Digested by: Paula Benilde D.

Dungo
1B
Qualified Piracy

People of the Philippines v. Roger Tulin

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

Facts:
The “M/T Tabangao” was a cargo vessel owned by PNOC Shipping and Transport
Corporation. The vessel was loaded with barrels of kerosene, gasoline, and diesel oil. On the
evening of March 2, 1991, it was boarded by seven fully armed men. The pirates included the
accused, Roger Tulin. After detaining the crew, and taking over, the vessel was directed to
Singapore where the cargo was unloaded and sold. This was done under the direct supervision of
Cheong San Hiong. It then returned to the Philippines. They were charged and convicted for the
crime of qualified piracy, while Cheong was convicted for being an accomplice in the
aforementioned crime. He argued that the acts committed by him were done outside of the
Philippine territory, hence stripping the Philippine courts of jurisdiction to convict and sentence
him for said acts.

Issue:
Whether or not the Philippine courts have jurisdiction to try a crime of qualified piracy
when acts were committed outside the Philippine territory?

Ruling:
Yes. Philippine courts have the jurisdiction to try a crime of qualified piracy even if the
acts were committed outside of the Philippine territory. The Court held that pursuant to Article
122 of the Revised Penal Code, amended by Republic Act 7659, piracy must be committed on
high seas or Philippine waters. The act of seven pirates taking captive of the “M/T Tabangao”
was committed on Philippine waters. The transfer, unloading, and the sale of the cargo are still
deemed part of the act of piracy even if they were committed outside the high seas and
Philippine waters. Cheong, having direct supervision of these acts is guilty as an accomplice
because his acts contributed to the continuing act of qualified piracy committed by the accused.