have held in the cases of Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and
Dizon (75 Phil., 113) and of Peralta vs. Director of Prisons (75
Phil., 285), and if it is not transferred to the occupant it must
necessarily remain vested in the legitimate government; that the
sovereignty vested in the titular government (which is the supreme
power which governs a body politic or society which constitute the
state) must be distinguished from the exercise of the rights
inherent thereto, and may be destroyed, or severed and
transferred to another, but it cannot be suspended because the
existence of sovereignty cannot be suspended without putting it
out of existence or divesting the possessor thereof at least during
the so-called period of suspension; that what may be suspended is
the exercise of the rights of sovereignty with the control and
government of the territory occupied by the enemy passes
temporarily to the occupant; that the subsistence of the
sovereignty of the legitimate government in a territory occupied by
the military forces of the enemy during the war, "although the
former is in fact prevented from exercising the supremacy over
them" is one of the "rules of international law of our times"; (II
Oppenheim, 6th Lauterpacht ed., 1944, p. 482), recognized, by
necessary implication, in articles 23, 44, 45, and 52 of Hague
Regulation; and that, as a corollary of the conclusion that the
sovereignty itself is not suspended and subsists during the enemy
occupation, the allegiance of the inhabitants to their legitimate
government or sovereign subsists, and therefore there is no such
thing as suspended allegiance, the basic theory on which the
whole fabric of the petitioner's contention rests;
Considering that the conclusion that the sovereignty of the United
State was suspended in Castine, set forth in the decision in the
case of United States vs. Rice, 4 Wheaton, 246, 253, decided in
1819, and quoted in our decision in the cases of Co Kim Cham vs.
Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon and Peralta vs. Director of Prisons,
supra, in connection with the question, not of sovereignty, but of
the existence of a government de facto therein and its power to
promulgate rules and laws in the occupied territory, must have
been based, either on the theory adopted subsequently in the
Hague Convention of 1907, that the military occupation of an
enemy territory does not transfer the sovereignty to the occupant;
that, in the first case, the word "sovereignty" used therein should
be construed to mean the exercise of the rights of sovereignty,
because as this remains vested in the legitimate government and
is not transferred to the occupier, it cannot be suspended without
March 2, 1949
chivalry.
But the law does abhor inhumanity and the abuse of strength to
commit acts unnecessary to the commission of treason. There is no
incompatibility between treason and decent, human treatment of
prisoners, Rapes, wanton robbery for personal grain and other
forms of cruelties are condemned and the perpetration of these will
be regarded as aggravating circumstances of ignominy and of
deliberately augmenting unnecessary wrong to the main criminal
objective under paragraphs 17 and 21 of Article 14 of the Revised
Penal Code. The atrocities above mentioned of which the appellant
is beyond doubt guilty fall within the terms of the above
paragraphs.
For the very reason that premeditation treachery and use of
superior strength are absorbed inn treason characterized by killings,
the killing themselves and other accompanying crime should be
taken into consideration for measuring the degree and gravity of
criminal responsibility irrespective of the manner in which they were
committed. Were not this the rule treason the highest crime known
to law would confer on its perpetrator advantage that are denied
simple murderer. To avoid such incongruity and injustice the penalty
in treason will be adapted within the range provided in the Revised
Penal Code to the danger and harm and to which the culprit has
exposed his country and his people and to the wrongs and injuries
that resulted from his deeds. The letter and pervading spirit of the
Revised Penal Code adjust penalties to the perversity of the mind
that conceived and carried the crime into execution. Where the
system of graduating penalties by the prescribed standards is
inapplicable as in the case of homicides connection with treason the
method of analogies to fit the punishment with the enormity of the
offense may be summoned to the service of justice and consistency
and in the furtherance of the laws aims.
Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case we believe
that the appellants spontaneous plea of guilty is sufficient to entitle
him to a penalty below the maximum. The appealed decision is
therefore modified and the sentence reduced to reclusion perpetua
with the legal accessories and costs.
following night, again she was brought to Colonel Mini and again
she was raped; that finally she was able to escape and stayed in
hiding for three weeks and only came out from the hiding when
Colonel Mini left Tagbilaran.
"As regards count No. 2
Count No. 2 of the information substantially alleges: That accused
in company with some Japanese and Filipinos took Eriberta Ramo
and her sister Cleopatra Ramo from their home in Baclayon to
attend a banquet and a dance organized in honor of Colonel Mini
by the Puppet Governor, Agapito Hontanosas in order that said
Japanese Colonel might select those first who would later be taken
to satisfy his carnal appetite and that by means of threat, force and
intimidation, the above mentioned two sister were brought to the
headquarters of the Japanese Commander at the Mission Hospital
in Tagbilaran where Eriberta Ramo was forced to lived a life of
shame. All these facts alleged in count No. 2 were testified to by
said witnesses Eriberta Ramo her mother Mercedes de Ramo. It is
not necessary here to recite once more their testimony in support
of the allegations in court No. 2; this Court is fully convinced that
the allegation in said count No. 2 were fully substantiated by the
evidence adduced.
"As regards count No. 4
Count No. 4 substantially alleges that on July 16, 1942, the two
girls named Eduardo S. Daohog and Eutiquia Lamay, were taken
from their homes in Corella, Bohol, by the accused and his
companion named Vicente Bullecer, and delivered to the Japanese
Officer, Dr. Takibayas to satisfy his carnal appetite, but these two,
the accused Susano Perez and his companion Vicente Bullecer,
before delivering them to said Japanese Officer, satisfied first their
lust; the accused Susano Perez raping Eduarda S. Daohog and
his companion, Vicente Bullecer, the other girl Eutiquia Lamay.
Eduarda S. Daohog, testifying, said: that while on the way to
Tagbilaran, the accused though force and intimidation, raped her in
an uninhabited house; that she resisted with all her force against
the desire of the accused, but of no avail; that upon arriving in
Tagbilaran, she was delivered to the Japanese Officer named
Takibayas who also raped her. Eutiquia Lamay testified that on
July 16, 1942, the accused and his companion, Bullecer, went to
her house to take her and her sister; that her sister was then out of
the house; that the accused threatened her with a revolved if she
refuses to go; that she was placed in a car where Eduarda Daohog
was; that while they were in the car, the accused carried Eduarda
out of the car, and their companion Bullecer took the other witness
(Eutiquia Lamay); that when the accused and Eduarda returned to
the car, the latter; Eduarda, covered her face, crying; that later, she
and Eduarda were taken to the Governor's house; that on arriving
and in the presence of the Puppet Governor Hontanosas, the
Governor exclaimed: "I did not call for these girls": but the accused
replied saying: "These girls talked bad against the Japanese , and
that is why we arrested them"; that the said Governor Hontaosas
then, said: "Take them to the Japanese "; that the accused and
Bullecer brought the two girls to the Japanese headquarters; that
Eduarda was taken to one room by the Japanese Captain called
Dr. Takibayas, and she (Eutiquia Lamay) was taken to another
room by another Japanese living in that house; that she was raped
by that Jap while in the room; that she resisted all she could, but of
no avail.
In the light of the testimonies of these two witnesses, Eduarda S.
Daohog and Eutiquia Lamay, all the allegations in Court No. 4
were fully proven beyond reasonable doubt.
"As regards count No. 5
Count No. 5 alleges: That on or about June 4, 1942, the said
accused commandeered Feliciana Bonalos and her sister Flaviana
Bonalos on the pretext that they were to bee taken as witnesses
before a Japanese Colonel in the investigation of a case against a
certain Chinese (Insik Eping), and uponarriving at Tagbilaran,
Bohol, the accused brought the aforesaid two girls to the residence
of Colonel Mini, Commander of the Japanese Armed Forces in
Bohol and by means of violence threat and intimidation, said
Japanese Colonel abused and had sexual intercourse with
Flaviana Bonalos; that the accused subsequently of Colonel Mini
and through violence, threat and intimidation, succeeded in having
carnal knowledge with her against her will; that two days, later,
upon the pretext of conducting the unfortunate girls to their home,
said accused brought the other girls Feliciana Bonalos to a
secluded place in Tagbilaran, Bohol, and in the darkness, by mean
of threat and violence had carnal knowledge with her against her
will.
Furthermore, when the case was remanded to the lower court for
the purpose of retaking the testimony of those witnesses who
testified on October 8, 1947, the case was virtually remanded for
new trial. Of course, the evidence and the testimony received
during the trial before the Peoples Court which is still intact and
available shall stand and the new trial will be confined to the
testimony of the same witnesses who testified on October 8, 1947,
the stenographic notes or transcript of which cannot now be found.
Under these circumstances, it is necessary for the trial court to
render a new decision because the new trial is being held before a
new Judge and there is no assurance that the witnesses testifying,
altho the very same ones who were on the witness stand on
October 8, 1947, would testify to the same facts and in the same
manner that they did at the former trial, altho they are supposed to
do so. (See Demetria Obien de Almario vs. Fidel Ibaez, et al, 46 O.
G. No. 1, p. 390). Going over the record of the case, we find that it
would not be too difficult for the trial judge to see to it that the said
witnesses as far as possible confine themselves to the same points
on which they testified on October 8, 1947, because the testimonies
of said witnesses including the defendant are referred to and
described in the decision of the Peoples Court on pages 87, 123,
and 124 to 129, and that there are only four witnesses including the
accused himself.
Examining Exhibits A and B submitted by appellant in relation to
his petition for the withdrawal of his appeal, we find that although
his name appears in the list of prisoners convicted by the Peoples
Court and supposed to be pardoned conditionally, the pardon itself
refers to the remission of the unexpired portions of the prison
sentence terms and the fines of the prisoners listed below who were
convicted by the defunct Peoples Court of treason and committed to
the new Bilibid Prison to serve their sentence. It is highly doubtful
that the pardon could have contemplated and included appellant
herein because his sentence of death does not merely involve a
prison term which expires in time. Besides, a death sentence is not
exactly served but rather executed. Moreover, Exhibit B says that
those prisoners whose cases are still pending on appeal shall be
released only after their appeal has been withdrawn. The
implication is that the withdrawal of the appeal rendered the
decision of the Peoples Court final, resulting in conviction, this to
bring it into harmony with Art. VII, Sec. 10(6) of the Constitution
which requires conviction as a condition precedent to the exercise of
Executive clemency. As we have already stated, despite defendants
withdrawal of his appeal from the decision imposing the death
sentence, there is no definite conviction or sentence until and after
this Tribunal has reviewed the case and rendered its own decision
affirming, modifying or reversing that of the lower court, unless of
course in the new decision of the trial court based on the new trial a
then; that on the occasion of the aforementioned patrol, the abovenamed accused and his companions, with intent of gain and without
consent of the owners thereof, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously loot the house of Jose T. Belandrez,
taking therefrom genuine Philippine currency in the amount of
P300; emergency notes in the amount of P1,200; jewelry value at
P500; clothing valued at P200; and other personal effects; and from
the house of Toribia Taleon, jewelry, watches, clothing and other
personal effects with a total value of P160 more or less.
Jose T. Belandrez, Salvador Toranto, Toribia Taleon and Maria
Mendoza, corroborating one another, testified that at dawn of June
10, 1943, appellant, accompanied by some Filipinos and Japanese
soldiers, went to the house of Jose T. Belandrez situated at
Tigbauan, Iloilo, and took therefrom P1,200 in cash, jewelry worth
P300, and clothing valued at P200; that they also arrested Dionisio
Belandrez, Modesto Torremoro and Napoleon Luceno, members of
the Bolo Battalion, an auxiliary unit of the guerrillas; that since that
fateful day, the said three members of the Bolo Battalion never
returned.
Count No. 7. The amended information respecting this Count, reads
as follows:
7. That on or about the 9th and 10th day of August, 1943, in the
municipality of Tigbauan, Iloilo, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Court, the above-named accused, Pedro T.
Villanueva, with intent to adhere as he did adhere to the enemy,
and with treasonable intent to give, as he did give said enemy, aid
and comfort, in his capacity as agent, informer and spy of the
Detective Force, Imperial Japanese Army, and in company with
other Filipino spies and Japanese soldiers, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and treasonably arrest and
apprehend several persons suspected of guerrilla activities, among
whom were Federico Tinamisan, Eustaquio Doga, Roque Tiologo,
Salvador Tedor, Tomas Trompeta, Agapito Trompeta, Andres Tayo,
Victorio Tuante, Manuel Teano, Matias Tirante, Rufo Tolate,
Celedonio Tupino, Alfredo Trompeta, Hilarion Toga and several
others, who were gathered in the Chapel at barrio Napnapan, where
the persons aforesaid were investigated, maltreated and tortured,
as a consequence of which Salvador Tedor died of the beating and
torture inflicted upon him by the herein accused and his
companions; that the following morning about thirty-seven persons
were taken to the yard of Valentina Amandorons house, where
Jesus Astrologo, Carlos Palma, Filipino co-spies of the accused, and
the Japanese killed by beheading Andres Tai, Victorio Tuante, Roque
Tiologo, Manuel Teano, Matias Tirania, Pufo Tulato, Agapito
Trompeta, Tomas Trompeta, Celedonio Tupino, Simeon Ledesma,
unconvincing.
The incident in the City Hall where, while tying the hands of the
detained policemen, he insulted them for being guerrillas, is very
clearly proven and is an eloquent proof of the accuseds adherence
to the enemy.
The argument is made that the accused was, at the most, merely
obeying superior orders in the suppression of guerrillas activities,
which in the opinion of his counsel, are outlawed by the rules of
war. But the evidence is clear that he identified himself with the
enemys cause by acting as a spy and causing the arrest of even his
close relatives to prevent them from taking part in the resistance
movement, and while guerrillas warfare may be unlawful from the
standpoint of the conqueror, it cannot be so regarded by those who,
by natural right, are trying to drive him out of their invaded
territory.
We find no merit in the appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment
below, with costs against the appellant.
witness rule, so we infer, that the accused and other Makapilis had
their headquarters in the enemy garrison at Gapan, Nueva Ecija;
that the accused was in Makapili military uniform; that he was
armed with rifle; and that he drilled with other Makapilis under a
Japanese instructor; . . . that during the same period, the accused
in Makapili military uniform and with a rifle, performed duties as
sentry at the Japanese garrison and Makapili headquarters in
Gapan, Nueva Ecija; that upon the liberation of Gapan, Nueva
Ecija, by the American forces, the accused and other Makapilis
retreated to the mountains with the enemy; and that the accused,
rifle in hand, later surrendered to the Americans.
Even the findings of the court recited above in quotations are not
borne out by the proof of two witnesses. No two of the prosecution
witnesses testified to a single one of the various acts of treason
imputed by them to the appellant. Those who gave evidence that
the accused took part in raids and seizure of personal property, and
performed sentry duties and military drills, referred to acts allegedly
committed on different dates without any two witnesses coinciding
in any one specified deed. There is only one item on which the
witnesses agree: it is that the defendant was a Makapili and was
seen by them in Makapili uniform carrying arms. Yet, again, on this
point it cannot be said that one witness is corroborated by another
if corroboration means that two witnesses have seen the accused
doing at least one particular thing, it a routine military chore, or just
walking or eating.
We take it that the mere fact of having joined a Makapili
organization is evidence of both adherence to the enemy and giving
him aid and comfort. Unless forced upon one against his will,
membership in the Makapili organization imports treasonable intent,
considering the purposes for which the organization was created,
which, according to the evidence, were to accomplish the
fulfillment of the obligations assumed by the Philippines in the Pact
of Alliance with the Empire of Japan; to shed blood and sacrifice
the lives of our people in order to eradicate Anglo-Saxon influence
in East Asia; to collaborate unreservedly and unstintedly with the
Imperial Japanese Army and Navy in the Philippines; and to fight
the common enemies. Adherence, unlike overt acts, need not be
proved by the oaths of two witnesses. Criminal intent and
knowledge may be gather from the testimony of one witness, or
from the nature of the act itself, or from the circumstances
surrounding the act. (Cramer vs. U.S. 65 Sup. Ct., 918.)
At the same time, being a Makapili is in itself constitutive of an
overt act. It is not necessary, except for the purpose of increasing
the punishment, that the defendant actually went to battle or
committed nefarious acts against his country or countrymen. The
December 2, 1948
G.R. No. L-1622THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee,vs.JUAN LANSANAS, defendant-appellant.
Manuel A. Concordia for appellant.First Assistant Solicitor General
Roberto A. Gianzon and Solicitor Antonio A. Torres for appellee.
Paras (Edgardo), J.:
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Peoples Court (Second
Division), finding the appellant guilty of treason and sentencing him
to reclusion perpetua and its accessory penalties and to pay a fine
of ten thousand pesos, plus the costs. Appellants conviction was
based only on counts V and VI of the information. The first charged
the appellant with having enlisted, joined and served in the
organization commonly known as Makapili. The second accused the
appellant of having led and accompanied a patrol of Japanese
soldiers and Makapilis to a raid in barrio Parian, municipality of
Calamba, Province of Laguna, resulting in the arrest of all the male
inhabitants of the barrio and their confinement in the Japanese
garrison in Calamba for three days and two nights without food, in
retaliation for the killing of one of appellants companions. .
We will concede, following appellants argument, that count V was
not established in accordance with the two-witness rule, since only
one witness (Marcial Flores) was specific in testifying that he knew
the appellant to be a Makapili because he used to persuade people,
in meetings held by him with others in different barrios, to join the
Makapili organization. This is, however, sufficient to prove
appellants adherence to the enemy, considering the purposes for
which the organization was created, namely, to accomplish the
fulfillment of the obligations assumed by the Philippines in the Pact
of Alliance with the Empire of Japan; to shed blood and sacrifice
the lives of our people in order to eradicate Anglo-Saxon influence
in East Asia; to collaborate unreservedly and unstintedly with the
Imperial Japanese Army and Navy in the Philippines; and to fight
the common enemies. (People vs. Adriano, L-477, June 30, 1947,
44 O.G. 4300.) 1
The appellant, with such proof adherence, has to be found guilty of
treason under count VI, because at least two witnesses (Marcial
Flores and Tereso Villar) had testified that the appellant played an
active role in bringing about the mass arrest and confinement of the
people of barrio Parian, a punitive measure that took place in
December, 1944, in reprisal for the killing of a Makapili. The fact
that said witnesses were not uniform on the points whether or not
November 3, 1906
CARSON, J.:
It further appears that the appellant, Tomas Puzon, united with the
conspirators through the agency of one Jose R. Muoz, who was
proven to have been a prime leader of the movement, in the
intimate confidence of Ricarte, and by him authorized to distribute
bonds and nominate and appoint certain officials, including a
brigadier-general of the signal corps of the proposed revolutionary
forces; that at the time when the conspiracy was being brought to a
head in the city of Manila, Puzon held several conferences with the
said Muoz whereat plans were made for the coming insurrection;
that at one of these conferences Muoz offered Puzon a commission
as brigadier-general of the signal corps and undertook to do his part
in organizing the troops; and that at a later conference he assured
the said Muoz that he had things in readiness, meaning thereby
that he had duly organized in accordance with the terms of his
commission.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Puzon at the trial declared that he had never united himself with the
conspirators; that he had accepted the appointment as brigadiergeneral of the signal corps of the revolutionary forces with no
intention of ever taking any further action in the matter, and merely
because he did not wish to vex his friend Muoz by refusing to do
so, and that when Muoz offered him the appointment as brigadiergeneral he did so in "a joking tone," and that he, Puzon, did not
know that Ricarte was in Manila organizing the conspiracy at that
time.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Q. Did you have any information that Ricarte was in these Islands
and with what object he came here? And if you know it to be true,
through whom did you get such information? - A. In the first place I
had notice of his coming to the Islands as well as his object by
reading the newspapers of Manila, and secondly because J. R.
Muoz told me the same on one occasion when I was in his house
to visit him.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Q. Are you a part of his new revolution presided over by Ricarte? A. Yes, sir.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Q. Did you accept the employment and did they give you any
commission for it? - A. Yes, sir; I accepted said employment and
although they gave me an order to organize in my brigade I did not
do it, because I had neither the confidence nor the will.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Q. If you didn't have faith in the said authorization nor the will to
carry out what was intrusted to you, why did you accept
employment as general of the brigade? - A. I accepted it on account
of friendship and not to vex a friend, but I never have the intention
the accused were charged with brigandage, the court held that,
aside from the possession of commissions in an insurgent band,
there was no evidence to show that it they had committed the crime
and, "moreover, that it appeared that they had never united with
any party of brigands and never had been in any way connected
with such parties unless the physical possession of these
appointments proved such relation," and that it appeared that each
one of the defendants "were separately approached at different
times by armed men while working in the field and were virtually
compelled to accept the commissions."
chanrobles virtual law library
In the case of the United States vs. Bernardo Manalo et al. there
was testimony that four appointments of officials in a revolutionary
army were found in a trunk in the house of one Valentin Colorado,
and the court in said case reaffirmed the doctrine that "the mere
possession of the documents of this kind is not sufficient to convict,"
and held, furthermore, that there was "evidence in the case that at
the time these papers were received by the appellant, Valentin
Colorado, he went to one of the assistant councilmen of the barrio
in which lived, a witness for the Government, showed him the
envelope, and stated to him he had received these papers; that he
didn't know what they were and requested this councilman to open
them. The coucilman did not wish to do that but took the envelope
and sent it to the councilman Jose Millora. We are satisfied that this
envelope contained the appointments in question and that the
appellant did not act under the appointment but immediately
reported the receipt of them to the authorities."
chanrobles virtual law library
chanroble
BELLOSILLO, J.:
EMILIANO CATANTAN and JOSE MACVEN URSAL alias "Bimbo"
were charged with violation of PD No. 532 otherwise known as the
Anti-Piracy and Highway Robbery Law of 1974 for having on 27
June 1993, while armed with a firearm and a bladed weapon,
acting in conspiracy with one another, by means of violence and
intimidation, wilfully and feloniously attacked, assaulted and
inflicted physical injuries on Eugene Pilapil and Juan Pilapil Jr. who
were then fishing in the seawaters of Tabogon, Cebu, and seized
their fishing boat, to their damage and prejudice. 1
The Regional Trial Court of Cebu, after trial, found both accused
Emiliano Catantan y Tayong and Jose Macven Ursal alias "Bimbo"
guilty of the crime charged and sentenced them to reclusion
perpetua. 2 Of the duo only Emiliano Catantan appealed.
In his appeal, accused Catantan contends that the trial court erred
in convicting him of piracy as the facts proved only constitute grave
coercion defined in Art. 286 of the Revised Penal Code and not
piracy under PD No. 532.
The evidence for the prosecution is that at 3:00 o'clock in the
morning of 27 June 1993, the Pilapil brothers Eugene, 21, and
Juan Jr., 18, were fishing in the sea some 3 kilometers away from
the shores of Tabogon, Cebu. Suddenly, another boat caught up
with them. One of them, later identified as the accused Emiliano
Catantan, bearded the pump boat of the Pilapils and leveled his
gun at Eugene. With his gun, Catantan struck Eugene on the left
cheekbone and ordered him and Juan Jr. to "dapa." 3 Then
Catantan told Ursal to follow him to the pumpboat of the Pilapils.
There they hogtied Eugene, forced him to lie down at the bottom of
the boat, covered him with a tarpaulin up to his neck, stepped on
him and ordered Juan Jr. to ferry them to Daan Tabogon. They left
behind the other pumpboat which the accused had earlier used
together with its passengers one of whom was visibly tied.
Noting that they were already far out into the sea, Eugene
reminded Catantan that they were now off-course but Catantan
told Eugene to keep quiet or he would be killed. Later, the engine
conked out and Juan Jr. was directed to row the boat. Eugene
asked to be set free so he could help but was not allowed; he was
threatened with bodily harm instead.
Meanwhile Juan Jr. managed to fix the engine, but as they went
farther out into the open sea the engine stalled again. This time
Eugene was allowed to assist his brother. Eugene's hands were
set free but his legs were tied to the outrigger. At the point of a tres
cantos 4 held by Ursal, Eugene helped row the boat.
As they passed the shoreline of Nipa, they saw another boat.
Catantan asked whose boat that was and the Pilapils told him that
it was operated by a certain Juanito and that its engine was new.
Upon learning this, Catantan ordered the Pilapil brothers to
approach the boat cautioning them however not to move or say
anything.
On the pretext that they were buying fish Catantan boarded the
"new" pumpboat. Once aboard he ordered the operator Juanito to
take them to Mungaz, another town of Cebu. When Juanito tried to
beg-off by saying that he would still pull up his net and harvest his
catch, Catantan drew his revolver and said, "You choose between
the two, or I will kill you." 5 Juanito, obviously terrified, immediately
obeyed and Ursal hopped in from the other pumpboat and joined
Catantan.
But, as Ursal was transferring to the "new" pumpboat, its outrigger
caught the front part of the pumpboat of the Pilapils so he kicked
hard its prow; it broke. The jolt threw Eugene into the sea and he
landed on the water headlong. Juan Jr. then untied his brother's
legs and the two swam together clinging to their boat. Fortunately
another pumpboat passed by and towed them safely ashore.
Section 2, par. (d), of PD No. 532, defines piracy as "any attack
upon or seizure of any vessel, or the taking away of the whole or
part thereof or its cargo, equipment, or the personal belongings of
the complement or passengers, irrespective of the value thereof,
by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or force
To sustain the defense and convert this case of piracy into one of
grave coercion would be to ignore the fact that a fishing vessel
cruising in Philippine waters was seized by the accused by means
of violence against or intimidation of persons. As Eugene Pilapil
testified, the accused suddenly approached them and boarded
their pumpboat and Catantan aimed his revolver at them as he
ordered complaining witness Eugene Pilapil to "dapa" or lie down
with face downwards, and then struck his face with a revolver,
hitting the lower portion of his left eye, after which, Catantan told
his victims at gun point to take them to Daan Tabogon.
The incident happened at 3:00 o'clock in the morning. The sudden
appearance of another pumpboat with four passengers, all
strangers to them, easily intimidated the Pilapil brothers that they
were impelled to submit in complete surrender to the marauders.
The moment Catantan jumped into the other pumpboat he had full
control of his victims. The sight of a drawn revolver in his hand
drove them to submission. Hence the issuance of PD No. 532
designed to avert situations like the case at bar and discourage
and prevent piracy in Philippine waters. Thus we cite the
succeeding "whereas" clauses of the decree
Whereas, reports from law-enforcement agencies reveal that
lawless elements are still committing acts of depredations upon the
persons and properties of innocent and defenseless inhabitants
who travel from one place to another, thereby disturbing the peace,
order and tranquility of the nation and stunting the economic and
social progress of the people;
Whereas, such acts of depredations constitute either piracy or
highway robbery/brigandage which are among the highest forms of
lawlessness condemned by the penal statutes of all countries; and,
as salary for nineteen days of work, and were told that the balance
would be remitted to their addresses. There was neither receipt nor
contracts of employment signed by the parties.
Accused-appellant Changco categorically denied the charge,
averring that he was at home sleeping on April 10, 1991. He
testified that he is the younger brother of Emilio Changco, Jr.
Accused-appellant Cheong San Hiong, also known as Ramzan Ali,
adduced evidence that he studied in Sydney, Australia, obtaining
the "Certificate" as Chief Officer, and later completed the course as
a "Master" of a vessel, working as such for two years on board a
vessel. He was employed at Navi Marine Services, Pte., Ltd. as Port
Captain. The company was engaged in the business of trading
petroleum, including shipoil, bunker lube oil, and petroleum to
domestic and international markets. It owned four vessels, one of
which was "Navi Pride."
On March 2, 1991, the day before "M/T Tabangao" was seized by
Emilio Changco and his cohorts, Hiong's name was listed in the
company's letter to the Mercantile Section of the Maritime
Department of the Singapore government as the radio telephone
operator on board the vessel "Ching Ma."
The company was then dealing for the first time with Paul Gan, a
Singaporean broker, who offered to sell to the former bunker oil for
the amount of 300,000.00 Singapore dollars. After the company
paid over one-half of the aforesaid amount to Paul Gan, the latter,
together with Joseph Ng, Operations Superintendent of the firm,
proceeded to the high seas on board "Navi Pride" but failed to locate
the contact vessel.
The transaction with Paul Gan finally pushed through on March 27,
1991. Hiong, upon his return on board the vessel "Ching Ma," was
assigned to supervise a ship-to-ship transfer of diesel oil off the port
of Singapore, the contact vessel to be designated by Paul Gan.
Hiong was ordered to ascertain the quantity and quality of the oil
and was given the amount of 300,000.00 Singapore Dollars for the
purchase. Hiong, together with Paul Gan, and the surveyor William
Yao, on board "Navi Pride" sailed toward a vessel called "M/T
Galilee". Hiong was told that "M/T Galilee" would be making the
transfer. Although no inspection of "Navi Pride" was made by the
port authorities before departure, Navi Marine Services, Pte., Ltd.
was able to procure a port clearance upon submission of General
Declaration and crew list. Hiong, Paul Gan, and the brokers were
not in the crew list submitted and did not pass through the
immigration. The General Declaration falsely reflected that the
vessel carried 11,900 tons.
crime. Under Section 3(a) of the said law, the penalty for the
principals of said crime is mandatory death. However, considering
that, under the 1987 Constitution, the Court cannot impose the
death penalty, the accused Roger Tulin, Virgilio Loyola, Andres
Infante, ]r., and Cecilio Changco are hereby each meted the penalty
of RECLUSION PERPETUA, with all the accessory penalties of the
law. The accused Cheong San Hiong is hereby meted the penalty of
RECLUSION PERPETUA, pursuant to Article 52 of the Revised Penal
Code in relation to Section 5 of PD 532. The accused Roger Tulin,
Virgilio Loyola, Andres Infante, Jr. and Cecilio Changco are hereby
ordered to return to the PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation
the "M/T Tabangao" or if the accused can no longer return the
same, the said accused are hereby ordered to remit, jointly and
severally, to said corporation the value thereof in the amount of
P11,240,000.00 Philippine Currency, with interests thereon, at the
rate of 6% per annum from March 2, 1991 until the said amount is
paid in full. All the accused including Cheong San Hiong are hereby
ordered to return to the Caltex Philippines, Inc. the cargo of the
"M/T Tabangao", or if the accused can no longer return the said
cargo to said corporation, all the accused are hereby condemned to
pay, jointly and severally, to the Caltex Refinery, Inc., the value of
said cargo in the amount of P40,426,793.87, Philippine Currency
plus interests until said amount is paid in full. After the accused
Cheong San Hiong has served his sentence, he shall be deported to
Singapore.
All the accused shall be credited for the full period of their detention
at the National Bureau of Investigation and the City Jail of Manila
during the pendency of this case provided that they agreed in
writing to abide by and comply strictly with the rules and
regulations of the City Jail of Manila and the National Bureau of
Investigation. With costs against all the accused.
SO ORDERED.
persons and thereafter they would pay the value of said goods to
Aurea and keep part of the profits for themselves. However these
people neither paid the value of the goods to Aurea nor returned
the goods to him (pp. 6-7, tsn). On July 15, 1979, Aurea was
informed by Antonio de Guzman that his group was held up near
Baluk- Baluk Island and that his companions were hacked (p. 8,
tsn). On July 16, 1979, the bodies of Rodolfo de Castro, Danilo
Hiolen and Anastacio de Guzman were brought by the PC
seaborne patrol to Isabela, Basilan (pp. 17-18, 29, tsn). Only
Antonio de Guzman survived the incident that caused the death of
his companions.
It appears that on July 10, 1979, Antonio de Guzman together with
his friends who were also travelling merchants like him, were on
their way to Pilas Island, Province of Basilan, to sell the goods they
received from Alberto Aurea. The goods they brought with them
had a total value of P18,000.00 (pp- 36-37, tsn). They left for Pilas
Island at 2:00 p.m. of July 10, 1979 on a pumpboat. They took
their dinner and slept that night in the house of Omar-kayam Kiram
at Pilas Island (pp. 37-38, tsn).
The following day, July 11, 1979, de Guzman's group, together with
Kiram and Julaide Siyoh, started selling their goods, They were
able to sell goods worth P 3,500.00. On July 12, 1979, the group,
again accompanied by Kiram and Siyoh, went to sell their goods at
another place, Sangbay, where they sold goods worth P 12,000.00
(pp. 40-42, tsn). They returned to Pilas Island at 5:00 o'clock in the
afternoon and again slept at Kiram's house. However that night
Kiram did not sleep in his house, and upon inquiry the following
day when Antonio de Guzman saw him, Kiram told the former that
he slept at the house of Siyoh.
On that day, July 13, 1979, the group of Antonio de Guzman went
to Baluk-Baluk, a place suggested by Kiram. They were able to sell
goods worth P3,000.00 (pp. 43-46, tsn). They returned to Pilas
Island for the night but Kiram did not sleep with them (p. 47, tsn).
The following day, July 14, 1979, the group again went to BalukBaluk accompanied by Kiram and Siyoh (pp. 48, 50 t.s.n), They
used the pumpboat of Kiram. Kiram and Siyoh were at that time
armed with 'barongs'. They arrived at Baluk-Baluk at about 10:00
o'clock in the morning and upon arrival at the place Kiram and
Siyoh going ahead of the group went to a house about 15 meters
away from the place where the group was selling its goods (pp. 5053, tsn). Kiram and Siyoh were seen by the group talking with two
persons whose faces the group saw but could not recognize (pp.
53-54, tsn). After selling their goods, the members of the group,
together with Kiram and Siyoh, prepared to return to Pilas Island.
They rode on a pumpboat where Siyoh positioned himself at the
front while Kiram operated the engine. On the way to Pilas Island,
Antonio de Guzman saw another pumpboat painted red and green
about 200 meters away from their pumpboat (pp. 55, tsn). Shortly
after" Kiram turned off the engine of their pumpboat. Thereafter
two shots were fired from the other pumpboat as it moved towards
them (pp. 57-58, tsn). There were two persons on the other
pumpboat who were armed with armantes. De Guzman
recognized them to be the same persons he saw Kiram conversing
with in a house at Baluk-Baluk Island. When the boat came close
to them, Kiram threw a rope to the other pumpboat which towed de
Guzman's pumpboat towards Mataja Island. On the way to Mataja
Island, Antonio de Guzman and his companions were divested of
their money and their goods by Kiram (pp. 59-61, tsn). Thereafter
Kiram and his companions ordered the group of de Guzman to
undress. Taking fancy on the pants of Antonio de Guzman, Kiram
put it on. With everybody undressed, Kiram said 'It was good to kill
all of you'. After that remark, Siyoh hacked Danilo Hiolen while
Kiram hacked Rodolfo de Castro. Antonio de Guzman jumped into
the water. As he was swimming away from the pumpboat, the two
companions of Kiram fired at him, injuring his back (pp. 62-65,
tsn). But he was able to reach a mangrove where he stayed till
nightfall. When he left the mangrove, he saw the dead bodies of
Anastacio de Guzman, Danilo Hiolen and Rodolfo de Castro. He
was picked up by a fishing boat and brought to the Philippine Army
station at Maluso where he received first aid treatment. Later he
was brought to the J.S. Alano Memorial Hospital at Isabela,
Basilan province (pp. 66-68, tsn).
On July 15, 1979, while waiting for the dead bodies of his
companions at the wharf, de Guzman saw Siyoh and Kiram. He
pointed them out to the PC and the two were arrested before they
could run. When arrested, Kiram was wearing the pants he took
from de Guzman and de Guzman had to ask Pat. Bayabas at the
Provincial Jail to get back his pants from Kiram (pp. 69-72, tsn).
Antonio de Guzman was physically examined at the J.S. Alano
Memorial Hospital at Isabela, Basilan and findings showed: