Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 30 views

    Argoncillo vs. Court of Appeals, 292 SCRA 313

    Uploaded by

    Joshua Martin De Mesa

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Argoncillo vs. Court of Appeals, 292 SCRA 313

    Uploaded by

    Joshua Martin De Mesa
    30 views2 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    30 views2 pages

    Argoncillo vs. Court of Appeals, 292 SCRA 313

    Uploaded by

    Joshua Martin De Mesa

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Argoncillo vs.

    Court of Appeals, 292 SCRA 313

    Doctrine:

    The doctrine of Sensory Object Evidence holds that objects presented in court, which are addressed to
    the senses of the court, are admissible as evidence when they are relevant to the fact in issue. Section 1
    of Rule 130 emphasizes that objects can be exhibited, examined, or viewed by the court if they are
    pertinent to the case. This doctrine recognizes the importance of physical evidence in judicial
    proceedings, allowing the court to directly perceive and evaluate tangible objects to determine their
    relevance and probative value.

    Facts:

    Santiago Argoncillo, Richardo Balbona, and Policarpio Umiten were charged with illegal fishing using
    explosives (dynamite).

    The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Roxas City found them guilty, and this decision was affirmed by the
    Court of Appeals.

    On May 7, 1990, a team conducted a surveillance operation in Ivisan Bay due to reports of rampant
    illegal fishing.

    The team heard an explosion and found the accused individuals diving into the water and throwing their
    catch of fish to a nearby banca.

    Three other individuals were standing on the rocky portions of an islet nearby.

    The accused were apprehended, and the fish samples were examined by fish examiners who confirmed
    that they were caught with the use of explosives.

    The accused denied the charges and claimed they were engaged in legal fishing using a fishnet called
    "patuloy."

    Issue:

    Whether the accused are guilty of illegal fishing with the use of explosives.

    Ruling:

    The accused are guilty of illegal fishing with the use of explosives.

    The Supreme Court found that the lower courts correctly assessed the credibility of the prosecution
    witnesses and the evidence presented.

    The presumption of illegal fishing has been clearly established based on the fish samples examined and
    the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

    Use of Fish Samples as Evidence

    The court addressed the issue of whether the fish caught by the petitioners were actually killed with
    the use of explosives.
    The prosecution presented fish samples that were examined by experts, who concluded that the fish
    were caught with the use of explosives.

    The court found that the examination of a random sample of the fish was sufficient to establish that
    they were killed with explosives.

    The Court rejected the arguments of the accused, including their claim of innocence based on the
    absence of explosives in their possession and their alleged non-flight when the law enforcers arrived.

    However, the trial court erred in imposing a straight penalty of twenty years imprisonment on the
    accused.

    The proper penalty for illegal fishing with the use of explosives is an indeterminate penalty ranging from
    twenty to twenty-five years imprisonment.

    The Court modified the decision of the Court of Appeals and sentenced the accused to an indeterminate
    penalty of imprisonment ranging from twenty to twenty-five years.

    You might also like