Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 71 views

    Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery

    Uploaded by

    Karl Cabarles
    The case of People of the Philippines v. Emliano Catantan involved two respondents who approached two brothers fishing and ordered them at knife point to lie down in their boat. When the boat stalled, the respondents transferred to another boat and left the brothers stranded. The court found the respondents guilty of violating PD 532, which prohibits seizing a boat, as their act of compelling the brothers to take them elsewhere was considered seizing the boat. The offense was complete when they compelled the brothers against their will.

    Copyright:

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

    Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery

    Uploaded by

    Karl Cabarles
    71 views3 pages
    The case of People of the Philippines v. Emliano Catantan involved two respondents who approached two brothers fishing and ordered them at knife point to lie down in their boat. When the boat stalled, the respondents transferred to another boat and left the brothers stranded. The court found the respondents guilty of violating PD 532, which prohibits seizing a boat, as their act of compelling the brothers to take them elsewhere was considered seizing the boat. The offense was complete when they compelled the brothers against their will.

    Original Title

    ANTI-PIRACY AND ANTI-HIGHWAY ROBBERY

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case of People of the Philippines v. Emliano Catantan involved two respondents who approached two brothers fishing and ordered them at knife point to lie down in their boat. When the boat stalled, the respondents transferred to another boat and left the brothers stranded. The court found the respondents guilty of violating PD 532, which prohibits seizing a boat, as their act of compelling the brothers to take them elsewhere was considered seizing the boat. The offense was complete when they compelled the brothers against their will.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    71 views3 pages

    Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery

    Uploaded by

    Karl Cabarles
    The case of People of the Philippines v. Emliano Catantan involved two respondents who approached two brothers fishing and ordered them at knife point to lie down in their boat. When the boat stalled, the respondents transferred to another boat and left the brothers stranded. The court found the respondents guilty of violating PD 532, which prohibits seizing a boat, as their act of compelling the brothers to take them elsewhere was considered seizing the boat. The offense was complete when they compelled the brothers against their will.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

    EMLIANO CATANTAN

    G.R. No. 118075, 5 September, 1997, FIRST DIVISION, (Bellosillo, J.)

    DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

    While it may be true that the victims were compelled to go elsewhere other

    than their place of destination, such compulsion was obviously part of the act of

    seizing the boat.

    FACTS

    The Pilapil brothers were fishing in the shore of Tabogon Cebu. Respondent

    Catantan and Ursal approached the brothers through their pumpboat and ordered latter

    to lie down. While travelling, the boat stalled twice. Upon seeing another boat

    approaching them, the respondent boarded the same and left the brothers. When the

    second boat ran out of gas, the respondents were caught.

    ISSUE

    WON respondents are guilty of violating PD 532 or Grave Coercion under Article

    286.

    RULING

    Respondent it guilty of violating PD No. 532. The act of compelling the Pilapil

    brothers to take them elsewhere is considered as seizing. The Court rejects the

    contention of the respondents that they had no intention of taking the boat from the

    Pilapil brothers. The only reason why they left the boat is because it was broken.
    Nonetheless, the offense was already consummated when they compelled the Pilapil

    Brothers to take them to their desired place.


    RAMON AMPARO Y IBANEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

    G.R. No. 204990, 22 February, 2017, SECOND DIVISION, (Leonen, J.)

    DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

    It is highway robbery only when it can be proven that the malefactors

    primarily organized themselves for the purpose of committing that crime.

    FACTS

    Petitioners along with his three companions boarded on a jeep. One of them

    approached Ignacio, the victim and pointed a knife on his body, and ordered the latter to

    surrender his necklace and cellphone. Upon hearing a gunshot coming from a police

    officer, they dropped their knives. After that they were arrested. The trial court convicted

    them of committing robbery in a band pursuant to Article 294.

    ISSUE

    WON petitioners committed robbery in a band?

    RULING

    YES. PD 532 punishes as highway robbery or brigandage only acts of robbery

    perpetrated by outlaws indiscriminately against any person on Philippine Highways. The

    prosecution was able to prove that petitioners committed robbery in a band. Petitioners

    cannot be punished under PD 532, since there are no evident grounds to convict them

    of the crime. Their act is only considered a particular robbery which is considered only

    as robbery in a band. PD 532 punishes as highway robbery

    You might also like