GR 111709; (August, 2001) (Digest)
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
On March 2, 1991, the vessel M/T Tabangao, loaded with petroleum products valued at over P40 million, was forcibly seized by armed pirates in Philippine waters near Mindoro. The pirates, including appellants Tulin, Loyola, Infante, and Cecilio Changco, detained the crew, painted over the vessel’s identifying marks, renamed it “Galilee,” and forced it to sail to Singapore. After failed attempts to offload the cargo, the vessel returned to the Philippines and later went back to Singapore waters. There, the cargo was transferred to the vessel Navi Pride under the supervision of appellant Cheong San Hiong, the port captain of Navi Marine Services. The pirates then returned the M/T Tabangao to Batangas and released the crew with threats.
The crew reported the incident, leading to investigations and the subsequent arrest of the appellants. They were charged with Qualified Piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532. The Regional Trial Court convicted all accused, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the guilt of all accused-appellants for the crime of qualified piracy was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. For appellants Tulin, Loyola, Infante, and Changco, the Court found the testimonies of the vessel’s crew, who positively identified them as active participants in the violent seizure and control of the ship, to be credible and consistent. Their defenses of denial and alibi were weak and could not overcome the positive identification. Their direct actions in boarding armed, detaining the crew, repainting the vessel, and directing its movement constituted the acts of violence, intimidation, and seizure central to the crime of piracy under P.D. No. 532.
For appellant Cheong San Hiong, the Court ruled that his actions constituted conspiracy in the piracy. As the port captain who supervised the illicit transfer of the stolen cargo in Singaporean waters, he demonstrated guilty knowledge and active participation. The Court rejected his claim of being a mere subordinate following orders. The circumstances—including the clandestine nighttime transfer far offshore, the gross undervaluation of the cargo, the use of falsified documents, and his failure to conduct any due diligence on the source of the cargo—proved he was aware the goods were pirated. By facilitating the disposition of the plunder, he shared the criminal intent and became a co-conspirator. The crime of piracy is a continuing offense; the unlawful acts of violence and seizure for personal gain extended through the disposal of the cargo, encompassing Hiong’s integral role. Thus, all appellants were guilty as principals.