Same; Same; There is a valid waiver of the right to sufficient

representation during the trial where such waiver is unequivocally,

knowingly, and intelligently made and with the full assistance of a
bona fide lawyer.·It is true that an accused person shall be entitled
to be present and to defend himself in person and by counsel at
every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of
judgment (Section 1, Rule 115, Revised Rules of Criminal
10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Procedure). This is hinged on the fact that a layman is not versed
People vs. Tulin on the technicalities of trial. However, it is also provided by law that
„[r]ights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public
*
G.R. No. 111709. August 30, 2001. order, public policy, morals, or good customs or prejudicial to a third
person with right recognized by law.‰ (Article 6, Civil Code of the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Philippines). Thus, the same section of Rule 115 adds that „[u]pon
ROGER P. TULIN, VIRGILIO I. LOYOLA, CECILIO O. motion, the accused may be allowed to defend himself in person
CHANGCO, ANDRES C. INFANTE, CHEONG SAN when it sufficiently appears to the court that he can properly
HIONG, and JOHN DOES, accused-appellants. protect his rights without the assistance of counsel.‰ By analogy, but
without prejudice to the sanctions imposed by law for the illegal
practice of law, it is amply shown that the rights of accused-
Right to Counsel; Waiver; Waiver of the right to sufficient appellants were sufficiently and properly protected by the
representation during the trial as covered by the due process clauses appearance of Mr. Tomas Posadas. An examination of the record
shall only be valid if made with the full assistance of a bona fide will show that he knew the technical rules of procedure. Hence, we
lawyer.·On the first issue, the record reveals that a manifestation rule that there was a valid waiver of the right to sufficient
(Exhibit „20‰, Record) was executed by accused-appellants Tulin, representation during the trial, considering that it was
Loyola, Changco, and Infante, Jr. on February 11, 1991, stating that unequivocally, knowingly, and intelligently made and with the full
they were adopting the evidence adduced when they were assistance of a bona fide lawyer, Atty. Abdul Basar. Accordingly,
represented by a non-lawyer. Such waiver of the right to sufficient denial of due process cannot be successfully invoked where a valid
representation during the trial as covered by the due process clause waiver of rights has been made (People vs. Serzo, 274 SCRA 553
shall only be valid if made with the full assistance of a bona fide [1997]; Sayson vs. People, 166 SCRA 680 [1988]).
lawyer. During the trial, accused-appellants, as represented by Atty.
Abdul Basar, made a categorical manifestation that said accused- Same; Same; Miranda Rights; The right to counsel during
appellants were apprised of the nature and legal consequences of custodial investigation may not be waived except in writing and in
the subject manifestation, and that they voluntarily and the presence of counsel.·However, we must quickly add that the
intelligently executed the same. They right to counsel during custodial investigation may not be waived
except in writing and in the presence of counsel, x x x Such rights
originated from Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436 [1966]) which
_______________ gave birth to the so-called Miranda doctrine which is to the effect
that prior to any questioning during custodial investigation, the
* THIRD DIVISION.
person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that
any statement he gives may be used as evidence against him, and
that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, either retained
11
or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights,
provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly, and
intelligently. The Constitution even adds the more stringent
VOL. 364, AUGUST 30, 2001 11 requirement that the waiver must be in writing and made in the
presence of counsel.
People vs. Tulin
12

also affirmed the truthfulness of its contents when asked in open

court (tsn, February 11, 1992, pp. 7-59).
12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED a completely unfamiliar place merely to recruit five (5) cooks or
handymen (p. 113, Rollo).‰
People vs. Tulin
13

Same; Same; Same; The absence of counsel during the execution

of the so-called confessions of the accused make them invalid.· VOL. 364, AUGUST 30, 2001 13
Saliently, the absence of counsel during the execution of the so-
called confessions of the accused-appellants make them invalid. In People vs. Tulin
fact, the very basic reading of the Miranda rights was not even
shown in the case at bar. Paragraph [3] of the aforestated Section Alibi; Alibi is fundamentally and inherently a weak defense,
12 sets forth the so-called „fruit from the poisonous tree doctrine,‰ a much more so when uncorroborated by other witnesses.·Anent
phrase minted by Mr. Justice Felix Frankfurter in the celebrated accused-appellant ChangcoÊs defense of denial with the alibi that on
case of Nardone vs. United States (308 U.S. 388 [1939]). According May 14 and 17, he was at his place of work and that on April 10,
to this rule, once the primary source (the „tree‰) is shown to have 1991, he was in his house in Bacoor, Cavite, sleeping, suffice it to
been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the state that alibi is fundamentally and inherently a weak defense,
„fruit‰) derived from it is also inadmissible. The rule is based on the much more so when uncorroborated by other witnesses (People v.
principle that evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be Adora, 275 SCRA 441 [1997]) considering that it is easy to fabricate
used to gain other evidence because the originally illegally obtained and concoct, and difficult to disprove. Accused-appellant must
evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained (People vs. adduce clear and convincing evidence that, at about midnight on
Alicando, 251 SCRA 293 [1995]). Thus, in this case, the April 10, 1991, it was physically impossible for him to have been in
uncounselled extrajudicial confessions of accused-appellants, Calatagan, Batangas. Changco not only failed to do this, he was
without a valid waiver of the right to counsel, are inadmissible and likewise unable to prove that he was in his place of work on the
whatever information is derived therefrom shall be regarded as dates aforestated.
likewise inadmissible in evidence against them.
Criminal Law; Conspiracy; To be a conspirator, one need not
Witnesses; Greater weight is given to the categorical participate in every detail of execution·he need not even take part in
identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses than to the every act or need not even know the exact part to be performed by the
accusedÊs plain denial of participation in the commission of the others in the execution of the conspiracy.·We likewise uphold the
crime.·We also agree with the trial courtÊs finding that accused- trial courtÊs finding of conspiracy. A conspiracy exists when two or
appellantsÊ defense of denial is not supported by any hard evidence more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
but their bare testimony. Greater weight is given to the categorical felony and decide to commit it (Article 8, Revised Penal Code). To be
identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses than to a conspirator, one need not participate in every detail of execution;
the accusedÊs plain denial of participation in the commission of the he need not even take part in every act or need not even know the
crime (People v. Baccay, 284 SCRA 296 [1998]). Instead, accused- exact part to be performed by the others in the execution of the
appellants Tulin, Loyola, and Infante, Jr. narrated a patently conspiracy. As noted by the trial court, there are times when
desperate tale that they were hired by three complete strangers conspirators are assigned separate and different tasks which may
(allegedly Captain Edilberto Liboon, Second Mate Christian appear unrelated to one another, but in fact, constitute a whole and
Torralba, and their companion) while said accused-appellants were collective effort to achieve a common criminal design.
conversing with one another along the seashore at Apkaya,
Same; Piracy; Statutes; Republic Act No. 7659 neither
Balibago, Calatagan, Batangas, to work on board the „M/T
superseded nor amended the provisions on piracy under Presidential
Tabangao‰ which was then anchored off-shore. And readily, said
Decree No. 532·piracy under Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code,
accused-appellants agreed to work as cooks and handymen for an
as amended, and piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532 exist
indefinite period of time without even saying goodbye to their
harmoniously as separate laws.·Republic Act No. 7659 neither
families, without even knowing their destination or the details of
superseded nor amended the provisions on piracy under
their voyage, without the personal effects needed for a long voyage
Presidential Decree No. 532. There is no contradiction between the
at sea. Such evidence is incredible and clearly not in accord with
two laws. There is likewise no ambiguity and hence, there is no
human experience. As pointed out by the trial court, it is incredible
need to construe or interpret the law. All the presidential decree did
that Captain Liboon, Second Mate Torralba, and their companion
was to widen the coverage of the law, in keeping with the intent to
„had to leave the vessel at 9:30 oÊclock in the evening and venture in
protect the citizenry as well as neighboring states from crimes regardless of the law penalizing the same, piracy is a reprehensible
against the law of nations. As expressed in one of the „whereas‰ crime against the whole world (People v. Lol-lo, 43 Phil. 19 [1922]).
clauses of Presidential Decree No. 532, piracy is „among the highest
Same; Same; Conspiracy; Right to be Informed; One charged as
forms of lawlessness condemned by the penal statutes of all
a principal by direct participation under Section 2 of Presidential
countries.‰ For this reason, piracy under the Article 122, as
Decree No. 532 may be validly convicted as an accomplice under
amended, and piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532 exist
Section 4 of said law; If there is lack of complete evidence of
harmoniously as separate laws.
conspiracy, the liability is that of an accomplice and not as
principal.·However, does this constitute a violation of accused-
14
appellantÊs constitutional right to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him on the ground that he was
14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED convicted as an accomplice under Section 4 of Presidential Decree
No. 532 even though he was charged as a principal by direct
People vs. Tulin participation under Section

Same; Same; International Law; Jurisdiction; Although 15

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
VOL. 364, AUGUST 30, 2001 15
part of the act of piracy, hence, the same need not be committed in
Philippine waters.·As regards the contention that the trial court People vs. Tulin
did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of accused-appellant
Hiong since the crime was committed outside Philippine waters,
2 of said law? x x x The ruling of the trial court is within well-
suffice it to state that unquestionably, the attack on and seizure of
settled jurisprudence that if there is lack of complete evidence of
„M/T Tabangao‰ (renamed „M/T Galilee‰ by the pirates) and its
conspiracy, the liability is that of an accomplice and not as principal
cargo were committed in Philippine waters, although the captive
(People v. Tolentino, 40 SCRA 514 [1971]). Any doubt as to the
vessel was later brought by the pirates to Singapore where its cargo
participation of an individual in the commission of the crime is
was off loaded, transferred, and sold. And such transfer was done
always resolved in favor of lesser responsibility (People v. Corbes,
under accused-appellant HiongÊs direct supervision. Although
270 SCRA 465 [1997]; People vs. Elfano, Jr., 125 SCRA 792 [1983];
Presidential Decree No. 532 requires that the attack and seizure of
People v. Pastores, 40 SCRA 498 [1971]).
the vessel and its cargo be committed in Philippine waters, the
disposition by the pirates of the vessel and its cargo is still deemed Same; Same; Justifying Circumstances; Obedience to Lawful
part of the act of piracy, hence, the same need not be committed in Order of Superior; An individual is justified in performing an act in
Philippine waters. obedience to an order issued by a superior if such order, is for some
lawful purpose and that the means used by the subordinate to carry
Same; Same; Same; Same; Piracy falls under Title One of Book
out said order is lawful.·It cannot be correctly said that accused-
Two of the Revised Penal Code, and, as such, is an exception to the
appellant was „merely following the orders of his superiors.‰ An
rule on territoriality in criminal law; It is likewise well-settled that
individual is justified in performing an act in obedience to an order
regardless of the law penalizing the same, piracy is a reprehensible
issued by a superior if such order, is for some lawful purpose and
crime against the whole world.·Moreover, piracy falls under Title
that the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is
One of Book Two of the Revised Penal Code. As such, it is an
lawful (Reyes, Revised Penal Code, Vol. 1, 1981 ed., p. 212). Notably,
exception to the rule on territoriality in criminal law. The same
the alleged order of HiongÊs superior Chua Kim Leng Timothy, is a
principle applies even if Hiong, in the instant case, were charged,
patent violation not only of Philippine, but of international law.
not with a violation of qualified piracy under the penal code but
Such violation was committed on board a Philippine-operated
under a special law, Presidential Decree No. 532 which penalizes
vessel. Moreover, the means used by Hiong in carrying out said
piracy in Philippine waters. Verily, Presidential Decree No. 532
order was equally unlawful. He misled port and immigration
should be applied with more force here since its purpose is precisely
authorities, falsified records, using a mere clerk, Frankie Loh, to
to discourage and prevent piracy in Philippine waters (People v.
consummate said acts. During the trial, Hiong presented himself,
Catantan, 278 SCRA 761 [1997]). It is likewise, well-settled that
and the trial court was convinced, that he was an intelligent and
articulate Port Captain. These circumstances show that he must vessel. The vessel was then painted with the name
have realized the nature and the implications of the order of Chua „Galilee,‰ with registry at San Lorenzo, Honduras. The
Kim Leng Timothy. Thereafter, he could have refused to follow crew was forced to sail to Singapore, all the while sending
orders to conclude the deal and to effect the transfer of the cargo to misleading radio messages to PNOC that the ship was
the „Navi Pride.‰ He did not do so, for which reason, he must now undergoing repairs.
suffer the consequences of his actions. PNOC, after losing radio contact with the vessel,
reported the disappearance of the vessel to the Philippine
APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Coast Guard and secured the assistance of the Philippine
Manila, Br. 49. Air Force and the Philippine Navy. However, search and
rescue operations yielded negative results. On March 9,
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
1991, the ship arrived in the vicinity of Singapore and
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
cruised around the area presumably to await another
Rodrigo, Berenguer & Guno counsel de oficio for
vessel which, however, failed to arrive. The pirates were
Roger Tulin, V.I. Loyola, CO. Changco and A.C. Infante.
thus forced to return to the Philippines on March 14, 1991,
Britanico, Consunji & Sarmiento Law Offices for
arriving at Calatagan, Batangas on March 20, 1991 where
accused-appellant Cheong San Hiong.
it remained at sea.
16 On March 28, 1991, the „M/T Tabangao‰ again sailed to
and anchored about 10 to 18 nautical miles from
SingaporeÊs shoreline
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
17
People vs. Tulin

MELO, J.: VOL. 364, AUGUST 30, 2001 17

People vs. Tulin
This is one of the older cases which unfortunately has
remained in docket of the Court for sometime. It was
reassigned, together with other similar cases, to where another vessel called „Navi Pride‰ anchored beside
undersigned ponente in pursuance of A.M. No. 00-9-03-SC it. Emilio Changco ordered the crew of „M/T Tabangao‰ to
dated February 27, 2001. transfer the vesselÊs cargo to the hold of „Navi Pride.‰
In the evening of March 2, 1991, „M/T Tabangao,‰ a Accused-appellant Cheong San Hiong supervised the crew
cargo vessel owned by the PNOC Shipping and Transport of „Navi Pride‰ in receiving the cargo. The transfer, after an
Corporation, loaded with 2,000 barrels of kerosene, 2,600 interruption, with both vessels leaving the area, was
barrels of regular gasoline, and 40,000 barrels of diesel oil, completed on March 30, 1991.
with a total value of P40,426,793.87, was sailing off the On March 30, 1991, „M/T Tabangao‰ returned to the
coast of Mindoro near Silonay Island. same area and completed the transfer of cargo to „Navi
The vessel, manned by 21 crew members, including Pride.‰
Captain Edilberto Libo-on, Second Mate Christian On April 8, 1991, „M/T Tabangao‰ arrived at Calatagan,
Torralba, and Operator Isaias Ervas, was suddenly Batangas, but the vessel remained at sea. On April 10,
boarded, with the use of an aluminum ladder, by seven 1991, the members of the crew were released in three
fully armed pirates led by Emilio Changco, older brother of batches with the stern warning not to report the incident to
accused-appellant Cecilio Changco. The pirates, including government authorities for a period of two days or until
accused-appellants Tulin, Loyola, and Infante, Jr. were April 12, 1991, otherwise they would be killed. The first
armed with M-16 rifles, .45 and .38 caliber handguns, and batch was fetched from the shoreline by a newly painted
bolos. They detained the crew and took complete control of passenger jeep driven by accused-appellant Cecilio
the vessel. Thereafter, accused-appellant Loyola ordered Changco, brother of Emilio Changco, who brought them to
three crew members to paint over, using black paint, the Imus, Cavite and gave P20,000.00 to Captain Libo-on for
name „M/T Tabangao‰ on the front and rear portions of the fare of the crew in proceeding to their respective homes.
vessel, as well as the PNOC logo on the chimney of the The second batch was fetched by accused-appellant
Changco at midnight of April 10, 1991 and were brought to
different places in Metro Manila. petroleum products, together with the complement and crew members,
On April 12, 1991, the Chief Engineer, accompanied by employing violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon
the members of the crew, called the PNOC Shipping and things, then direct the vessel to proceed to Singapore where the cargoes
Transport Corporation office to report the incident. The were unloaded and thereafter returned to the Philippines on April 10,
crew members were brought to the Coast Guard Office for 1991, in violation of the aforesaid law.
investigation. The incident was also reported to the CONTRARY TO LAW.
National Bureau of Investigation where the officers and
(pp. 119-20, Rollo.)
members of the crew executed sworn statements regarding
the incident. This was docketed as Criminal Case No. 91-94896 before
A series of arrests was thereafter effected as follows: Branch 49 of the Regional Trial Court of the National
Capital Judicial Region stationed in Manila. Upon
a. On May 19, 1991, the NBI received verified
arraignment, accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to the
information that the pirates were present at U.K.
charge. Trial thereupon ensued.
Beach, Balibago, Calatagan, Batangas. After three
Accused-appellants Tulin, Infante, Jr., and Loyola,
days of surveillance, accused-appellant Tulin was
notwithstanding some inconsistencies in their testimony as
arrested and brought to the NBI headquarters in
to where they were on March 1, 1991, maintained the
Manila.
defense of denial, and disputed the charge, as well as the
b. Accused-appellants Infante, Jr. and Loyola were transfer of any cargo from „M/T Tabangao‰ to the „Navi
arrested by chance at Aguinaldo Hi-way by NBI Pride.‰ All of them claimed having their own respective
agents as the latter were pursuing the mastermind, sources of livelihood. Their story is to the effect that on
who managed to evade arrest. March 2, 1991, while they were conversing by the beach, a
c. On May 20, 1991, accused-appellants Hiong and red speedboat with Captain Edilberto Liboon and Second
Changco were arrested at the lobby of Alpha Hotel Mate Christian Torralba on board, approached the
in Batangas City. seashore. Captain Liboon inquired from the three if they
wanted to work in a vessel. They were told that the work
18 was light and that each worker was to be

19
18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Tulin
VOL. 364, AUGUST 30, 2001 19
People vs. Tulin
On October 24, 1991, an Information charging qualified
piracy or violation of Presidential Decree No. 532 (Piracy in
Philippine Waters) was filed against accused-appellants, as paid P3,000.00 a month with additional compensation if
follows: they worked beyond that period. They agreed even though
they had no sea-going experience. On board, they cooked,
The undersigned State Prosecutor accuses ROGER P. TULIN, cleaned the vessel, prepared coffee, and ran errands for the
VIRGILIO I. LOYOLA, CECILIO O. CHANGCO, ANDRES C. officers. They denied having gone to Singapore, claiming
INFANTE, and CHEONG SAN HIONG, and nine (9) other JOHN that the vessel only went to Batangas. Upon arrival thereat
DOES of qualified piracy (Violation of P.D. No. 532), committed as in the morning of March 21, 1991, they were paid
follows: P1,000.00 each as salary for nineteen days of work, and
were told that the balance would be remitted to their
That on or about and during the period from March 2 to April 10, 1991,
addresses. There was neither receipt nor contracts of
both dates inclusive, and for sometime prior and subsequent thereto, and
employment signed by the parties.
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, then
Accused-appellant Changco categorically denied the
manning a motor launch and armed with high powered guns, conspiring
charge, averring that he was at home sleeping on April 10,
and confederating together and mutually helping one another, did then
1991. He testified that he is the younger brother of Emilio
and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously fire upon, board and seize
Changco, Jr.
while in the Philippine waters M/T PNOC TABANGCO loaded with
 Accused-appellant Cheong San Hiong, also known as the vessel carried 11,900 tons.
Ramzan Ali, adduced evidence that he studied in Sydney, On March 28, 1991, „Navi Pride‰ reached the location of
Australia, obtaining the „Certificate‰ as Chief Officer, and „M/T Galilee.‰ The brokers then told the Captain of the
later completed the course as a „Master‰ of a vessel, vessel to shipside with „M/T Galilee‰ and then transfer of
working as such for two years on board a vessel. He was the oil transpired. Hiong and the surveyor William Yao met
employed at Navi Marine Services, Pte., Ltd. as Port the Captain of „M/T Galilee,‰ called „Captain Bobby‰ (who
Captain. The company was engaged in the business of later turned out to be Emilio Changco). Hiong claimed that
trading petroleum, including shipoil, bunker lube oil, and he did not ask for the full name of Changco nor did he ask
petroleum to domestic and international markets. It owned for the latterÊs personal card.
four vessels, one of which was „Navi Pride.‰ Upon completion of the transfer, Hiong took the
On March 2, 1991, the day before „M/T Tabangao‰ was soundings of the tanks in the „Navi Pride‰ and took
seized by Emilio Changco and his cohorts, HiongÊs name samples of the cargo. The surveyor prepared the survey
was listed in the companyÊs letter to the Mercantile Section report which „Captain Bobby‰ signed under the name
of the Maritime Department of the Singapore government „Roberto Castillo.‰ Hiong then handed the payment to Paul
as the radio telephone operator on board the vessel „Ching Gan and William Yao. Upon arrival at Singapore in the
Ma.‰ morning of March 29, 1991, Hiong reported the quantity
The company was then dealing for the first time with and quality of the cargo to the company.
Paul Gan, a Singaporean broker, who offered to sell to the Thereafter, Hiong was again asked to supervise another
former bunker oil for the amount of 300,000.00 Singapore transfer of oil purchased by the firm from „M/T Galilee‰ to
dollars. After the company paid over one-half of the „Navi Pride.‰ The same procedure as in the first transfer
aforesaid amount to Paul Gan, the latter, together with was observed. This time, Hiong was told that that there
Joseph Ng, Operations Superintendent of the firm, were food and drinks, including beer, purchased by the
proceeded to the high seas on board „Navi Pride‰ but failed company for the crew of „M/T Galilee. The transfer took ten
to locate the contact vessel. hours and was completed on March 30, 1991. Paul Gan was
The transaction with Paul Gan finally pushed through paid in full for the transfer.
on March 27, 1991. Hiong, upon his return on board the On April 29 or 30, 1991, Emilio Changco intimated to
vessel „Ching Ma,‰ was assigned to supervise a ship-to-ship Hiong that he had four vessels and wanted to offer its cargo
transfer of diesel oil off to cargo operators. Hiong was asked to act as a broker or
ship agent for the sale of the cargo in Singapore. Hiong
20
went to the Philippines to discuss the

21
20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Tulin
VOL. 364, AUGUST 30, 2001 21

the port of Singapore, the contact vessel to be designated People vs. Tulin
by Paul Gan. Hiong was ordered to ascertain the quantity
and quality of the oil and was given the amount of matter with Emilio Changco, who laid out the details of the
300,000.00 Singapore Dollars for the purchase. Hiong, new transfer, this time with „M/T Polaris‰ as contact
together with Paul Gan, and the surveyor William Yao, on vessel. Hiong was told that the vessel was scheduled to
board „Navi Pride‰ sailed toward a vessel called „M/T arrive at the port of Batangas that weekend. After being
Galilee‰. Hiong was told that „M/T Galilee‰ would be billeted at Alpha Hotel in Batangas City, where Hiong
making the transfer. Although no inspection of „Navi checked in under the name „SONNY CSH.‰ A person by the
Pride‰ was made by the port authorities before departure, name of „KEVIN OCAMPO,‰ who later turned out to be
Navi Marine Services, Pte., Ltd. was able to procure a port Emilio Changco himself, also checked in at Alpha Hotel.
clearance upon submission of General Declaration and From accused-appellant Cecilio Changco, Hiong found out
crew list. Hiong, Paul Gan, and the brokers were not in the that the vessel was not arriving. Hiong was thereafter
crew list submitted and did not pass through the arrested by NBI agents.
immigration. The General Declaration falsely reflected that After trial, a 95-page decision was rendered convicting
accused-appellants of the crime charged. The dispositive The matter was then elevated to this Court. The arguments
portion of said decision reads: of accused-appellants may be summarized as follows:
Roger P. Tulin, Virgilio I. Loyola, Andres C. Infante, Jr.,
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing considerations, and Cecilio O. Changco
judgment is hereby rendered by this Court finding the accused Accused-appellants Tulin, Loyola, Infante, Jr., and
Roger Tulin, Virgilio Loyola, Andres Infante, Jr. and Cecilio Cecilio Changco assert that the trial court erred in allowing
Changco guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principals, of the crime them to adopt the proceedings taken during the time they
of piracy in Philippine Waters defined in Section 2(d) of Presidential were being represented by Mr. Tomas Posadas, a non-
Decree No. 532 and the accused Cheong San Hiong, as accomplice, lawyer, thereby depriving them of their constitutional right
to said crime. Under Section 3(a) of the said law, the penalty for the to procedural due process.
principals of said crime is mandatory death. However, considering In this regard, said accused-appellants narrate that Mr.
that, under the 1987 Constitution, the Court cannot impose the Posadas entered his appearance as counsel for all of them.
death penalty, the accused Roger Tulin, Virgilio Loyola, Andres However, in the course of the proceedings, or on February
Infante, Jr., and Cecilio Changco are hereby each meted the penalty 11, 1992, the trial court discovered that Mr. Posadas was
of RECLUSION PERPETUA, with all the accessory penalties of the not a member of the Philippine Bar. This was after Mr.
law. The accused Cheong San Hiong is hereby meted the penalty of Posadas had presented and examined seven witnesses for
RECLUSION PERPETUA, pursuant to Article 52 of the Revised the accused.
Penal Code in relation to Section 5 of PD 532. The accused Roger Further, accused-appellants Tulin, Loyola, Infante,
Tulin, Virgilio Loyola, Andres Infante, Jr. and Cecilio Changco are Cecilio Changco uniformly contend that during the
hereby ordered to return to the PNOC Shipping and Transport custodial investigation, they were subjected to physical
Corporation the „M/T Tabangao‰ or if the accused can no longer violence; were forced to sign statements without being
return the same, the said accused are hereby ordered to remit, given the opportunity to read the contents of the same;
jointly and severally, to said corporation the value thereof in the were denied assistance of counsel, and were not informed of
amount of P11,240,000.00, Philippine Currency, with interests their rights, in violation of their constitutional rights.
thereon, at the rate of 6% per annum from March 2, 1991 until the Said accused-appellants also argue that the trial court
said amount is paid in full. All the accused including Cheong San erred in finding that the prosecution proved beyond
Hiong are hereby ordered to return to the Caltex Philippines, Inc. reasonable doubt that they committed the crime of
the cargo of the „M/T Tabangao,‰ or if the accused can no longer qualified piracy. They allege that the pirates were
return the said cargo to said corporation, all the accused are hereby outnumbered by the crew who totaled 22 and who were not
condemned to pay, jointly and severally, to the Caltex Refinery, Inc., guarded at all times. The crew, so these accused-appellants
the value of said cargo in the amount of P40,426,793.87, Philippine conclude, could have overpowered the alleged pirates.
Currency plus interests until said amount is paid in full. After the
accused Cheong San Hiong has served his sentence, he shall be 23
deported to Singapore.

22
VOL. 364, AUGUST 30, 2001 23
People vs. Tulin
22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Cheong San Hiong
People vs. Tulin
In his brief, Cheong argues that: (1) Republic Act No. 7659
All the accused shall be credited for the full period of their in effect obliterated the crime committed by him; (2) the
detention at the National Bureau of Investigation and the City Jail trial court erred in declaring that the burden is lodged on
of Manila during the pendency of this case provided that they him to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he had
agreed in writing to abide by and comply strictly with the rules and no knowledge that Emilio Changco and his cohorts
regulations of the City Jail of Manila and the National Bureau of attacked and seized the „M/T Tabangao‰ and/or that the
Investigation. With costs against all the accused. cargo of the vessel was stolen or the subject of theft or
SO ORDERED. robbery or piracy; (3) the trial court erred in finding him
(pp. 149-150, Rollo.) guilty as an accomplice to the crime of qualified piracy
under Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-Piracy he was not charged as such and when the acts allegedly
and Anti-Robbery Law of 1974); (4) the trial court erred in committed by him were done or executed outside Philippine
convicting and punishing him as an accomplice when the waters and territory?
acts allegedly committed by him were done or executed On the first issue, the record reveals that a
outside of Philippine waters and territory, stripping the manifestation (Exhibit „20,‰ Record) was executed by
Philippine courts of jurisdiction to hold him for trial, to accused-appellants Tulin, Loyola, Changco, and Infante, Jr.
convict, and sentence; (5) the trial court erred in making on February 11, 1991, stating that they were adopting the
factual conclusions without evidence on record to prove the evidence adduced when they were represented by a non-
same and which in fact are contrary to the evidence lawyer. Such waiver of the right to sufficient representation
adduced during trial; (6) the trial court erred in convicting during the trial as covered by the due process clause shall
him as an accomplice under Section 4 of Presidential only be valid if made with the full assistance of a bona fide
Decree No. 532 when he was charged as a principal by lawyer. During the trial, accused-appellants, as
direct participation under said decree, thus violating his represented by Atty. Abdul Basar, made a categorical
constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause manifestation that said accused-appellants were apprised
of the accusation against him. of the nature and legal consequences of the subject
Cheong also posits that the evidence against the other manifestation, and that they voluntarily and intelligently
accused-appellants do not prove any participation on his executed the same. They also affirmed the truthfulness of
part in the commission of the crime of qualified piracy. He its contents when asked in open court (tsn, February 11,
further argues that he had not in any way participated in 1992, pp. 7-59).
the seajacking of „M/T Tabangao‰ and in committing the It is true that an accused person shall be entitled to be
crime of qualified piracy, and that he was not aware that present raid to defend himself in person and by counsel at
the vessel and its cargo were pirated. every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to
As legal basis for his appeal, he explains that he was promulgation of judgment (Section 1, Rule 115, Revised
charged under the information with qualified piracy as Rules of Criminal Procedure). This is hinged on the fact
principal under Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 532 that a layman is not versed on the technicalities of trial.
which refers to Philippine waters. In the case at bar, he However, it is also provided by law that „[r]ights may be
argues that he was convicted for acts done outside waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order,
Philippine waters or territory. For the State to have public policy, morals, or good customs or prejudicial to a
criminal jurisdiction, the act must have been committed third person with right recognized by law.‰ (Article 6, Civil
within its territory. Code of the Philippines). Thus, the same section of Rule
We affirm the conviction of all the accused-appellants. 115 adds that „[u]pon motion, the accused may be allowed
to defend himself in person when it sufficiently appears to
24
the court that he can properly protect his rights

25
24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Tulin
VOL. 364, AUGUST 30, 2001 25

The issues of the instant case may be summarized as People vs. Tulin
follows: (1) what are the legal effects and implications of
the fact that a non-lawyer represented accused-appellants without the assistance of counsel.‰ By analogy, but without
during the trial?; (2) what are the legal effects and prejudice to the sanctions imposed by law for the illegal
implications of the absence of counsel during the custodial practice of law, it is amply shown that the rights of
investigation?; (3) did the trial court err in finding that the accused-appellants were sufficiently and properly protected
prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that by the appearance of Mr. Tomas Posadas. An examination
accused-appellants committed the crime of qualified of the record will show that he knew the technical rules of
piracy?; (4) did Republic Act No. 7659 obliterate the crime procedure. Hence, we rule that there was a valid waiver of
committed by accused-appellant Cheong?; and (5) can the right to sufficient representation during the trial,
accused-appellant Cheong be convicted as accomplice when considering that it was unequivocally, knowingly, and
intelligently made and with the full assistance of a bona Saliently, the absence of counsel during the execution of
fide lawyer, Atty. Abdul Basar. Accordingly, denial of due the so-called confessions of the accused-appellants make
process cannot be successfully invoked where a valid them invalid. In fact, the very basic reading of the Miranda
waiver of rights has been made (People vs. Serzo, 274 SCRA rights was not even shown in the case at bar. Paragraph [3]
553 [1997]; Sayson vs. People, 166 SCRA 680 [1988]). of the aforestated Section 12 sets forth the so-called „fruit
However, we must quickly add that the right to counsel from the poisonous tree doctrine,‰ a phrase minted by Mr.
during custodial investigation may not be waived except in Justice Felix Frankfurter in the celebrated case of Nardone
writing and in the presence of counsel. vs. United States (308 U.S. 388 [1939]). According to this
Section 12, Article III of the Constitution reads: rule, once the primary source (the „tree‰) is shown to have
been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative
SEC. 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of evidence (the „fruit‰) derived from it is also inadmissible.
an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain The rule is based on the principle that evidence illegally
silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of obtained by the State should not be used to gain other
his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, evidence because the originally illegally obtained evidence
he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except taints all evidence subsequently obtained (People vs.
in writing and in the presence of counsel. Alicando, 251 SCRA 293 [1995]). Thus, in this case, the
uncounselled extrajudicial confessions of accused-
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other
appellants, without a valid waiver of the right to counsel,
means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him.
are inadmissible and whatever information is derived
Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other
therefrom shall be regarded as like wise inadmissible in
similar forms of detention are prohibited.
evidence against them.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or
However, regardless of the inadmissibility of the subject
Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against
confessions, there is sufficient evidence to convict accused-
him.
appellants with moral certainty. We agree with the sound
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for deduction of the trial court that indeed, Emilio Changco
violations of this section as well as compensation to and (Exhibits „IT and „UU‰) and accused-appellants Tulin,
rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and Loyola, and Infante, Jr. did conspire and confederate to
their families. commit the crime charged. In the words of then trial judge,
now Justice Romeo J. Callejo of the Court of Appeals·
Such rights originated from Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S.
436 [1966]) which gave birth to the so-called Miranda . . . The Prosecution presented to the Court an array of witnesses,
doctrine which is to the effect that prior to any questioning officers and members of the crew of the „M/T Tabangao‰ no less,
during custodial investigation, the person must be warned who identified and pointed to the said Accused as among those who
that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he attacked and seized, the „M/T Tabangao‰ on March 2, 1991, at about
gives may be used as evidence 6:30 oÊclock in the afternoon, off Lubang Island, Mindoro, with its
cargo, and brought the said vessel, with its cargo, and the officers
26 and crew of the vessel, in the vicinity of Horsebough Lighthouse,
about sixty-six nautical miles off the
26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
27
People vs. Tulin
VOL. 364, AUGUST 30, 2001 27
against him, and that he has the right to the presence of an
People vs. Tulin
attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may
waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is
made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. The shoreline of Singapore and sold its cargo to the Accused Cheong San
Constitution even adds the more stringent requirement Hiong upon which the cargo was discharged from the „M/T
that the waiver must be in writing and made in the Tabangao‰ to the „Navi Pride‰ for the price of about $500,000.00
presence of counsel. (American Dollars) on March 29, and 30, 1991 . . .
 xxx the details of their voyage, without the personal effects
xxx needed for a long voyage at sea. Such evidence is incredible
xxx and clearly not in accord with human experience. As
The Master, the officers and members of the crew of the „M/T pointed out by the trial court, it is incredible that Captain
Tabangao‰ were on board the vessel with the Accused and their Liboon, Second Mate Torralba, and their companion „had to
cohorts from March 2, 1991 up to April 10, 1991 or for more than leave the vessel at 9:30 oÊclock in the evening and venture
one (1) month. There can be no scintilla of doubt in the mind of the in a completely unfamiliar place merely to recruit five (5)
Court that the officers and crew of the vessel could and did see and cooks or handymen (p. 113, Rollo).‰
identify the seajackers and their leader. In fact, immediately after Anent accused-appellant ChangcoÊs defense of denial
the Accused were taken into custody by the operatives of the with the alibi that on May 14 and 17, he was at his place of
National Bureau of Investigation, Benjamin Suyo, Norberto Senosa, work and that on April 10, 1991, he was in his house in
Christian Torralba and Isaias Wervas executed their „Joint Bacoor, Cavite, sleeping, suffice it to state that alibi is
Affidavit‰ (Exhibit „B‰) and pointed to and identified the said fundamentally and inherently a weak defense, much more
Accused as some of the pirates. so when uncorroborated by other witnesses (People v.
xxx Adora, 275 SCRA 441 [1997]) considering that it is easy to
xxx fabricate and concoct, and difficult to disprove. Accused-
xxx appellant must adduce deaf and convincing evidence that,
Indeed, when they testified before this Court on their defense, at about midnight on April 10, 1991, it was physically
the three (3) Accused admitted to the Court that they, in fact, impossible for him to have been in Calatagan, Batangas.
boarded the said vessel in the evening of March 2, 1991 and Changco not only failed to do this, he was likewise unable
remained on board when the vessel sailed to its destination, which to prove that he was in his place of work on the dates
turned out to be off the port of Singapore. aforestated.
(pp. 108-112, Rollo.) It is doctrinal that the trial courtÊs evaluation of the
credibility of a testimony is accorded the highest respect,
We also agree with the trial courtÊs finding that accused- for trial courts have an untrammeled opportunity to
appellantsÊ defense of denial is not supported by any hard observe directly the demeanor of witnesses and, thus, to
evidence but their bare testimony. Greater weight is given determine whether a certain witness is telling the truth
to the categorical identification of the accused by the (People v. Obello, 284 SCRA 79 [1998]).
prosecution witnesses than to the accusedÊs plain denial of We likewise uphold the trial courtÊs finding of
participation in the commission of the crime (People v. conspiracy. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons
Baccay, 284 SCRA 296 [1998]). Instead, accused-appellants come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
Tulin, Loyola, and Infante, Jr. narrated a patently felony and decide to commit it (Article 8, Revised Penal
desperate tale that they were hired by three complete Code). To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every
strangers (allegedly Captain Edilberto Liboon, Second detail of execution; he need not even take part in every act
Mate Christian Torralba, and their companion) while said or need not even know the exact part to be performed by
accused-appellants were conversing with one another along the others in the execution of the conspiracy. As noted by
the seashore at Apkaya, Balibago, Calatagan, Batangas, to the trial court, there are times when conspirators are
work on board the „M/T Tabangao‰ which assigned separate and different tasks which may appear
28
unrelated to one an-

29
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Tulin VOL. 364, AUGUST 30, 2001 29
People vs. Tulin
was then anchored off-shore. And readily, said accused-
appellants agreed to work as cooks and handymen for an other, but in fact, constitute a whole and collective effort to
indefinite period of time without even saying goodbye to achieve a common criminal design.
their families, without even knowing their destination or We affirm the trial courtÊs finding that Emilio Changco,
accused-appellants Tulin, Loyola, and Infante, Jr. and cile the two laws, the word „any person‰ mentioned in
others, were the ones assigned to attack and seize the „M/T Section 1[d] of Presidential Decree No. 532 must be omitted
Tabangao‰ off Lubang, Mindoro, while accused-appellant such that Presidential Decree No. 532 shall only apply to
Cecilio Changco was to fetch the master and the members offenders who are members of the complement or to
of the crew from the shoreline of Calatagan, Batangas after passengers of the vessel, whereas Republic Act No. 7659
the transfer, and bring them to Imus, Cavite, and to shall apply to offenders who are neither members of the
provide the crew and the officers of the vessel with money complement or passengers of the vessel, hence, excluding
for their fare and food provisions on their way home. These him from the coverage of the law.
acts had to be well-coordinated. Accused-appellant Cecilio Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code, used to provide:
Changco need not be present at the time of the attack and
seizure of „M/T Tabangao‰ since he performed his task in Article 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas.·The
view of an objective common to all other accused- penalty of reclusion temporal shall be inflicted upon any person
appellants. who, on the high seas, shall attack or seize a vessel or, not being a
Of notable importance is the connection of accused- member of its complement nor a passenger, shall seize the whole or
appellants to one another. Accused-appellant Cecilio part of the cargo of said vessel, its equipment, or personal
Changco is the younger brother of Emilio Changco (aka belongings of its complement or passengers.
Captain Bobby/Captain Roberto Castillo/Kevin Ocampo), (Italics supplied.)
owner of Phil-Asia Shipping Lines. Cecilio worked for his
Article 122, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 (January
brother in said corporation. Their residences are
1, 1994), reads:
approximately six or seven kilometers away from each
other. Their families are close. Accused-appellant Tulin, on Article 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas or in
the other hand, has known Cecilio since their parents were Philippine waters.·The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be
neighbors in Aplaya, Balibago, Calatagan, Batangas. inflicted upon any person who, on the high seas, or in Philippine
Accused-appellant LoyolaÊs wife is a relative of the Changco waters, shall attack or seize a vessel or, not being a member of its
brothers by affinity. Besides, Loyola and Emilio Changco complement nor a passenger, shall seize the whole or part of the
had both been accused in a seajacking case regarding „M/T cargo of said vessel, its equipment, or personal belongings of its
Isla Luzon‰ and its cargo of steel coils and plates off Cebu complement or passengers.
and Bohol in 1989. Emilio Changco (aka Kevin Ocampo) (Italics ours)
was convicted of the crime while Loyola at that time
remained at large. On the other hand, Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 532
As for accused-appellant Hiong, he ratiocinates that he provides:
can no longer be convicted of piracy in Philippine waters as
SEC. 2. Definition of Terms.·The following shall mean and be
defined and penalized in Sections 2[d] and 3[a],
understood, as follows:
respectively of Presidential Decree No. 532 because
d. Piracy.·Any attack upon or seizure of any vessel, or the
Republic Act No. 7659 (effective January 1, 1994), which
taking away of the whole or part thereof or its cargo, equipment, or
amended Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code, has
the personal belongings of its complement or passengers,
impliedly superseded Presidential Decree No. 532. He
irrespective of the value thereof, by means of violence against or
reasons out that Presidential Decree No. 532 has been
intimidation of persons or force upon things, committed by any
rendered „superfluous or duplicitous‰ because both Article
person, including a passenger or member of the complement of said
122 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and
vessel in Philippine waters, shall be considered as
Presidential Decree No. 532 punish piracy committed in
Philippine waters. He maintains that in order to recon- 31

30
VOL. 364, AUGUST 30, 2001 31

30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED People vs. Tulin

People vs. Tulin

piracy. The offenders shall be considered as pirates and punished as
hereinafter provided (italics supplied). piracy, hence, the same need not be committed in
Philippine waters.
To summarize, Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code, Moreover, piracy falls under Title One of Book Two of
before its amendment, provided that piracy must be the Revised Penal Code. As such, it is an exception to the
committed on the high seas by any person not a member of rule on territoriality in criminal law. The same principle
its complement nor a passenger thereof. Upon its applies even if Hiong, in the instant case, were charged, not
amendment by Republic Act No. 7659, the coverage of the with a violation of qualified piracy under the penal code but
pertinent provision was widened to include offenses under a special law, Presidential Decree No. 532 which
committed „in Philippine waters.‰ On the other hand, penalizes piracy in Philippine waters. Verily, Presidential
under Presidential Decree No. 532 (issued in 1974), the Decree No. 532 should be applied with more force here
coverage of the law on piracy embraces any person since its purpose is precisely to discourage and prevent
including „a passenger or member of the complement of piracy in Philippine waters (People v. Catantan, 278 SCRA
said vessel in Philippine waters.‰ Hence, passenger or not, 761 [1997]). It is likewise, well-settled that regardless of
a member of the complement or not, any person is covered the law penalizing the same, piracy is a reprehensible
by the law. crime against the whole world (People v. Lol-lo, 43 Phil. 19
Republic Act No. 7659 neither superseded nor amended [1922]).
the provisions on piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532. However, does this constitute a violation of accused-
There is no contradiction between the two laws. There is appellantÊs constitutional right to be informed of the nature
likewise no ambiguity and hence, there is no need to and cause of the accusation against him on the ground that
construe or interpret the law. All the presidential decree he was convicted as an accomplice under Section 4 of
did was to widen the coverage of the law, in keeping with Presidential Decree No. 532 even though he was charged as
the intent to protect the citizenry as well as neighboring a principal by direct participation under Section 2 of said
states from crimes against the law of nations. As expressed law?
in one of the „whereas‰ clauses of Presidential Decree No. The trial court found that there was insufficiency of
532, piracy is „among the highest forms of lawlessness evidence showing:
condemned by the penal statutes of all countries.‰ For this a) that accused-appellant Hiong directly participated in
reason, piracy under the Article 122, as amended, and the attack and seizure of „M/T Tabangao‰ and its cargo; (b)
piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532 exist that he induced Emilio Changco and his group in the
harmoniously as separate laws. attack and seizure of „M/T Tabangao‰ and its cargo; (c) and
As regards the contention that the trial court did not that his act was indispensable in the attack on and seizure
acquire jurisdiction over the person of accused-appellant of „M/T Tabangao‰ and its cargo. Nevertheless, the trial
Hiong since the crime was committed outside Philippine court found that accused-appellant HiongÊs participation
waters, suffice it to state that unquestionably, the attack on was indisputably one which aided or abetted Emilio
and seizure of „M/T Tabangao‰ (renamed „M/T Galilee‰ by Changco and his band of pirates in the disposition of the
the pirates) and its cargo were committed in Philippine stolen cargo under Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 532
waters, although the captive vessel was later brought by which provides:
the pirates to Singapore where its cargo was off-loaded,
transferred, and sold. And such transfer was done under SEC. 4. Aiding pirates or highway robbers/brigands or abetting
accused-appellant HiongÊs direct supervision. Although piracy or highway robbery brigandage.·Any person who knowingly
Presidential Decree No. 532 requires that the attack and and in any manner aids or protects pirates or highway
seizure of the vessel and its cargo be committed in robbers/brigands, such as giving them information about the
Philippine waters, the disposition by the pirates of the movement of police or other peace officers of the government, or
vessel and its cargo is still deemed part of the act of acquires or receives property taken by such

32 33

32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 364, AUGUST 30, 2001 33

People vs. Tulin People vs. Tulin

pirates or brigands or in any manner derives any benefit therefrom; People vs. Tulin
or any person who directly or indirectly abets the commission of
piracy or highway robbery or brigandage, shall be considered as an the execution of their scheme to avert detection by
accomplice of the principal officers and be punished in accordance Singapore Port Authorities. Hence, had accused-appellant
with Rules prescribed by the Revised Penal Code. Hiong not falsified said entries, the Singapore Port
It shall be presumed that any person who does any of the acts Authorities could have easily discovered the illegal
provided in this Section has performed them knowingly, unless the activities that took place and this would have resulted in
contrary is proven. his arrest and prosecution in Singapore. Moreover, the
transfer of the stolen cargo from „M/T Galilee‰ to „Navi
The ruling of the trial court is within well-settled
Pride‰ could not have been effected.
jurisprudence that if there is lack of complete evidence of
We completely uphold the factual findings of the trial
conspiracy, the liability is that of an accomplice and not as
court showing in detail accused-appellant HiongÊs role in
principal (People v. Tolentino, 40 SCRA 514 [1971]). Any
the disposition of the pirated goods summarized as follows:
doubt as to the participation of an individual in the
that on March 27, 1991, Hiong with Captain Biddy Santos
commission of the crime is always resolved in favor of
boarded the „Navi Pride,‰ one of the vessels of the Navi
lesser responsibility (People v. Corbes, 270 SCRA 465
Marine, to rendezvous with the „M/T Galilee‰; that the firm
[1997]; People vs. Elfano, Jr., 125 SCRA 792 [1983]; People
submitted the crew list of the vessel (Exhibit „8-CSH,‰
v. Pastores, 40 SCRA 498 [1971]).
Record) to the port authorities, excluding the name of
Emphasis must also be placed on the last paragraph of
Hiong; that the „General Declaration‰ (for departure) of the
Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 532 which presumes
„Navi Pride‰ for its voyage off port of Singapore (Exhibits
that any person who does any of the acts provided in said
„HH‰ and „8-A CSH‰, Record) falsely stated that the vessel
section has performed them knowingly, unless the contrary
was scheduled to depart at 2200 (10 oÊclock in the evening),
is proven. In the case at bar, accused-appellant Hiong had
that there were no passengers on board, and the purpose of
failed to overcome the legal presumption that he knowingly
the voyage was for „cargo operation‰ and that the vessel
abetted or aided in the commission of piracy, received
was to unload and transfer 1,900 tons of cargo; that after
property taken by such pirates and derived benefit
the transfer of the fuel from „M/T Galilee‰ with Emilio
therefrom.
Changco a.k.a. Captain Bobby a.k.a. Roberto Castillo at the
The record discloses that accused-appellant Hiong aided
helm, the surveyor prepared the „Quantity Certificate‰
the pirates in disposing of the stolen cargo by personally
(Exhibit „11-C CSH‰, Record) stating that the cargo
directing its transfer from „M/T Galilee‰ to „M/T Navi
transferred to the „Navi Pride‰ was 2,406 gross cubic
Pride‰. He profited therefrom by buying the hijacked cargo
meters; that although Hiong was not the Master of the
for Navi Marine Services, Pte., Ltd. (tsn, June 3, 1992, pp.
vessel, he affixed his signature on the „Certificate‰ above
15-23). He even tested the quality and verified the quantity
the word „Master‰ (Exhibit „11-C-2 CSH‰, Record); that he
of the petroleum products, connived with Navi Marine
then paid $150,000.00 but did not require any receipt for
Services personnel in falsifying the General Declarations
the amount; that Emilio Changco also did not issue one;
and Crew List to ensure that the illegal transfer went
and that in the requisite „General Declaration‰ upon its
through, undetected by Singapore Port Authorities, and
arrival at Singapore on March 29, 1991, at 7 oÊclock in the
supplied the pirates with food, beer, and other provisions
evening, (Exhibits „JJ‰ and „13-A CSH‰, Record), it was
for their maintenance while in port (tsn, June 3, 1992, pp.
made to falsely appear that the „Navi Pride‰ unloaded
133-134).
1,700 tons of cargo on the high seas during said voyage
We believe that the falsification of the General
when in fact it acquired from the „M/T Galilee‰ 2,000
Declaration (Arrival and Departure) and Crew List was
metric tons of diesel oil. The second transfer transpired
accomplished and utilized by accused-appellant Hiong and
with the same irregularities as discussed above. It was
Navi Marine Services personnel in
likewise supervised by accused-appellant Cheong from his
34 end while Emilio Changco supervised the transfer from his
end.

34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 35

 VOL. 364, AUGUST 30, 2001 35 36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Tulin People vs. Tulin

Accused-appellant Hiong maintains that he was merely Such violation was committed on board a Philippine-
following the orders of his superiors and that he has no operated vessel. Moreover, the means used by Hiong in
knowledge of the illegality of the source of the cargo. carrying out said order was equally unlawful. He misled
First and foremost, accused-appellant Hiong cannot port and immigration authorities, falsified records, using a
deny knowledge of the source and nature of the cargo since mere clerk, Frankie Loh, to consummate said acts. During
he himself received the same from „M/T Tabangao‰. Second, the trial, Hiong presented himself, and the trial court was
considering that he is a highly educated mariner, he should convinced, that he was an intelligent and articulate Port
have avoided any participation in the cargo transfer given Captain. These circumstances show that he must have
the very suspicious circumstances under which it was realized the nature and the implications of the order of
acquired. He failed to show a single piece of deed or bill of Chua Kim Leng Timothy. Thereafter, he could have refused
sale or even a purchase order or any contract of sale for the to follow orders to conclude the deal and to effect the
purchase by the firm; he never bothered to ask for and transfer of the cargo to the „Navi Pride.‰ He did not do so,
scrutinize the papers and documentation relative to the for which reason, he must now suffer the consequences of
„M/T Galilee‰; he did not even verify the identity of Captain his actions.
Robert Castillo whom he met for the first time nor did he WHEREFORE, finding the conviction of accused-
check the source of the cargo; he knew that the transfer appellants justified by the evidence on record, the Court
took place 66 nautical miles off Singapore in the dead of the hereby AFFIRMS the judgment of the trial court in toto.
night which a marine vessel of his firm did not ordinarily SO ORDERED.
do; it was also the first time Navi Marine transacted with
Paul Gan involving a large sum of money without any Vitug, Panganiban, Gonzaga-Reyes and Sandoval-
receipt issued therefor; he was not even aware if Paul Gan Gutierrez, JJ., concur.
was a Singaporean national and thus safe to deal with. It
should also be noted that the value of the cargo was Judgment affirmed in toto.
P40,426,793.87 or roughly more than US$1,000,000.00
Notes.·Infractions of the so called „Miranda rights‰
(computed at P30.00 to $1, the exchange rate at that time). render inadmissible only the extrajudicial confession or
Manifestly, the cargo was sold for less than one-half of its admission made during custodial investigation·the
value. Accused-appellant Hiong should have been aware of
admissibility of other evidence, provided they are relevant
this irregularity. Nobody in his right mind would go to far
to the issue and is not otherwise excluded by law or rules,
away Singapore, spend much time and money for is not affected even if obtained or taken in the course of
transportation·only to sell at the aforestated price if it custodial investigation. (People vs. Malimit, 264 SCRA 167
were legitimate sale involved. This, in addition to the act of
[1996])
falsifying records, clearly shows that accused-appellant Even if the order is illegal if it is patently legal and the
Hiong was well aware that the cargo that his firm was subordinate is not aware of its illegality, the subordinate is
acquiring was purloined. not liable, for then there would only be a mistake of fact
Lastly, it cannot be correctly said that accused-appellant
committed in good faith. (Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan, 268
was „merely following the orders of his superiors.‰ An SCRA 332 [1997])
individual is justified in performing an act in obedience to
an order issued by a superior if such order, is for some ··o0o··
lawful purpose and that the means used by the subordinate
to carry out said order is lawful (Reyes, Revised Penal 37
Code, Vol. 1, 1981 ed., p. 212). Notably, the alleged order of
HiongÊs superior Chua Kim Leng Timothy, is a patent
violation not only of Philippine, but of international law.

36
© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.