Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 41 views

    People vs. Tulin

    Uploaded by

    Jaymielle Fetalvero
    The Supreme Court affirms the conviction of several individuals for qualified piracy. They were charged with robbing a cargo vessel in Philippine waters, detaining the crew, and transferring the cargo to another ship. While one defendant claimed the court did not have jurisdiction since the cargo was transferred outside of Philippine waters, the court ruled that the initial attack and seizure occurred in Philippine waters, and the subsequent transfer was still part of the act of piracy. The court also noted that piracy is a crime against all nations and an exception to normal rules of territorial jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

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

    People vs. Tulin

    Uploaded by

    Jaymielle Fetalvero
    41 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court affirms the conviction of several individuals for qualified piracy. They were charged with robbing a cargo vessel in Philippine waters, detaining the crew, and transferring the cargo to another ship. While one defendant claimed the court did not have jurisdiction since the cargo was transferred outside of Philippine waters, the court ruled that the initial attack and seizure occurred in Philippine waters, and the subsequent transfer was still part of the act of piracy. The court also noted that piracy is a crime against all nations and an exception to normal rules of territorial jurisdiction.

    Original Title

    2. People vs. Tulin

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court affirms the conviction of several individuals for qualified piracy. They were charged with robbing a cargo vessel in Philippine waters, detaining the crew, and transferring the cargo to another ship. While one defendant claimed the court did not have jurisdiction since the cargo was transferred outside of Philippine waters, the court ruled that the initial attack and seizure occurred in Philippine waters, and the subsequent transfer was still part of the act of piracy. The court also noted that piracy is a crime against all nations and an exception to normal rules of territorial jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

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

    People vs. Tulin

    Uploaded by

    Jaymielle Fetalvero
    The Supreme Court affirms the conviction of several individuals for qualified piracy. They were charged with robbing a cargo vessel in Philippine waters, detaining the crew, and transferring the cargo to another ship. While one defendant claimed the court did not have jurisdiction since the cargo was transferred outside of Philippine waters, the court ruled that the initial attack and seizure occurred in Philippine waters, and the subsequent transfer was still part of the act of piracy. The court also noted that piracy is a crime against all nations and an exception to normal rules of territorial jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

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

    People of the Philippines vs.

    Tulin
    G.R. No. 111709 August 30, 2001

    FACTS:

    Roger Tulin, Virgilio Loyola, Cecilio Changco, Andres Infante, and Cheong San Hiong,
    and nine (9) other John Does were charged of qualified piracy after robbing the “MT Tabangao”,
    a cargo vessel owned by PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation carrying 3, 000 barrels of
    Kerosine, 2, 600 of regular gas, and 40, 000 diesel with a value of 40, 426, 793, 87 php
    transferring it to Navi Prince manned by Cheong San Hiong, while detaining 21 crews including
    Captain Edilberto Libo-on, Second Mate Christian Torralba, and Operator Isaias Ervas from
    March 2 to April 10, 1991.

    Tulin, Loyola, Infante Jr., and Changco were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as
    principals, of the crime of piracy in Philippine Waters defined in Section 2(d) of Presidential
    Decree No. 532, and the accused Cheong San Hiong, as accomplice, to the said crime meted
    the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, with all the accessory penalties of the law.

    ISSUES:

    Whether or not the accused-appellants are guilty of qualified piracy

    RULING:

    The Supreme Court speaking through Justice Malcolm affirms 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]).

    You might also like