Case Summary (G.R. No. 177425)
Parties
Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-Appellants: Tulin, Loyola, Infante Jr., Cecilio Changco, Cheong San Hiong (“John Does” unnamed).
Key Dates
- March 2–April 10, 1991: Commission of piracy in Philippine waters and subsequent release of crew
- May 19–20, 1991: Arrests of accused-appellants by the NBI
- October 24, 1991: Filing of Information for qualified piracy under P.D. No. 532
- February 11, 1992–June 1992: Trial proceedings
- August 30, 2001: Decision by the Supreme Court
Applicable Law
- Presidential Decree No. 532 (1974) – Definition and penalties for piracy in Philippine waters
- 1987 Philippine Constitution – Protection of rights to counsel and due process (Art. III, Sec. 12)
- Republic Act No. 7659 (1994) – Amendment to Article 122, Revised Penal Code, expanding piracy jurisdiction
Factual Background
On March 2, 1991, seven armed pirates led by Emilio Changco boarded M/T Tabangao off Mindoro, seized control, painted over its identity, and forced the crew to sail to Singapore under false pretenses. Cargo transfers to M/T Navi Pride occurred March 28–30, 1991. Crew members were released in mid-April under threats.
Procedural History
An Information for qualified piracy under P.D. 532 was filed October 24, 1991, in R.T.C. Manila. Accused-appellants pleaded not guilty. Following trial, the R.T.C. convicted Tulin, Loyola, Infante Jr., and Cecilio Changco as principals and Cheong San Hiong as accomplice. Death penalty was converted to reclusion perpetua under the 1987 Constitution. The R.T.C. also ordered restitution of vessel and cargo values. All appeals were consolidated before the Supreme Court.
Issues Presented
- Validity of trial representation by a non-lawyer and subsequent adoption of proceedings
- Admissibility of confessions obtained without counsel during custodial investigation
- Sufficiency of evidence proving qualified piracy by each appellant
- Effect of R.A. 7659 on piracy under P.D. 532
- Jurisdiction and proper characterization of Cheong San Hiong’s liability
Waiver of Counsel at Trial
Accused-appellants initially represented by Mr. Tomas Posadas (non-lawyer). Atty. Abdul Basar later confirmed, on February 11, 1992, that appellants knowingly and intelligently waived their right to counsel and adopted prior proceedings. Under Rule 115, waiver of counsel is valid if made with full understanding and assistance of a bona fide lawyer. No denial of due process occurred at trial.
Violation of Rights in Custodial Investigation
Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution mandates warning of Miranda rights and written waiver in counsel’s presence. Extrajudicial confessions obtained without counsel are inadmissible, along with derivations (“fruit of the poisonous tree”). Despite exclusion of such confessions, independent evidence sufficed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Proof of Qualified Piracy by Tulin, Loyola, Infante Jr., and Cecilio Changco
Prosecution presented unequivocal contemporaneous identifications by four crew members in joint affidavits and live testimony. Appellants’ alibi defense (hired as shipboard laborers) was deemed incredible, unsupported by contracts or corroboration. Trial court credibility findings, based on direct observation of demeanor, were accorded great respect. Conspiracy was established by coordinated roles: attack team on board, paint-over crew, release and transportation of hostages, and logistical support by Cecilio Changco.
Liability of Cheong San Hiong
Although charged as principal, evidence did not show Hiong’s direct participation in the initial seizure. The R.T.C. found him liable as accomplice under Section 4, P.D. 532 for knowingly aiding pirates in the transfer, sale, and documentation falsification of stolen cargo. Hiong supervised two ship-to-ship transfers, falsified port declarations and crew lists to evade Singapore authorities,
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 177425)
Argued and Decided
- G.R. No. 111709
- Argued: (not specified)
- Decided: August 30, 2001
- Ponente: Justice Melo
Facts of the Case
- On March 2, 1991, M/T Tabangao, laden with kerosene, gasoline, and diesel (valued at ₱40,426,793.87), was boarded off Mindoro by pirates led by Emilio Changco.
- Pirates, including appellants Tulin, Loyola, Infante Jr., and Cecilio Changco, were armed with rifles, handguns, and bolos; they detained 21-member crew and seized the vessel.
- Crew forced to paint over “M/T Tabangao” and PNOC logo; vessel renamed “Galilee” with Honduran registry.
- Pirates sailed toward Singapore under false repair reports; cargo transferred at sea to M/T Navi Pride under supervision of Cheong San Hiong.
- Crew released in three batches on April 10–12, 1991, with threats not to report or face death; they eventually reported to PNOC, Coast Guard, and NBI.
Procedural History
- RTC Manila Branch 49: Information for qualified piracy under P.D. No. 532 filed October 24, 1991; appellants pleaded not guilty.
- Trial: prosecution witnesses identified appellants; defense of denial and alibi presented; Hiong advanced lawful-trade theory.
- RTC Decision: convicted Tulin, Loyola, Infante Jr., and Cecilio Changco as principals; Hiong as accomplice; imposed reclusion perpetua and restitution orders.
- Appeal: all appellants elevated judgment to the Supreme Court.
Issues on Appeal
- Was there a valid waiver of counsel when represented by a non-lawyer?
- Are extrajudicial confessions obtained without counsel admissible?
- Did the prosecution prove qualified piracy beyond reasonable doubt?
- Did R.A. No. 7659 repeal or supersede P.D. No. 532 as to Hiong?
- Can Philippine courts convict for acts committed outside Philippine waters?