Scribd
Upload
722 views2 pages

People vs. Tulin, G.R. No. 111709 (August 30, 2001)

The accused, along with others, boarded and took control of an oil tanker owned by a Philippine company. They directed the tanker to Singapore where the cargo was unloaded and sold under the supervision of one of the accused. The accused were later arrested in the Philippines for qualified piracy. The court found the accused guilty, ruling that piracy falls under an exception to territorial jurisdiction and the crime was not completed until the cargo was sold in Singapore under the accused's supervision. The court also ruled that Presidential Decree No. 532, which defines piracy in Philippine waters, did not contradict but rather expanded the definition in the penal code and both laws exist in harmony.

Uploaded by

Laindei Lou Torreda
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
722 views2 pages

People vs. Tulin, G.R. No. 111709 (August 30, 2001)

The accused, along with others, boarded and took control of an oil tanker owned by a Philippine company. They directed the tanker to Singapore where the cargo was unloaded and sold under the supervision of one of the accused. The accused were later arrested in the Philippines for qualified piracy. The court found the accused guilty, ruling that piracy falls under an exception to territorial jurisdiction and the crime was not completed until the cargo was sold in Singapore under the accused's supervision. The court also ruled that Presidential Decree No. 532, which defines piracy in Philippine waters, did not contradict but rather expanded the definition in the penal code and both laws exist in harmony.

Uploaded by

Laindei Lou Torreda
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 

plaintiff-appellee,
vs. ROGER P. TULIN, VIRGILIO I. LOYOLA, CECILIO O. CHANGCO, ANDRES C.
INFANTE, CHEONG SAN HIONG, and JOHN DOES, accused-appellants.
G.R. No. 111709, August 30, 2001
Ponente: MELO, J.

FACTS:

Accused-appellant along with other co-accused boarded M/T Tabangao which was a
cargo vessel owned by PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation. The pirates/
accused boarded the ship and detained the crew members. The vessel was directed to
go to Singapore where the cargo was unloaded and sold under the direct supervision of
Hiong. After such events, the vessel was then directed to sail back to Philippines.

Several warrants of arrests were procured against the pirates for qualified piracy of the
violation of PD 532. Accused-appellant assails the rendered decision as they contend
the trial court erred in allowing them to proceed with the hearing notwithstanding the fact
that they were represented by a non-lawyer thereby depriving them of the due process
enshrined in the constitution. Accused-appellant along with other co-accused alleges
also the fact that they were subjected to physical violence; they were not informed of
their constitutional rights, and several other constitutional violations regarding custodial
investigations. 

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the accused is guilty of Piracy?


2. Whether or not the case be tried under the Philippine Court although the crime
was committed outside the country's territorial waters?

RULING:

Yes. Piracy falls under Title One of Book Two of the Revised Penal Code. As such, it is
an exception to the rule on territoriality in criminal law as provided in Article 2(5) of the
Revised Penal Code.

Since the crime was committed outside Philippine waters, suffice it to state that
unquestionably, the attack on and seizure of "M/T Tabangao and its cargo were
committed in Philippine waters, although the captive vessel was later brought by the
pirates to Singapore where its cargo was off-loaded, transferred, and sold. And such
transfer was done under accused-appellant Hiong's direct supervision. Although
Presidential Decree No. 532 requires that the attack and seizure of the vessel and its
cargo be committed in Philippine waters, the disposition by the pirates of the vessel and
its cargo is still deemed part of the act of piracy, hence, the same need not be
committed in Philippine waters.

Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code, before its amendment, provided that piracy must
be committed on the high seas by any person not a member of its complement nor a
passenger thereof. Upon its amendment by Republic Act No. 7659, the coverage of the
pertinent provision was widened to include offenses committed “in Philippine waters.”
On the other hand, under Presidential Decree No. 532 (issued in 1974), the coverage of
the law on piracy embraces any person including “a passenger or member of the
complement of said vessel in Philippine waters.” Hence, passenger or not, a member of
the complement or not, any person is covered by the law.

Republic Act No. 7659 neither superseded nor amended the provisions on piracy under
Presidential Decree No. 532. There is no contradiction between the two laws. There is
likewise no ambiguity and hence, there is no need to construe or interpret the law. All
the presidential decree did was to widen the coverage of the law, in keeping with the
intent to protect the citizenry as well as neighboring states from crimes against the law
of nations.

As expressed in one of the “whereas” clauses of Presidential Decree No. 532, piracy is
“among the highest forms of lawlessness condemned by the penal statutes of all
countries.” For this reason, piracy under the Article 122, as amended, and piracy under
Presidential Decree No. 532 exist harmoniously as separate laws.

You might also like