PEOPLE v TULIN Pride anchored beside it.
Another accused, Cheong San
Petitioners: People of the Phil
Respondents: ROGER P. TULIN, VIRGILIO I. LOYOLA, CECILIO
O. CHANGCO, ANDRES C. INFANTE, CHEONG SAN HIONG,
and JOHN DOES
Topic: Crimes against the law of nations: Qualified piracy (Art.
123)
Law:
Art. 123. Qualified piracy. The penalty of reclusion temporal
to death shall be imposed upon those who commit any of the
crimes referred to in the preceding article, under any of the
following circumstances:
1. Whenever they have seized a vessel by
boarding or firing upon the same; 2.
Whenever the pirates have abandoned their
victims without means of saving themselves;
or 3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by
murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape.
FACTS
1. MT Tabangao is a cargo vessel owned by PNOC. It was
sailing near the coast of Mindoro loaded with barrels of
kerosene, gasoline, and diesel oil with a total value of
40.4M.
2. The vessel was suddenly boarded by 7 fully armed
pirates (accused in the case Emilio Changco, Cecilio
Changco, Tulin, Loyola, Infante, etc.). They detained and
took control of the vessel. The name MT Tabangao and
the PNOC logo were painted over with black. Then it
was painted with the name Galilee. The ship crew was
forced to sail to Singapore.
3. In Singapore, the ship was awaiting another vessel that
did not arrive. Instead, the ship went back to Batangas
Philippines and remained at sea. Days later, it went back
to Singapore. This time, another vessel called the Navi
1
CRIM 2 | TINIMBANG
Hiong, supervised the Navis crew and received the
cargo on board MT Tabangao/Galilee.
4. After the transfer of goods were completed, MT
Tabangao/Galilee went back to the Philippines and the
original crew members were released by the pirates in
batches. The crew was ordered not to tell authorities of
what happened.
5. The chief engineer of the crew, however, reported the
incident to the coast guard. Afterwards, a series of arrests
were effected in different places. An information
charging the accused with qualified piracy or violation
of the PD 532 Piracy in the Philippine Waters was
filed against the accused.
6. As it turns out, Navi Pride captain, Hiong, was employed
with Navi Marine Services ( a Singaporean firm, I think).
Before the seizure of the MT Tabangon, Navi Marine
was dealing for the first time with Paul Gan, a
Singaporean broker who offered to sell bunker oil to the
former. When the transaction pushed through, Hiong
was assigned to supervise a ship to ship transfer. He was
told that the Galilee would be making the transfer, so
Navi Pride ship-sided with Galilee and the transfer was
effected. Paul Gan received the payment. Upon arrival
in Singapore, Hiong was asked again to transact another
transfer of oil. The same procedure was followed. Hiong
then went to the Philippines to arrange another transfer
with Changco the pirates head. This was how Hiong
was arrested by the NBI agents.
7. All the accused put up denials and alibis. The trial court,
with ROMEO CALLEJO deciding, ruled that the accused
were all guilty.
ISSUE:
WON the accused are guilty of qualified piracy [YES!]
 RULING:

[only the important part for crim] Hiong argues that he can not
be convicted under PD 534 or Art 122 of the RPC as amended,
since both laws punish piracy committed in Philippine waters.
Hiong also contends that the court never acquired jurisdiction
over him since the crime was committed outside Philippine
waters.

Art. 122 of the RPC (piracy in general and mutiny in the high
seas) provided that piracy must be committed in the high seas
by any person not a member of its complement nor a passenger
thereof. It was amended by RA 7659, which broadened the law
to include offenses committed in Philippine waters. PD 532 on
the other hand, embraces any person, including a passenger or
member of the complement of said vessel in the Philippine
waters. Passenger or not, member of the complement or not,
any person is covered by the law. No conflict exists among the
mentioned laws, they exist harmoniously as separate laws.

The attack on and the seizure of MT Tabangao 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. Such transfer was
done under Hiongs supervision. Although the disposition by the
pirates of the vessel and its cargo was not done in Philippine
waters, it is still deemed part of the same act. Piracy falls under
Title 1 of Book 2 of the RPC. It is an exception to the rule on
territoriality in criminal law. The same principle applies to the
case, even if Hiong is charged with violation of a special penal
law, instead of the RPC. Regardless of the law penalizing piracy,
it remains to be a reprehensible crime against the whole world.

2 CRIM 2 | TINIMBANG