PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROGER P. TULIN, VIRGILIO I. LOYOLA, CECILIO O.

CHANGCO, ANDRES C. INFANTE, CHEONG SAN HIONG, AND JOHN DOES, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS

G.R. No. 111709, August 30, 2001

MELO, J.

On March 2, 1991, M/T Tabangao, a cargo vessel owned by the PNOC Shipping and Transport
Corporation loaded with fuel products amounting to 40.4 million pesos was sailing off the Coast of
Mindoro. It was seized seven armed men led by Emilio Changco with Cecilio Changco, Roger Tulin,
Virgilio Loyola, and Andres Infante Jr. The cargo of M/T Tabangao (renamed M/T Galilee) was
transferred to another vessel, Navi Pride in Singapore under the supervision of Cheong Sia Hiong.
Returning to the Philippines, M/T Galilee freed their captives in batches. April 12, 1991, the Chief
Engineer, accompanied by the members of the crew, called the PNOC Shipping and Transport
Corporation office to report the incident which led to the subsequent apprehension of Tulin, Infante Jr.,
Loyola, Hiong and Changco. The Regional Trial Court found the accused-appelants guilty of the crime
Piracy.

The case elevated to the Supreme Court with corresponding alibis from the Accused-appelants.
Hiong on the other hand, contends that his participation to the crime was committed outside of the
Philippine territory thus the Philippine courts have no jurisdiction on his case.

Issue:

(1) Whether or not the trial court erred in finding that the prosecution was able to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellants committed the crime of qualified piracy

(2) Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting and punishing Hiong as an accomplice
when the acts allegedly committed by him were done or executed outside of Philippine waters and
territory

Held:

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the RTC. They did not accept the alibis provided by
the Accused-appellants and gave weight to the witnesses as the former failed to give plain logical
explanations to their alibis. Hiong on the other hand, can be and still be prosecuted in Philippine courts
since PD 532 gives light to such matter. PD 532 provides that the seizure and attack of vessels and its
cargo should be committed within the Philippine waters, however, the disposition of the vessel and its
cargo, which is still deemed part of the crime need not to happen inside the Philippine waters. The court
also pointed out the conspiracy between Hiong and the others since it is almost impossible for him to
not know the crime Changco and his cohorts were committing because of the obvious irregularities of
their transaction.