PEOPLE VS.
LAURENTE, 255 SCRA 543 is proven when the organization and purpose of the band are shown to be such as are
FACTS:
On or about the 14th day of February, 1994 in the Municipality of Pasig,
Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, Larry
Laurente, conspiring and confederating together with Melvin Dagudog and Richard
Disipulo, who are still at large, and all of them mutually helping and aiding one
another, with intent to gain and by means of force, violence and intimidation, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, rob and divest from
Herminiano G. Artana of his earnings in undetermined amount along F. Concepcion
St., Bgy. San Joaquin, Pasig, Metro Manila, which is a Philippine Highway; that on
the occasion of the said robbery and for the purpose of enabling them to take, divest
and carry away the said money, in pursuance of their conspiracy and for the purpose
of insuring success of their criminal act, said accused did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously strangle said victim with a leather belt and hit him with a
blunt instrument, causing him to sustain physical injuries which directly caused his
death.
Laurente was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Highway Robbery with Homicide, defined and penalized under P.D. No. 532, and
was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death; to indemnify the heirs of the victim by
the RTC of Pasig.
ISSUE:
WON Laurente should be convicted of Highway Robbery with Homicide
under PD No. 532
RULING:
No, Laurente cannot be validly convicted for highway robbery with
homicide under P.D. No. 532. The object of the decree is to deter and punish lawless
elements who commit acts of depredation upon persons and properties of innocent
and defenseless inhabitants who travel from one place to another - which acts
constitute either piracy or highway robbery/brigandage - thereby disturbing the
peace, order, and tranquility of the nation and stunting the economic and social
progress of the people. It is directed against acts of robbery perpetrated by outlaws
indiscriminately against any person on Philippine highways, as defined therein, and
not those committed against a predetermined or particular victim. Accordingly, a
robbery committed on a Philippine highway by persons who are not members of the
prescribed lawless elements or directed only against a specific, intended, or
preconceived victim, is not a violation of P.D. No. 532.
The main object of the Brigandage Law is to prevent the formation of bands of
robbers. The heart of the offense consists in the formation of a band by more than
three armed persons for the purpose indicated in Art. 306. Such formation is
sufficient to constitute a violation of Art. 306. It would not be necessary to show, in a
prosecution under it, that a member or members of the band actually committed
robbery or kidnapping or any other purpose attainable by violent means. The crime
contemplated by Art. 306. On the other hand, if robbery is committed by a band,
whose members were not primarily organized for the purpose of committing robbery
or kidnapping, etc., the crime would not be brigandage, but only robbery. Simply
because robbery was committed by a band of more than three armed persons, it
would not follow that it was committed by a band of brigands. In the Spanish text of
art. 306, it is required that the band “sala a los campos para dedicarse a robar.”
If the purpose is only a particular robbery, the crime is only robbery, or robbery in
band if there are at least four armed participants. Presidential Decree No. 532
punishes as highway robbery or brigandage only acts of robbery perpetrated by
outlaws indiscriminately against any person or persons on Philippine highways as
defined therein, and not acts of robbery committed against only a predetermined or
particular victim.
There is not a shred of evidence that Laurente and his co-accused, or their
acts, fall within the purview of P.D. No. 532, as interpreted above. Thus, Laurente
cannot be validly convicted for highway robbery with homicide under P.D. No 532.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. EMILIANO CATANTAN y TAYONG
G.R. No. 118075, September 5, 1997
PD No. 532 Anti-Piracy and Highway Robbery Law of 1974
Art. 286 Grave Coercion
BRIEF
This is an appeal of the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu on the
conviction of accused Catantan and Ursalof the crime of Piracy.
FACTS
The Pilapil brothers - Eugene and Juan Jr. were fishing in the sea some 3 kilometers
away from the shores of Tabogon, Cebu when accused Emiliano Catantan and Jose
Macven Ursal, boarded the pumpboat of the Pilapils and Catantan leveled his gun on
the Pilapils.
As the pumpboat of the Pilapil breaks donw, Catantan boarded another pumpboat
and ordered the operator Juanito to take them to Mungaz, Cebu.
The new pumpboat ran out of gas and the accused were apprehended by the police
soon after the Pilapils reported the matter to the local authorities.
ISSUE:
Whether accused-appellant committed grave coercion or Piracy under PD 532.
ACTIONS of the COURT
RTC: Appellants were convicted of the crime of Piracy under PD532.
Sentenced them to reclusion perpetua.
SC: The decision of the RTC is AFFIRMED.
COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE FACTS
Accused-appellant argues that in order that piracy may be committed it is
essential that there be an attack on or seizure of a vessel. He claims that he and his
companion did not attack or seize the fishing boat of the Pilapil brothers by using
force or intimidation but merely boarded the boat, and it was only when they were
already on board that they used force to compel the Pilapils to take them to some
other place. Appellant also insists that he and Ursal had no intention of permanently
taking possession or depriving complainants of their boat. As a matter of fact, when
they saw another pumpboat they ordered the brothers right away to approach that
boat so they could leave the Pilapils behind in their boat. Accordingly, appellant
claims, he simply committed grave coercion and not piracy.
The Court does not agree on the contention of the appellant that the facts
constitute grave coercion defined in Art. 286 of the Revised Penal Code and not
piracy under PD No. 532.
Under the definition of piracy in PD No. 532 as well as grave coercion as
penalized in Art. 286 of the Revised Penal Code, this case falls squarely within the
purview of piracy. While it may be true that Pilapil brothers were compelled to go
elsewhere other than their place of destination, such compulsion was obviously part
of the act of seizing their boat.
Section 2, par. (d), of PD No. 532, defines piracy as "any attack upon or
seizure of any vessel, xxx by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or
force upon things, committed by any person, xxx in Philippine waters, shall be
considered as piracy. The offenders shall be considered as pirates and punished as
hereinafter provided."
On the other hand, grave coercion as defined in Art. 286 of the Revised
Penal Code is committed by "any person who, without authority of law, shall, by
means of violence, prevent another from doing something not prohibited by law, or
compel him to do something against his will, whether it be right or wrong."
To sustain the defense and convert this case of piracy into one of grave
coercion would be to ignore the fact that a fishing vessel cruising in Philippine
waters was seized by the accused by means of violence against or intimidation of
persons.
The fact that the revolver used by the appellant to seize the boat was not
produced in evidence cannot exculpate him from the crime. The fact remains, and
we state it again, that Catantan and his co-accused Ursal seized through force and
intimidation the pumpboat of the Pilapils while the latter were fishing in Philippine
waters.
SUPREME COURT RULING:
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision appealed from,
the conviction of accused-appellant EMILIANO CATANTAN y TAYONG for the
crime of piracy penalized under PD No. 532 and sentencing him accordingly to
reclusion perpetua, is AFFIRMED. Costs against accused-appellant.
G.R. No. 111709 August 30, 2001
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.
FACTS:
In the evening of March 2, 1991, "M/T Tabangao," a cargo vessel owned by
the PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation, loaded with barrels of kerosene,
regular gasoline, and diesel oil, was boarded by 7 fully armed pirates. The pirates
including the accused Roger P. Tulin, Virgilio Loyola, and Andres Infante Jr.
detained the crew and completely took over the vessel. The vessel was directed to
proceed to Singapore where the cargoes were unloaded transferred and sold under
the direct supervision of accused Cheong San Hiong. Thereafter, the captive vessel
returned to the Philippines.
A series of arrests was thereafter effected and all the accused were charged
with qualified piracy or violation of Presidential Decree No. 532 (Piracy in
Philippine Waters). They were subsequently convicted of the crime charged. Hence,
this appeal. Meanwhile accused Cheong argues that the trial court erred in convicting
and punishing him as an accomplice when the acts allegedly committed by him were
done or executed outside of Philippine waters and territory, stripping the Philippine
courts of jurisdiction to hold him for trial, to convict, and sentence.
ISSUE:
WON the Philippines is without jurisdiction to try a crime committed outside the
Philippine waters and territory?
RULING:
We affirm the conviction of all the accused-appellants.
 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.
As regards the contention that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction
over the person of accused-appellant Hiong since the crime was committed outside
Philippine waters, suffice it to state that unquestionably, the attack on and seizure of
"M/T Tabangao" (renamed "M/T Galilee" by the pirates) 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.
Moreover, 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. The
same principle applies even if Hiong, in the instant case, were charged, not with a
violation of qualified piracy under the penal code but under a special law,
Presidential Decree No. 532 which penalizes piracy in Philippine waters. Verily,
Presidential Decree No. 532 should be applied with more force here since its purpose
is precisely to discourage and prevent piracy in Philippine waters (People v.
Catantan, 278 SCRA 761 [1997]). It is likewise, well-settled that regardless of the
law penalizing the same, piracy is a reprehensible crime against the whole world
(People v. Lol-lo, 43 Phil. 19 [1922]).