2. People Vs Tulin.docx

Valenton, Francis Angelo T.

Criminal Law 2

1S People vs. Tulin (G.R. No. 111709)

Facts: The plaintiff-appellee is the People of the Philippines. The accused-appellants are Roger P. Tulin, Virgilio I. Loyola, Cecilio O. Changco, Andres C. Infante, Cheong San Hiong, and John Does. In the case at bar, on March 2, 1991, the cargo vessel M/T Tabangao, loaded with kerosene, gasoline, and diesel, was sailing off the coast of Mindoro. Suddenly, it was boarded by seven fully armed pirates. The said pirates detained the crew and took complete control of the vessel and forced the crew to sail the ship to Singapore. On March 9, 1991, they arrived in Singapore and cruised around, presumably waiting for another vessel. After five days, the pirates forced to return to the Philippines. However, two weeks later, on March 28 1991, they sailed again near Singapore, where another vessel named “Navi Pride” was anchored. Accused Changco ordered the crew to transfer vessel’s cargo to Navi Pride. Two days later, the transfer was completed. On April 8, 1991, the M/T arrived at batangas and remained at sea. Two days later, the members of the crew were released in three batches. The crew members then later on reported the incident to PNOC and to the Coast Guard. The herein accused were later on then arrested. They were charged with the crime of qualified piracy under Section 4 of PD 532. The accused denied all allegations. Claiming that they were busy minding their own respective sources of livelihood at the time the incident happened. The RTC NCR Manila, however, still find them guilty of the crime of piracy in the Philippine waters. On appeal, the accused said that the pirates were outnumbered by the crew, and the crew could have overpowered them. Also, the conted that RA 7659, which amends the piracy in the Revised Penal Code obliterates the crime punishable by PD 532. Issue: Whether or not the accused are guilty of the crime of qualified piracy under PD 532. Held: The Supreme Court said that all the denial of the accused were not supported by hard evidence, hence the Court cannot appreciate such contentions. Also, the Supreme Court said that the RA 7659 does not supersede nor amend the piracy under PD 532 since they found no contradiction between the laws. Also, the lower court is correct in founding them liable for qualified piracy under PD 532 for the reason that the attack was made in Philippine waters.