People vs Tulin _ 111709 _ August 30, 2001 _ J

7/12/2015 PeoplevsTulin:111709:August30,2001:J.Melo:ThirdDivision

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/aug2001/111709.htm 1/12

THIRDDIVISION

[G.R.No.111709.August30,2001]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs. ROGER P. TULIN,VIRGILIOI.LOYOLA,CECILIOO.CHANGCO,ANDRESC. INFANTE,CHEONGSANHIONG,andJOHNDOES,accusedappellants.

DECISIONMELO,J.:

ThisisoneoftheoldercaseswhichunfortunatelyhasremainedindocketoftheCourtforsometime.Itwasreassigned,togetherwithothersimilarcases,toundersignedponenteinpursuanceofA.M.No.00903SCdatedFebruary27,2001.

IntheeveningofMarch2,1991,M/TTabangao,acargovesselownedbythePNOCShippingandTransport Corporation, loaded with 2,000 barrels of kerosene, 2,600 barrels of regular gasoline, and40,000barrelsofdieseloil,witha totalvalueofP40,426,793,87.wassailingoff thecoastofMindoronearSilonayIsland.

The vessel, manned by 21 crew members, including Captain Edilberto Liboon, Second MateChristian Torralba, and Operator Isaias Ervas, was suddenly boarded, with the use of an aluminumladder,bysevenfullyarmedpiratesledbyEmilioChangco,olderbrotherofaccusedappellantCecilioChangco.Thepirates,includingaccusedappellantsTulin,Loyola,andInfante,Jr.werearmedwithM16rifles,.45and.38caliberhandguns,andbolos.Theydetainedthecrewandtookcompletecontrolofthevessel. Thereafter, accusedappellant Loyola ordered three crew members to paint over, using blackpaint,thename"M/TTabangao"onthefrontandrearportionsofthevessel,aswellasthePNOClogoonthechimneyofthevessel.Thevesselwasthenpaintedwiththename"Galilee,"withregistryatSanLorenzo,Honduras.The crewwas forced to sail toSingapore, all thewhile sendingmisleading radiomessagestoPNOCthattheshipwasundergoingrepairs.

PNOC, after losing radio contactwith the vessel, reported the disappearance of the vessel to thePhilippineCoastGuardandsecuredtheassistanceofthePhilippineAirForceandthePhilippineNavy.However,searchandrescueoperationsyieldednegativeresults.OnMarch9,1991, theshiparrivedinthe vicinity of Singapore and cruised around the area presumably to await another vessel which,however,failedtoarrive.Thepirateswerethusforcedtoreturnto thePhilippinesonMarch14,1991,arrivingatCalatagan,BatangasonMarch20,1991whereitremainedatsea.

OnMarch28,1991,the"M/TTabangao"againsailedtoandanchoredabout10to18nauticalmilesfromSingapore'sshorelinewhereanothervesselcalled"NaviPride"anchoredbesideit.EmilioChangcoorderedthecrewof"M/TTabangao"totransferthevessel'scargototheholdof"NaviPride".AccusedappellantCheongSanHiongsupervised thecrewof"NaviPride" in receiving thecargo.The transfer,afteraninterruption,withbothvesselsleavingthearea,wascompletedonMarch30,1991.

OnMarch30,1991,"M/TTabangao"returnedtothesameareaandcompletedthetransferofcargoto"NaviPride."

OnApril8,1991,"M/TTabangao"arrivedatCalatagan,Batangas,butthevesselremainedatsea.



OnApril10,1991,themembersofthecrewwerereleasedinthreebatcheswiththesternwarningnottoreporttheincidenttogovernmentauthoritiesforaperiodoftwodaysoruntilApril12,1991,otherwisetheywouldbekilled.ThefirstbatchwasfetchedfromtheshorelinebyanewlypaintedpassengerjeepdrivenbyaccusedappellantCecilioChangco,brotherofEmilioChangco,whobrought them to Imus,Cavite andgaveP20,000.00 toCaptainLiboon for fare of the crew in proceeding to their respectivehomes.ThesecondbatchwasfetchedbyaccusedappellantChangcoatmidnightofApril10,1991andwerebroughttodifferentplacesinMetroManila.

OnApril12,1991,theChiefEngineer,accompaniedbythemembersofthecrew,calledthePNOCShippingandTransportCorporationofficetoreporttheincident.ThecrewmemberswerebroughttotheCoast Guard Office for investigation. The incident was also reported to the National Bureau ofInvestigation where the officers and members of the crew executed sworn statements regarding theincident.

Aseriesofarrestswasthereaftereffectedasfollows:

a.OnMay 19, 1991, theNBI received verified information that the pirateswere present atU.K.Beach, Balibago, Calatagan, Batangas. After three days of surveillance, accusedappellant Tulin wasarrestedandbroughttotheNBIheadquartersinManila.

b.AccusedappellantsInfante,Jr.andLoyolawerearrestedbychanceatAguinaldoHiwaybyNBIagentsasthelatterwerepursuingthemastermind,whomanagedtoevadearrest.

c.OnMay20, 1991, accusedappellantsHiongandChangcowere arrested at the lobbyofAlphaHotelinBatangasCity.

OnOctober241991, an InformationchargingqualifiedpiracyorviolationofPresidentialDecreeNo.532(piracyinPhilippineWaters)wasfiledagainstaccusedappellants,asfollows:

TheundersignedStateProsecutoraccusesROGERP.TULIN,VIRGILIOI.LOYOLA,CECILIOO.CHANGCO,ANDRESC.INFANTE,andCHEONGSANHIONG,andnine(9)otherJOHNDOESofqualifiedpiracy(ViolationofP.D.No.532),committedasfollows:

ThatonoraboutandduringtheperiodfromMarch2toApril10,1991,bothdatesinclusive,andforsometimepriorandsubsequentthereto,andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,thesaidaccused,thenmanningamotorlaunchandarmedwithhighpoweredguns,conspiringandconfederatingtogetherandmutuallyhelpingoneanother,didthenandthere,wilfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslyfireupon,boardandseizewhileinthePhilippinewatersM/TPNOCTABANGCOloadedwithpetroleumproducts,togetherwiththecomplementandcrewmembers,employingviolenceagainstorintimidationofpersonsorforceuponthings,thendirectthevesseltoproceedtoSingaporewherethecargoeswereunloadedandthereafterreturnedtothePhilippinesonApril10,1991,inviolationoftheaforesaidlaw.

CONTRARYTOLAW.

(pp.11920,Rollo.)

ThiswasdocketedasCriminalCaseNo.9194896beforeBranch49oftheRegionalTrialCourtoftheNationalCapitalJudicialRegionstationedinManila.Uponarraignment,accusedappellantspleadednotguiltytothecharge.Trialthereuponensued.

Accusedappellants Tulin, Infante, Jr., and Loyola, notwithstanding some inconsistencies in theirtestimonyastowheretheywereonMarch1,1991,maintainedthedefenseofdenial,anddisputedthecharge, as well as the transfer of any cargo from "M/T Tabangao" to the "Navi Pride." All of themclaimedhavingtheirownrespectivesourcesoflivelihood.Theirstoryis to theeffect thatonMarch2,



1991, while they were conversing by the beach, a red speedboat with Captain Edilberto Liboon andSecondMateChristianTorralbaonboard,approached theseashore.CaptainLiboon inquired from thethreeiftheywantedtoworkinavessel.Theyweretoldthattheworkwaslightandthateachworkerwasto be paid P3,000.00 amonthwith additional compensation if theyworked beyond that period. Theyagreed even though they had no seagoing experience. On board, they cooked, cleaned the vessel,preparedcoffee,andranerrandsfortheofficers.TheydeniedhavinggonetoSingapore,claimingthatthevesselonlywent toBatangas.Uponarrival thereat in themorningofMarch21,1991, theywerepaidP1,000.00eachassalaryfornineteendaysofwork,andweretoldthatthebalancewouldberemittedtotheiraddresses.Therewasneitherreceiptnorcontractsofemploymentsignedbytheparties.

AccusedappellantChangcocategoricallydeniedthecharge,averringthathewasathomesleepingonApril10,1991.HetestifiedthatheistheyoungerbrotherofEmilioChangco,Jr.

AccusedappellantCheongSanHiong,alsoknownasRamzanAli,adducedevidencethathestudiedinSydney,Australia, obtaining the "Certificate" asChiefOfficer, and later completed the course as a"Master"ofavessel,workingassuchfortwoyearsonboardavessel.HewasemployedatNaviMarineServices, Pte., Ltd. as PortCaptain. The companywas engaged in the business of trading petroleum,includingshipoil,bunker lubeoil, andpetroleum todomesticand internationalmarkets.It owned fourvessels,oneofwhichwas"NaviPride."

OnMarch2,1991,thedaybefore"M/TTabangao"wasseizedbyEmilioChangcoandhiscohorts,Hiong'snamewaslistedinthecompany'slettertotheMercantileSectionoftheMaritimeDepartmentoftheSingaporegovernmentastheradiotelephoneoperatoronboardthevessel"ChingMa."

ThecompanywasthendealingforthefirsttimewithPaulGan,aSingaporeanbroker,whoofferedtoselltotheformerbunkeroilfortheamountof300,000.00Singaporedollars.Afterthecompanypaidover onehalf of the aforesaid amount to Paul Gan, the latter, together with Joseph Ng, OperationsSuperintendent of the firm, proceeded to the high seas on board "Navi Pride" but failed to locate thecontactvessel.

ThetransactionwithPaulGanfinallypushedthroughonMarch27,1991.Hiong,uponhisreturnonboardthevessel"ChingMa,"wasassignedtosuperviseashiptoshiptransferofdieseloilofftheportofSingapore,thecontactvesseltobedesignatedbyPaulGan.Hiongwasorderedtoascertainthequantityandqualityoftheoilandwasgiventheamountof300,000.00SingaporeDollarsforthepurchase.Hiong,togetherwithPaulGan, and the surveyorWilliamYao, onboard "NaviPride" sailed toward a vesselcalled "M/TGalilee".Hiongwas told that "M/TGalilee"would bemaking the transfer.Although noinspectionof"NaviPride"wasmadebytheportauthoritiesbeforedeparture,NaviMarineServices,Pte.,Ltd.wasabletoprocureaportclearanceuponsubmissionofGeneralDeclarationandcrewlist.Hiong,PaulGan,andthebrokerswerenotinthecrewlistsubmittedanddidnotpassthroughtheimmigration.TheGeneralDeclarationfalselyreflectedthatthevesselcarried11,900tons.

OnMarch28,1991,"NaviPride"reachedthelocationof"M/TGalilee".ThebrokersthentoldtheCaptainofthevesseltoshipsidewith"M/TGalilee"andthentransferoftheoiltranspired.HiongandthesurveyorWilliamYaomettheCaptainof"M/TGalilee,"called"CaptainBobby"(wholaterturnedouttobeEmilioChangco).HiongclaimedthathedidnotaskforthefullnameofChangconordidheaskforthelatter'spersonalcard.

Uponcompletionofthetransfer,Hiongtookthesoundingsofthetanksinthe"NaviPride"andtooksamplesofthecargo.Thesurveyorpreparedthesurveyreportwhich"CaptainBobby"signedunderthename"RobertoCastillo."HiongthenhandedthepaymenttoPaulGanandWilliamYao.UponarrivalatSingaporeinthemorningofMarch29,1991,Hiongreportedthequantityandqualityofthecargotothecompany.

Thereafter,Hiongwasagainaskedtosuperviseanothertransferofoilpurchasedbythefirm"from



"M/TGalilee" to "Navi Pride." The same procedure as in the first transfer was observed. This time,Hiongwastoldthatthattherewerefoodanddrinks,includingbeer,purchasedbythecompanyforthecrewof"M/TGalilee.ThetransfertooktenhoursandwascompletedonMarch30,1991.PaulGanwaspaidinfullforthetransfer.

OnApril29or30,1991,EmilioChangcointimatedtoHiongthathehadfourvesselsandwantedtooffer itscargo tocargooperators.Hiongwasasked toactasabrokerorshipagent for thesaleof thecargoinSingapore.HiongwenttothePhilippinestodiscussthematterwithEmilioChangco,wholaidoutthedetailsofthenewtransfer,thistimewith"M/TPolaris"ascontactvessel.HiongwastoldthatthevesselwasscheduledtoarriveattheportofBatangasthatweekend.AfterbeingbilletedatAlphaHotelinBatangasCity,whereHiongchecked inunder thename"SONNYCSH."Apersonby thenameof"KEVIN OCAMPO," who later turned out to be Emilio Changco himself, also checked in at AlphaHotel.FromaccusedappellantCecilioChangco,Hiongfoundoutthatthevesselwasnotarriving.HiongwasthereafterarrestedbyNBIagents.

Aftertrial,a95pagedecisionwasrenderedconvictingaccusedappellantsofthecrimecharged.Thedispositiveportionofsaiddecisionreads:

WHEREFORE,inthelightoftheforegoingconsiderations,judgmentisherebyrenderedbythisCourtfindingtheaccusedRogerTulin,VirgilioLoyola,AndresInfante,Jr.andCecilioChangcoguiltybeyondreasonabledoubt,asprincipals,ofthecrimeofpiracyinPhilippineWatersdefinedinSection2(d)ofPresidentialDecreeNo.532andtheaccusedCheongSanHiong,asaccomplice,tosaidcrime.UnderSection3(a)ofthesaidlaw,thepenaltyfortheprincipalsofsaidcrimeismandatorydeath.However,consideringthat,underthe1987Constitution,theCourtcannotimposethedeathpenalty,theaccusedRogerTulin,VirgilioLoyola,AndresInfante,]r.,andCecilioChangcoareherebyeachmetedthepenaltyofRECLUSIONPERPETUA,withalltheaccessorypenaltiesofthelaw.TheaccusedCheongSanHiongisherebymetedthepenaltyofRECLUSIONPERPETUA,pursuanttoArticle52oftheRevisedPenalCodeinrelationtoSection5ofPD532.TheaccusedRogerTulin,VirgilioLoyola,AndresInfante,Jr.andCecilioChangcoareherebyorderedtoreturntothePNOCShippingandTransportCorporationthe"M/TTabangao"oriftheaccusedcannolongerreturnthesame,thesaidaccusedareherebyorderedtoremit,jointlyandseverally,tosaidcorporationthevaluethereofintheamountofP11,240,000.00PhilippineCurrency,withintereststhereon,attherateof6%perannumfromMarch2,1991untilthesaidamountispaidinfull.AlltheaccusedincludingCheongSanHiongareherebyorderedtoreturntotheCaltexPhilippines,Inc.thecargoofthe"M/TTabangao",oriftheaccusedcannolongerreturnthesaidcargotosaidcorporation,alltheaccusedareherebycondemnedtopay,jointlyandseverally,totheCaltexRefinery,Inc.,thevalueofsaidcargointheamountofP40,426,793.87,PhilippineCurrencyplusinterestsuntilsaidamountispaidinfull.AftertheaccusedCheongSanHionghasservedhissentence,heshallbedeportedtoSingapore.

AlltheaccusedshallbecreditedforthefullperiodoftheirdetentionattheNationalBureauofInvestigationandtheCityJailofManiladuringthependencyofthiscaseprovidedthattheyagreedinwritingtoabidebyandcomplystrictlywiththerulesandregulationsoftheCityJailofManilaandtheNationalBureauofInvestigation.Withcostsagainstalltheaccused.

SOORDERED.

(pp.149150,Rollo.)

The matter was then elevated to this Court. The arguments of accusedappellants may besummarizedasfollows:



RogerP.TulinVirgilioLoyolaAndresC.InfanteJr.,andCecilioO.Changco

AccusedappellantsTulin,Loyola,Infante,Jr.,andCecilioChangcoassertthatthetrialcourterredin allowing them to adopt the proceedings taken during the time theywere being represented byMr.Tomas Posadas, a nonlawyer, thereby depriving them of their constitutional right to procedural dueprocess.

Inthisregard,saidaccusedappellantsnarratethatMr.Posadasenteredhisappearanceascounselforall of them. However, in the course of the proceedings, or on February 11, 1992, the trial courtdiscovered thatMr.Posadaswasnotamemberof thePhilippineBar.ThiswasafterMr.Posadashadpresentedandexaminedsevenwitnessesfortheaccused.

Further,accusedappellantsTulin,Loyola,Infante,Cecilio,Changcouniformlycontendthatduringthe custodial investigation, they were subjected to physical violence were forced to sign statementswithoutbeinggiventheopportunitytoreadthecontentsofthesameweredeniedassistanceofcounsel,andwerenotinformedoftheirrights,inviolationoftheirconstitutionalrights,

Saidaccusedappellantsalsoargue that the trial court erred in finding that theprosecutionprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtthattheycommittedthecrimeofqualifiedpiracy.Theyallegethatthepirateswereoutnumberedbythecrewwhototaled22andwhowerenotguardedatalltimes.Thecrew,sotheseaccusedappellantsconclude,couldhaveoverpoweredtheallegedpirates.

CheongSanHiong

Inhisbrief,Cheongarguesthat:(1)RepublicActNo.7659ineffectobliteratedthecrimecommittedby him (2) the trial court erred in declaring that the burden is lodged on him to prove by clear andconvincingevidencethathehadnoknowledgethatEmilioChangcoandhiscohortsattackedandseizedthe"M/TTabangao"and/orthatthecargoofthevesselwasstolenorthesubjectoftheftorrobberyorpiracy (3) the trialcourterred in findinghimguiltyasanaccomplice to thecrimeofqualifiedpiracyunderSection4ofPresidentialDecreeNo.532 (AntiPiracy andAntiRobberyLawof1974) (4) thetrialcourterredinconvictingandpunishinghimasanaccomplicewhentheactsallegedlycommittedbyhimweredoneorexecutedoutsideofPhilippinewatersandterritory,strippingthePhilippinecourtsofjurisdiction to hold him for trial, to convict, and sentence (5) the trial court erred inmaking factualconclusionswithoutevidenceonrecordtoprovethesameandwhichinfactarecontrarytotheevidenceadduced during trial (6) the trial court erred in convicting him as an accomplice under Section 4 ofPresidentialDecreeNo.532whenhewaschargedasaprincipalbydirectparticipationundersaiddecree,thusviolatinghis constitutional right tobe informedof thenature andcauseof the accusationagainsthim.

Cheong also posits that the evidence against the other accusedappellants do not prove anyparticipationonhispartinthecommissionofthecrimeofqualifiedpiracy.Hefurtherarguesthathehadnot in any way participated in the seajacking of "M/T Tabangao" and in committing the crime ofqualifiedpiracy,andthathewasnotawarethatthevesselanditscargowerepirated.

Aslegalbasisforhisappeal,heexplainsthathewaschargedundertheinformationwithqualifiedpiracyasprincipalunderSection2ofPresidentialDecreeNo.532whichreferstoPhilippinewaters.Inthecaseatbar,hearguesthathewasconvictedforactsdoneoutsidePhilippinewatersorterritory.FortheStatetohavecriminaljurisdiction,theactmusthavebeencommittedwithinitsterritory.

Weaffirmtheconvictionofalltheaccusedappellants.



The issues of the instant casemay be summarized as follows: (1)what are the legal effects andimplicationsofthefactthatanonlawyerrepresentedaccusedappellantsduringthetrial?(2)whatarethe legaleffectsand implicationsof theabsenceofcounselduring thecustodial investigation?(3)didthetrialcourterrinfindingthattheprosecutionwasabletoprovebeyondreasonabledoubtthataccusedappellantscommittedthecrimeofqualifiedpiracy?(4)didRepublicActNo.7659obliteratethecrimecommitted by accusedappellant Cheong? and (5) can accusedappellant Cheong be convicted asaccomplicewhenhewasnotchargedassuchandwhentheactsallegedlycommittedbyhimweredoneorexecutedoutsidePhilippinewatersandterritory?

On the first issue, the record reveals that amanifestation (Exhibit "20",Record)wasexecutedbyaccusedappellantsTulin,Loyola,Changco,andInfante,Jr.onFebruary11,1991,statingthattheywereadoptingtheevidenceadducedwhentheywererepresentedbyanonlawyer.Suchwaiveroftherighttosufficientrepresentationduringthetrialascoveredbythedueprocessclauseshallonlybevalidifmadewith the full assistance of a bona fide lawyer.During the trial, accusedappellants, as represented byAtty.AbdulBasar,madeacategoricalmanifestation that saidaccusedappellantswereapprisedof thenature and legal consequences of the subjectmanifestation, and that they voluntarily and intelligentlyexecuted the same.They also affirmed the truthfulness of its contentswhen asked in open court (tsn,February11,1992,pp.759).Itistruethatanaccusedpersonshallbeentitledtobepresentandtodefendhimselfinpersonandbycounselateverystageoftheproceedings,fromarraignmenttopromulgationofjudgment(Section1,Rule115,RevisedRulesofCriminalProcedure).Thisishingedonthefactthatalaymanisnotversedonthetechnicalitiesoftrial.However,itisalsoprovidedbylawthat"[r]ightsmaybewaived,unlessthewaiveriscontrarytolaw,publicorder,publicpolicy,morals,orgoodcustomsorprejudicial to a thirdpersonwith right recognizedby law." (Article6,CivilCodeof thePhilippines).Thus, the same section ofRule 115 adds that "[u]ponmotion, the accusedmay be allowed to defendhimselfinpersonwhenitsufficientlyappearstothecourtthathecanproperlyprotecthisrightswithouttheassistanceofcounsel."Byanalogy ,butwithoutprejudice to thesanctions imposedby lawfor theillegal practice of law, it is amply shown that the rights of accusedappellants were sufficiently andproperlyprotectedbytheappearanceofMr.TomasPosadas.Anexaminationoftherecordwillshowthatheknew the technical rulesofprocedure.Hence,we rule that therewasavalidwaiverof the right tosufficient representation during the trial, considering that it was unequivocally, knowingly, andintelligentlymadeandwith the fullassistanceofabona fide lawyer,Atty.AbdulBasar.Accordingly,denial of due process cannot be successfully invoked where a valid waiver of rights has been made(Peoplevs.Serzo,274SCRA553[1997]Saysonvs.People,166SCRA680[1988]).

However,wemustquicklyadd that theright tocounselduringcustodial investigationmaynotbewaivedexceptinwritingandinthepresenceofcounsel.

Section12,ArticleIIIoftheConstitutionreads:

SEC.12.(1)Anypersonunderinvestigationforthecommissionofanoffenseshallhavetherighttobeinformedofhisrighttoremainsilentandtohavecompetentandindependentcounselpreferablyofhisownchoice.Ifthepersoncannotaffordtheservicesofcounsel,hemustbeprovidedwithone.Theserightscannotbewaivedexceptinwritingandinthepresenceofcounsel.

(2)Notorture,force,violence,threat,intimidation,oranyothermeanswhichvitiatethefreewillshallbeusedagainsthim.Secretdetentionplaces,solitary,incommunicado,orothersimilarformsofdetentionareprohibited.

(3)AnyconfessionoradmissionobtainedinviolationofthisorSection17hereofshallbeinadmissibleinevidenceagainsthim.

(4)Thelawshallprovideforpenalandcivilsanctionsforviolationsofthissectionaswellas



compensationtoandrehabilitationofvictimsoftortureorsimilarpractices,andtheirfamilies.

SuchrightsoriginatedfromMirandav.Arizona(384U.S.436[1966])whichgavebirthtothesocalledMirandadoctrinewhichistotheeffectthatpriortoanyquestioningduringcustodialinvestigation,thepersonmustbewarnedthathehasarighttoremainsilent,thatanystatementhegivesmaybeusedasevidence against him, and that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, either retained orappointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is madevoluntarily,knowingly,andintelligently.TheConstitutionevenaddsthemorestringentrequirementthatthewaivermustbeinwritingandmadeinthepresenceofcounsel.

Saliently, theabsenceofcounselduringtheexecutionof thesocalledconfessionsof theaccusedappellantsmaketheminvalid.Infact,theverybasicreadingoftheMirandarightswasnotevenshowninthe case at bar. Paragraph [3] of the aforestated Section 12 sets forth the socalled "fruit from thepoisonous tree doctrine," a phrase minted byMr. Justice Felix Frankfurter in the celebrated case ofNardonevs.UnitedStates(308U.S.388[1939]).According to this rule,once theprimarysource(the"tree") is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the "fruit")derivedfromitisalsoinadmissible.TheruleisbasedontheprinciplethatevidenceillegallyobtainedbytheState should not be used to gain other evidence because the originally illegally obtained evidencetaints all evidence subsequently obtained (People vs.Alicando, 251SCRA293 [1995]).Thus, in thiscase,theuncounselledextrajudicialconfessionsofaccusedappellants,withoutavalidwaiveroftherighttocounsel,areinadmissibleandwhateverinformationisderivedtherefromshallberegardedaslikewiseinadmissibleinevidenceagainstthem.

However,regardlessoftheinadmissibilityofthesubjectconfessions,thereissufficientevidencetoconvictaccusedappellantswithmoralcertainty.Weagreewiththesounddeductionofthetrialcourtthatindeed,EmilioChangco(Exhibits"U"and"UU")andaccusedappellantsTulin,Loyola,.andInfante,Jr.didconspireandconfederatetocommitthecrimecharged.Inthewordsofthentrialjudge,nowJusticeRomeoJ.CallejooftheCourtofAppeals

...TheProsecutionpresentedtotheCourtanarrayofwitnesses,officersandmembersofthecrewofthe"M/TTabangao"noless,whoidentifiedandpointedtothesaidAccusedasamongthosewhoattackedandseized,the"M/TTabangao"onMarch2,1991,atabout6:30o'clockintheafternoon,offLubangIsland,Mindoro,withitscargo,andbroughtthesaidvessel,withitscargo,andtheofficersandcrewofthevessel,inthevicinityofHorseboughLighthouse,aboutsixtysixnauticalmilesofftheshorelineofSingaporeandsolditscargototheAccusedCheongSanHionguponwhichthecargowasdischargedfromthe"M/TTabangao"tothe"NaviPride"forthepriceofabout$500,000.00(AmericanDollars)onMarch29,and30,1991...

xxx

xxx

xxx

TheMaster,theofficersandmembersofthecrewofthe"M/TTabangao"wereonboardthevesselwiththeAccusedandtheircohortsfromMarch2,1991uptoApril10,1991orformorethanone(1)month.TherecanbenoscintillaofdoubtinthemindoftheCourtthattheofficersandcrewofthevesselcouldanddidseeandidentifytheseajackersandtheirleader.Infact,immediatelyaftertheAccusedweretakenintocustodybytheoperativesoftheNationalBureauofInvestigation,BenjaminSuyo,NorbertoSenosa,ChristianTorralbaandIsaiasWervasexecutedtheir"JointAffidavit"(Exhibit"B")andpointedtoandidentifiedthesaidAccusedassomeofthepirates.



xxx

xxx

xxx

Indeed,whentheytestifiedbeforethisCourtontheirdefense,thethree(3)AccusedadmittedtotheCourtthatthey,infact,boardedthesaidvesselintheeveningofMarch21991andremainedonboardwhenthevesselsailedtoits,destination,whichturnedouttobeofftheportofSingapore.

(pp.106112,Rollo.)

Wealsoagreewiththetrialcourt'sfindingthataccusedappellants'defenseofdenialisnotsupportedbyanyhardevidencebuttheirbaretestimony.Greaterweightisgiventothecategoricalidentificationofthe accused by the prosecution witnesses than to the accused's plain denial of participation in thecommissionofthecrime(Peoplev.Baccay,284SCRA296[1998]).Instead,accusedappellantsTulin,Loyola,andInfante,Jr.narratedapatentlydesperatetalethattheywerehiredbythreecompletestrangers(allegedlyCaptainEdilbertoLiboon,SecondMateChristianTorralba,andtheircompanion)whilesaidaccusedappellantswereconversingwithoneanotheralongtheseashoreatApkaya,Balibago,Calatagan,Batangas,toworkonboardthe"M/TTabangao"whichwasthenanchoredoffshore.Andreadily,saidaccusedappellantsagreedtoworkascooksandhandymenforanindefiniteperiodoftimewithoutevensayinggoodbyetotheirfamilies,withoutevenknowingtheirdestinationorthedetailsoftheirvoyage,withoutthepersonaleffectsneededforalongvoyageatsea.Suchevidenceisincredibleandclearlynotinaccordwithhumanexperience.Aspointedoutbythetrialcourt,itisincrediblethatCaptainLiboon,SecondMateTorralba,andtheircompanion"hadtoleavethevesselat9:30o'clockintheeveningandventureinacompletelyunfamiliarplacemerelytorecruitfive(5)cooksorhandymen(p.113,Rollo)."

AnentaccusedappellantChangco'sdefenseofdenialwiththealibithatonMay14and17,hewasathisplaceofworkandthatonApril10,1991,hewasinhishouseinBacoor,Cavite,sleeping,sufficeittostatethatalibiisfundamentallyandinherentlyaweakdefense,muchmoresowhenuncorroboratedbyotherwitnesses (People v.Adora, 275 SCRA 441 [1997]) considering that it is easy to fabricate andconcoct,anddifficulttodisprove.Accusedappellantmustadduceclearandconvincingevidencethat,atabout midnight on April 10, 1991, it was physically impossible for him to have been in Calatagan,Batangas.Changconotonlyfailedtodothis,hewaslikewiseunabletoprovethathewasinhisplaceofworkonthedatesaforestated.

Itisdoctrinalthatthetrialcourt'sevaluationofthecredibilityofatestimonyisaccordedthehighestrespect,fortrialcourtshaveanuntrammeledopportunitytoobservedirectlythedemeanorofwitnessesand, thus, todeterminewhether a certainwitness is telling the truth (Peoplev.Obello, 284SCRA79[1998]).

We likewiseuphold the trialcourt's findingofconspiracy.Aconspiracyexistswhen twoormorepersonscometoanagreementconcerningthecommissionofafelonyanddecidetocommitit(Article8,RevisedPenalCode).Tobeaconspirator,oneneednotparticipateineverydetailofexecutionheneednoteventakepartineveryactorneednotevenknowtheexactparttobeperformedbytheothersintheexecutionoftheconspiracy.Asnotedbythetrialcourt,therearetimeswhenconspiratorsareassignedseparateanddifferent taskswhichmayappearunrelatedtooneanother,but infact,constituteawholeandcollectiveefforttoachieveacommoncriminaldesign.

We affirm the trial court's finding that Emilio Changco, accused appellants Tulin, Loyola, andInfante, Jr. and others, were the ones assigned to attack and seize the "M/T Tabangao" off Lubang,Mindoro,whileaccusedappellantCecilioChangcowastofetchthemasterandthemembersofthecrewfrom the shoreline of Calatagan, Batangas after the transfer, and bring them to Imus, Cavite, and to



providethecrewandtheofficersofthevesselwithmoneyfortheirfareandfoodprovisionsontheirwayhome.Theseactshadtobewellcoordinated.AccusedappellantCecilioChangconeednotbepresentatthetimeoftheattackandseizureof"M/TTabangao"sinceheperformedhistaskinviewofanobjectivecommontoallotheraccusedappellants.

Of notable importance is the connection of accusedappellants to one another. AccusedappellantCecilio Changco is the younger brother of Emilio Changco (aka Captain Bobby/Captain RobertoCastillo/Kevin Ocampo), owner of PhilAsia Shipping Lines. Cecilio worked for his brother in saidcorporation.Their residences are approximately six or seven kilometers away from each other. Theirfamilies are close.Accusedappellant Tulin, on the other hand, has knownCecilio since their parentswereneighborsinAplaya,Balibago,Calatagan,Batangas.AccusedappellantLoyola'swifeisarelativeof theChangcobrothersbyaffinity .Besides,LoyolaandEmilioChangcohadbothbeenaccused inaseajackingcaseregarding"M/TIslaLuzon"anditscargoofsteelcoilsandplatesoffCebuandBoholin1989. Emilio Changco (aka Kevin Ocampo) was convicted of the crime while Loyola at that timeremainedatlarge.

As for accusedappellant Hiong, he ratiocinates that he can no longer be convicted of piracy inPhilippinewatersasdefinedandpenalizedinSections2[d]and3[a],respectivelyofPresidentialDecreeNo.532becauseRepublicActNo.7659(effectiveJanuary1,1994)whichamendedArticle122oftheRevised Penal Code, has impliedly superseded Presidential Decree No. 532. He reasons out thatPresidentialDecreeNo.532hasbeenrendered"superfluousorduplicitous"becausebothArticle122ofthe Revised Penal Code, as amended, and Presidential Decree No. 532 punish piracy committed inPhilippinewaters.Hemaintainsthatinordertoreconcilethetwolaws,theword"anyperson"mentionedinSection1[d]ofPresidentialDecreeNo.532mustbeomittedsuchthatPresidentialDecreeNo.532shallonlyapplytooffenderswhoaremembersofthecomplementortopassengersofthevessel,whereasRepublic Act No. 7659 shall apply to offenders who are neither members of the complement orpassengersofthevessel,hence,excludinghimfromthecoverageofthelaw.

Article122oftheRevisedPenalCode,usedtoprovide:

Article122.Piracyingeneralandmutinyonthehighseas.Thepenaltyofreclusiontemporalshallbeinflicteduponanypersonwho,onthehighseas,shallattackorseizeavesselor,notbeingamemberofitscomplementnorapassenger,shallseizethewholeorpartofthecargoofsaidvessel,itsequipment,orpersonalbelongingsofitscomplementorpassengers.

(Underscoringsupplied.)

Article122,asamendedbyRepublicActNo.7659January1,1994),reads:

Article122.PiracyingeneralandmutinyonthehighseasorinPhilippinewaters.Thepenaltyofreclusionperpetuashallbeinflicteduponanypersonwho,onthehighseas,orinPhilippinewaters,shallattackorseizeavesselor,beingamemberofitscomplementnorapassenger,shallseizethewholeorpartofthecargoofsaidvessel,itsequipment,orpersonalbelongingsofitscomplementorpassengers.

(Underscoringours)

Ontheotherhand,Section2ofPresidentialDecreeNo.532provides:

SEC.2.DefinitionofTerms.Thefollowingshallmeanandbeunderstood,asfollows:

d.Piracy.Anyattackuponorseizureofanyvessel,orthetakingawayofthewholeorpartthereoforitscargo,equipment,orthepersonalbelongingsofitscomplementorpassengers,irrespectiveofthevaluethereof,bymeansofviolenceagainstorintimidationofpersonsorforceuponthings,committedbyany



person.includingapassengerormemberofthecomplementofsaidvesselinPhilippinewaters,shallbeconsideredaspiracy.Theoffendersshallbeconsideredaspiratesandpunishedashereinafterprovided(underscoringsupplied).

Tosummarize,Article122oftheRevisedPenalCode,beforeitsamendment,providedthatpiracymust be committed on the high seas by any person not amember of its complement nor a passengerthereof.Upon its amendment byRepublicActNo. 7659, the coverage of the pertinent provisionwaswidened to include offenses committed "in Philippinewaters." On the other hand, under PresidentialDecreeNo.532(issuedin1974),thecoverageofthelawonpiracyembracesanyperson including"apassengerormemberofthecomplementofsaidvesselinPhilippinewaters."Hence,passengerornot,amemberofthecomplementornot,anypersoniscoveredbythelaw.

RepublicActNo.7659neithersupersedednoramendedtheprovisionsonpiracyunderPresidentialDecreeNo. 532.There is no contradictionbetween the two laws.There is likewiseno ambiguity andhence,thereisnoneedtoconstrueorinterpretthelaw.Allthepresidentialdecreedidwastowidenthecoverageofthelaw,inkeepingwiththeintenttoprotectthecitizenryaswellasneighboringstatesfromcrimesagainst thelawofnations.Asexpressedinoneof the"whereas"clausesofPresidentialDecreeNo. 532, piracy is "among the highest forms of lawlessness condemned by the penal statutes of allcountries." For this reason, piracy under the Article 122, as amended, and piracy under PresidentialDecreeNo.532existharmoniouslyasseparatelaws.

Asregardsthecontentionthatthetrialcourtdidnotacquirejurisdictionoverthepersonofaccusedappellant Hiong since the crime was committed outside Philippine waters, suffice it to state thatunquestionably,theattackonandseizureof"M/TTabangao"(renamed"M/TGalilee"bythepirates)andits cargo were committed in Philippine waters, although the captive vessel was later brought by thepirates toSingaporewhereitscargowasoffloaded, transferred,andsold.AndsuchtransferwasdoneunderaccusedappellantHiong'sdirectsupervision.AlthoughPresidentialDecreeNo.532requiresthattheattackandseizureofthevesselanditscargobecommittedinPhilippinewaters,thedispositionbythepiratesofthevesselanditscargoisstilldeemedpartoftheactofpiracy,hence,thesameneednotbecommittedinPhilippinewaters.

Moreover,piracyfallsunderTitleOneofBookTwoof theRevisedPenalCode.Assuch, it isanexception to theruleon territoriality incriminal law.Thesameprincipleapplieseven ifHiong, in theinstant case,were charged, notwith a violation of qualified piracy under the penal code but under aspeciallaw,PresidentialDecreeNo.532whichpenalizespiracyinPhilippinewaters.Verily,PresidentialDecreeNo.532shouldbeappliedwithmoreforceheresinceitspurposeispreciselytodiscourageandprevent piracy in Philippinewaters (People v.Catantan, 278 SCRA761 [1997]). It is likewise,wellsettledthatregardlessofthelawpenalizingthesame,piracyisareprehensiblecrimeagainstthewholeworld(Peoplev.Lollo,43Phil.19[1922]).

However,doesthisconstituteaviolationofaccusedappellant'sconstitutionalrighttobeinformedofthenatureandcauseoftheaccusationagainsthimonthegroundthathewasconvictedasanaccompliceunder Section 4 of PresidentialDecreeNo. 532 even though hewas charged as a principal by directparticipationunderSection2ofsaidlaw?

Thetrialcourtfoundthattherewasinsufficiencyofevidenceshowing:

(a)thataccusedappellantHiongdirectlyparticipatedintheattackandseizureof"M/TTabangao"and its cargo (b) that he induced Emilio Changco and his group in the attack and seizure of "M/TTabangao"and its cargo ( c) and thathis actwas indispensable in the attackonand seizureof "M/TTabangao"anditscargo.Nevertheless,thetrialcourtfoundthataccusedappellantHiong'sparticipationwasindisputablyonewhichaidedorabettedEmilioChangcoandhisbandofpiratesinthedispositionofthestolencargounderSection4ofPresidentialDecreeNo.532whichprovides:



SEC.4.Aidingpiratesorhighwayrobbers/brigandsorabettingpiracyorhighwayrobberybrigandage.Anypersonwhoknowinglyandinanymanneraidsorprotectspiratesorhighwayrobbers/brigands,suchasgivingtheminformationaboutthemovementofpoliceorotherpeaceofficersofthegovernment,oracquiresorreceivespropertytakenbysuchpiratesorbrigandsorinanymannerderivesanybenefittherefromoranypersonwhodirectlyorindirectlyabetsthecommissionofpiracyorhighwayrobberyorbrigandage,shallbeconsideredasanaccompliceoftheprincipalofficersandbepunishedinaccordancewithRulesprescribedbytheRevisedPenalCode.

ItshallbepresumedthatanypersonwhodoesanyoftheactsprovidedinthisSectionhasperformedthemknowingly,unlessthecontraryisproven.

The ruling of the trial court isWithin wellsettle jurisprudence that if there is lack of completeevidenceofconspiracy,theliabilityisthatofanaccompliceandnotasprincipal(Peoplev.Tolentino,40SCRA514[1971]).Anydoubtastotheparticipationofanindividualinthecommissionofthecrimeisalways resolved in favorof lesser responsibility (Peoplev.Corbes,270SCRA465 [1997]Peoplevs.Elfano,Jr.,125SCRA792[1983]Peoplev.Pastores,40SCRA498[1971]).

Emphasismust also be placed on the last paragraph of Section 4 of Presidential DecreeNo 532whichpresumesthatanypersonwhodoesanyoftheactsprovidedinsaidsectionhasperformedthemknowingly, unless the contrary is proven. In the case at bar, accusedappellant Hiong had failed toovercomethelegalpresumptionthatheknowinglyabettedoraidedinthecommissionofpiracy,receivedpropertytakenbysuchpiratesandderivedbenefittherefrom.

TherecorddisclosesthataccusedappellantHiongaidedthepiratesindisposingofthestolencargobypersonallydirecting its transfer from"M/TGalilee" to"M/TNaviPride".Heprofited therefrombybuyingthehijackedcargoforNaviMarineServices,Pte.,Ltd.(tsn,June3,1992,pp.1523).He eventested the quality and verified the quantity of the petroleum products, connived with Navi MarineServicespersonnelinfalsifyingtheGeneralDeclarationsandCrewListtoensurethattheillegaltransferwent through,undetectedbySingaporePortAuthorities, and supplied thepirateswith food,beer, andotherprovisionsfortheirmaintenancewhileinport(tsn,June3,1992,pp.133134).

WebelievethatthefalsificationoftheGeneralDeclaration(ArrivalandDeparture)andCrewListwasaccomplishedandutilizedbyaccusedappellantHiongandNaviMarineServicespersonnel in theexecutionoftheirschemetoavertdetectionbySingaporePortAuthorities.Hence,hadaccusedappellantHiongnotfalsifiedsaidentries, theSingaporePortAuthoritiescouldhaveeasilydiscoveredtheillegalactivities that took place and this would have resulted in his arrest and prosecution in Singapore.Moreover, the transfer of the stolen cargo from "M/T Galilee" to "Navi Pride" could not have beeneffected.

We completely uphold the factual findings of the trial court showing in detail accusedappellantHiong's role in the disposition of the pirated goods summarized as follows: that onMarch 27, 1991,HiongwithCaptainBiddySantosboarded the"NaviPride,"oneof thevesselsof theNaviMarine, torendezvouswiththe"M/TGalilee"thatthefirmsubmittedthecrewlistofthevessel(Exhibit"8CSH",Record) to the port authorities, excluding the name of Hiong that the "General Declaration" (fordeparture) of the "Navi Pride" for its voyage off port of Singapore (Exhibits "HH" and "8A CSH",Record) falselystated that thevesselwasscheduled todepartat2200(10o'clock in theevening), thattherewerenopassengersonboard,andthepurposeofthevoyagewasfor"cargooperation"andthatthevessel was to unload and transfer 1,900 tons of cargo that after the transfer of the fuel from "M/TGalilee"with'EmilioChangcoa.k.a.CaptainBobbya.k.a.RobertoCastilloatthehelm,thesurveyorpreparedthe"QuantityCertificate"(Exhibit"11CCSH,Record)statingthatthecargotransferredtothe"NaviPride"was2,406gross cubicmeters that althoughHiongwasnot theMaster of thevessel, heaffixedhissignatureonthe"Certificate"abovetheword"Master"(Exhibit"11C2CSH",Record)thathethenpaid$150,000.00butdidnotrequireanyreceiptfor theamount thatEmilioChangcoalsodid



notissueoneandthatintherequisite"GeneralDeclaration"uponitsarrivalatSingaporeonMarch29,1991,at7o'clockintheevening,(Exhibits"JJ"and"13ACSH",Record),itwasmadetofalselyappearthatthe"NaviPride"unloaded1,700tonsofcargoonthehighseasduringsaidvoyagewheninfactitacquiredfromthe"M/TGalilee"2,000metrictonsofdieseloil.Thesecondtransfertranspiredwiththesameirregularitiesasdiscussedabove.ItwaslikewisesupervisedbyaccusedappellantCheongfromhisendwhileEmilioChangcosupervisedthetransferfromhisend.

AccusedappellantHiongmaintainsthathewasmerelyfollowingtheordersofhissuperiorsandthathehasnoknowledgeoftheillegalityofthesourceofthecargo.

Firstandforemost,accusedappellantHiongcannotdenyknowledgeofthesourceandnatureofthecargosincehehimselfreceivedthesamefrom"M/TTabangao".Second,consideringthatheisahighlyeducated mariner, he should have avoided any participation in the cargo transfer given the verysuspiciouscircumstancesunderwhichitwasacquired.Hefailedtoshowasinglepieceofdeedorbillofsaleorevenapurchaseorderoranycontractofsaleforthepurchasebythefirmheneverbotheredtoaskforandscrutinizethepapersanddocumentationrelativetothe"M/TGalilee"hedidnotevenverifytheidentityofCaptainRobertCastillowhomhemetforthefirsttimenordidhecheckthesourceofthecargoheknewthatthetransfertookplace66nauticalmilesoffSingaporeinthedeadofthenightwhichamarinevesselofhisfirmdidnotordinarilydoitwasalsothefirsttimeNaviMarinetransactedwithPaulGaninvolvingalargesumofmoneywithoutanyreceiptissuedthereforhewasnotevenawareifPaulGanwasaSingaporeannationalandthussafetodealwith.Itshouldalsobenotedthatthevalueofthe cargowasP40,426,793.87 or roughlymore thanUS$l,000,000.00 (computed at P30.00 to $1, theexchangerateatthattime).Manifestly,thecargowassoldforlessthanonehalfofitsvalue.AccusedappellantHiongshouldhavebeenawareofthis irregularity.NobodyinhisrightmindwouldgotofarawaySingapore,spendmuchtimeandmoneyfortransportationonlytosellattheaforestatedpriceifitwere legitimate sale involved. This, in addition to the act of falsifying records, clearly shows thataccusedappellantHiongwaswellawarethatthecargothathisfirmwasacquiringwaspurloined.

Lastly, it cannot be correctly said that accusedappellantwas "merely following the orders of hissuperiors."Anindividualisjustifiedinperforminganactinobediencetoanorderissuedbyasuperiorifsuchorder,isforsomelawfulpurposeandthatthemeansusedbythesubordinatetocarryoutsaidorderis lawful(Reyes,RevisedPenalCode,Vol.1,1981ed.,p.212).Notably, theallegedorderofHiong'ssuperiorChuaKimLengTimothy,isapatentviolationnotonlyofPhilippine,butofinternationallaw.Such violation was committed on board a Philippineoperated vessel. Moreover, the means used byHiong in carrying out said order was equally unlawful. He misled port and immigration authorities,falsified records, using a mere clerk, Frankie Loh, to consummate said acts. During the trial, Hiongpresented himself, and the trial court was convinced, that he was an intelligent and articulate PortCaptain. These circumstances show that hemust have realized the nature and the implications of theorderofChuaKimLengTimothy.Thereafter,hecouldhave refused to followorders toconclude thedealandtoeffectthetransferofthecargototheNaviPride.Hedidnotdoso,forwhichreason,hemustnowsuffertheconsequencesofhisactions.

WHEREFORE, finding the convictionof accusedappellants justifiedby the evidenceon record,theCourtherebyAFFIRMSthejudgmentofthetrialcourtintoto.

SOORDERED.

Vitug,Panganiban,GonzagaReyes,andSandovalGutierrez,JJ.,concur.

Documents

People vs Tulin _ 111709 _ August 30, 2001 _ J