDICTION OR WITH
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN HE ALLOWED
THE RE-OPENING OF PRE-TRIAL FOR PURPOSES OF
PLEA-BARGAINING WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE
COMPLAINANTS AND CONTRARY TO SECTION 2, RULE
116
OF
THE
REVISED
RULES
ON
CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, AS AMENDED;
III.
WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT JUDGE
ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION BY NOT
PROVIDING FOR SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT IN
CASE THE ACCUSED POACHERS ARE NOT ABLE TO
PAY THE FINE OF $200,000 IMPOSED UPON UNDER
SECTION 87, REPUBLIC ACT 8550;
IV.
WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT JUDGE
ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION I
DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON
THE GROUND THAT THE SAID MOTION WAS A MERE
SCRAP OF PAPER.

Ibid, pp. 11-12.

CA-G.R. SP. No. 80927

DECISION

We resolve to dismiss the instant petition.

At

the

outset,

considering

that

the

instant

petition arose out of a criminal case, it is peculiar

that

it

is

the

chief

legal

counsel

of

PCSD

and

commanding officer of the Philippine Navy who brings

this instant action before Us assailing the decision
of the trial court in the said criminal cases.

Therefore, before this petition can be given due

course, it is imperative to resolve whether the herein
petitioners

have

legal

standing

to

bring

up

the

present action.

We rule in the negative.

Section 1, Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court

expressly provides:

SECTION 1. Petition for Certiorari.

When
any
tribunal,
board
or
officer
exercising
judicial
and
quasi-judicial
functions has acted without or in excess of
its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved
thereby may file a verified petition in the
proper
court,
alleging
the
facts
with
certainty and praying that judgment be
rendered
annulling
or
modifying
the

CA-G.R. SP. No. 80927

DECISION

proceedings of such tribunal, board or

officer,
and
granting
such
incidental
reliefs as law and justice may require.
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
XXX

XXX

XXX

Hence, for the herein petitioners to lodge the

instant

action,

aggrieved,

they

otherwise,

must
they

first
would

be
be

person

without

legal

standing to pursue this legal recourse.

That having been said, this Court rules that the

herein petitioners are not persons aggrieved by the
assailed decision of the trial court in the subject
criminal cases.

It is elementary in criminal law that a crime is

an offense against the State, and is hence prosecuted
in the name of the People of the Philippines.10
this
Rules

reason,
of

criminal

Section

Criminal
actions

information

shall

of

Rule

Procedure
commenced

be

10

People v. Arcilla, G.R. No. 116237, 15 May1996.

of

the

provides
by

prosecuted

and control of the prosecutor.

110

a
under

Revised

that

complaint
the

For

all
or

direction

CA-G.R. SP. No. 80927

DECISION

10

Furthermore, Section 1 of P.D. 1275, provides, to

wit:
SECTION 1. Creation of the National
Prosecution Service; Supervision and Control
of the Secretary of Justice. There is
hereby created and established a National
Prosecution Service under the supervision
and control of the Secretary of Justice, to
be composed of the Prosecution Staff in the
Office of the Secretary of Justice and such
number
of
Regional
State
Prosecution
Offices, and Provincial and City Fiscals
Offices as are hereinafter provided, which
shall be primarily responsible for the
investigation and prosecution of all cases
involving
violations
of
penal
laws.
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Clearly, it is within the exclusive domain of the

prosecutory arm of the government as how best to deal
with the prosecution of criminal cases.

Hence, any

grievance in course thereof affecting the interest of

the State must proceed only from such an arm of the
government.

Moreover,

at

this

stage,

only

the

Solicitor

General can bring or defend actions on behalf of the

Republic of the Philippines.11

Section 35 (1), Chapter

12, Title III, Book IV of Administrative Code of 1987

provides

for

duty

Represent

Court
11

to

and

the

the

Office

Court

the
of

of

the

Solicitor

Government
Appeals

People v. Partisala, G.R. No. L-61997, 15 November 1982.

in
in

Generals

the
all

Supreme
criminal

CA-G.R. SP. No. 80927

DECISION

11

proceedings; represent the Government and its officers

in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and all
other courts or tribunals in all civil actions and
special

proceedings

in

which

the

Government

or

any

officer thereof in his official capacity is a party.

Therefore,
successfully

the

lodged

present
by

the

action

petitioners

cannot

be

without

the

concurrence and presence of the Solicitor General, who

legally represents the interest of the State at this
stage of the proceedings.

To restate, the criminal violation of our fishery

laws

is

an

offense

Philippines.
other

than

The
the

against

offended

State

and

the

party

is

certainly

People

of

the

therefore

none

not

the

herein

petitioners, who are public officials under the employ

of the PCSD and the Philippine Navy.

The State for

its part, in the prosecution of criminal offenses, is

represented

by

the

National

Prosecution

Service,

directly supervised and controlled by the Department

of Justice.

At this stage, the competent agency to

represent the cause of the State should be the Office

of the Solicitor General and none other.
and underscoring supplied.)

(Emphasis

CA-G.R. SP. No. 80927

DECISION

12

Considering the foregoing, it is futile for the

petitioners
Republic

to

invoke

Act

Environmental

7611,
Plan

present petition.
said

law

the

which

for

statutory

known

as

Palawan

Act

mandate

the
to

of

Strategic

initiate

the

Indeed, there is nothing in the

authorizes

the

PCSD

to

directly

prosecute criminal cases, nay represent the State in

actions arising from such criminal cases as aggrieved
parties.

To be sure, the PCSD was created for the purpose

of exercising governance and implementing the policy
direction of the Strategic Environmental Plan [SEP].
The SEP on the other hand, as referred to in Republic
Act No. 7611, is a comprehensive framework for the
sustainable

development

protecting

and

endangered

environment

of

enhancing

Palawan

the

of

the

compatible

natural
said

resources

province.12

with
and
The

SEPs express purpose is thus to serve as a framework

to guide the local government of Palawan and other
government agencies concerned in the formulation and
implementation

of

plans,

programs

and

projects

affecting the province of Palawan.13

12

Section 4, Chapter II of Republic Act No. 7611, otherwise known as the Strategic Environmental
Plan for Palawan Act.
13
Section 4 and Section 6, Ibid.

CA-G.R. SP. No. 80927

DECISION

13

A reading of the Republic Act No. 7611 therefore

clearly

spells

out

administrative,

that

PCSDs

regulatory

function

and

is

purely

policy-making

in

nature, and certainly not prosecutory.

With respect to the legal standing of Lt. Rodello

B. Laraya to file the instant petition, suffice it to
again reiterate that the aggrieved party in this case
is

the

State

and

not

Lt.

Laraya

in

his

personal

capacity, or the Philippine Navy or the Naval Forces

West, both of which Laraya is a member of.
petitioners
Forces

own

West

monitoring

allegation,

is

and

simply

the

to

apprehension

task

undertake
of

of

By the

the

Naval

patrolling,

violators

of

our

fishery laws and other laws affecting our waters and

seas.

In
petition,

fine,
the

to

successfully

petitioners

must

lodge
have

the

instant

personal

and

substantial interest in the case such that they have

sustained

or

stand

to

sustain

direct

injury

result of the act that is being challenged.

as

We find

no such injury, whether sustained or otherwise to the

herein petitioners.

If at all, it was the State who

CA-G.R. SP. No. 80927

DECISION

was injured.

14

Thus, it is only the State who may bring

the instant action.

With the lack of legal personality of the herein

petitioners to instigate the instant petition, there
is no need to further consider the other issues and
arguments raised therein.
WHEREFORE,
petition

is

premises

hereby

considered,

DISMISSED

for

the

lack

instant
of

legal

standing on the part of the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.
ANDRES B. REYES, JR.
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice

CELIA C. LIBREA-LEAGOGO
Associate Justice

C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the
Constitution,
it
is
hereby
certified
that
the
conclusions in the above decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court.
ANDRES B. REYES, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairman, 14th Division