Case Summary (G.R. No. 118075)
Key Dates
- June 27, 1993: Commission of the offense.
- May 26, 1994: RTC Cebu, Branch 14 decision convicting both accused.
- September 5, 1997: Supreme Court decision.
Applicable Law
- 1987 Philippine Constitution (governing jurisdiction and procedural rights).
- Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and Highway Robbery Law of 1974):
• Section 2(d): Defines piracy as any attack upon or seizure of any vessel by violence or intimidation in Philippine waters.
• Section 2(b): Defines “vessel” to include fishing boats. - Revised Penal Code, Article 286: Defines grave coercion as using violence to compel another to do or not do something.
Facts
At approximately 3:00 a.m. on June 27, 1993, Eugene and Juan Pilapil Jr. were fishing some three kilometers off Tabogon, Cebu, aboard their pumpboat. A second pumpboat carrying four men—later identified as the accused—approached and one boarded, aimed a revolver at the brothers, struck Eugene on the left cheekbone, and ordered them to lie face down. The accused then forced the Pilapils under threat of death to ferry them to Daan Tabogon. When the engine failed, the brothers were compelled to row; Eugene’s legs remained tied. Near Nipa they sighted a third pumpboat; the accused ordered them to bring that vessel alongside, boarded under the guise of buying fish, and then forced its operator, Juanito, at gunpoint to convey all four assailants to Mungaz. During transfer, the original pumpboat’s outrigger was damaged, and Eugene fell into the sea; both brothers escaped by swimming to safety and were later rescued by a passing vessel.
Issue
Whether the acts of boarding under armed threat and compelling the victims to navigate constituted piracy under PD No. 532 or merely grave coercion under Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code.
Legal Definitions and Analysis
Piracy under PD No. 532 requires:
- An attack on or seizure of a vessel (including fishing boats) in Philippine waters.
- Use of violence or intimidation against persons.
Grave coercion under RPC Art. 286 requires:
- Use of violence to compel another to do or refrain from lawful acts.
Respondent argued the facts showed only coercion—no intent to permanently appropriate the pumpboat—and that force was used only after boarding. The Court found that the initial boarding by surprise, the pointing and use of a revolver, striking a passenger, ordering the victims to transport the assailants, and exercising full control over the vessel collectively amounted
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 118075)
Facts of the Case
- On 27 June 1993, at approximately 3:00 AM, Eugene Pilapil (21) and Juan Pilapil Jr. (18) were fishing about three kilometers off the shores of Tabogon, Cebu.
- A second pumpboat arrived suddenly; one of its occupants, identified as Emiliano Catantan, boarded the Pilapils’ pumpboat armed with a revolver and accompanied by Jose Macven Ursal alias “Bimbo.”
- Catantan ordered the Pilapils to lie face down (“dapa”), struck Eugene on the left cheekbone with the revolver, and then directed Ursal to board and assist in the seizure.
- The accused hogtied Eugene, covered him with a tarpaulin up to his neck, and forced Juan Jr. to ferry them toward Daan Tabogon, leaving one of the accused’s original boat passengers tied behind.
- When the engine failed, Juan Jr. was ordered to row; Eugene’s hands were later freed to help, though his legs remained tied to the outrigger until a three-bladed knife was used to release them.
- Near the shoreline of Nipa, the pirates spotted another pumpboat owned by “Juanito” with a new engine; under threat of death, they forced its operator to transfer both accused and victims aboard.
- During the transfer, Ursal’s outrigger struck and broke the prow of the Pilapils’ boat, causing Eugene to fall into the sea; he and his brother swam to safety and were later towed ashore by a passing boat.
Procedural History
- The Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch 14, found both Emiliano Catantan and Jose Ursal guilty of piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532 and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua.
- Only Emiliano Catantan appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the facts established grave coercion under Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code rather than piracy.
Issue on Appeal
- W