PEOPLE V.

CATANTAN

FACTS:
The accused, Catantan and Ursal were charged with violation of PD 532 with having to attack, assault and
inflicted physical injuries on Eugene Pilapil and Juan Pilapil Jr. who were fishing in the seawaters.

The RTC found the accused guilty of the crime. However, Catantan contends that the trial court erred him
piracy since the facts only prove grave coercion.

According to the facts of the case, the accused attacked the boat where the victims are and even hogtied
one of them. He ordered them to Daan Tabogon. Unfortunately, while they were on the sea, the engine
of the boat broke and the accused transferred to a new boat with the intent of abandoning the Pilapils.
ISSUE:
WON the accused is guilty of grave coercion only.

RULING:

NO.

Under the definition of piracy in PD No. 532 as well as grave coercion as penalized in Art. 286 of the
Revised Penal Code, this case falls squarely within the purview of piracy. While it may be true that Eugene
and Juan Jr. were compelled to go elsewhere other than their place of destination, such compulsion was
obviously part of the act of seizing their boat. The testimony of Eugene, one of the victims, shows that the
appellant actually seized the vessel through force and intimidation. The direct testimony of Eugene is
significant and enlightening.

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.

To impede their livelihood would be to deprive them of their very subsistence, and the likes of the accused
within the purview of PD No. 532 are the obstacle to the "economic, social, educational and community
progress of the people." Had it not been for the chance passing of another pumpboat, the fate of the
Pilapil brothers, left alone helpless in a floundering, meandering outrigger with a broken prow and a
conked-out engine in open sea, could not be ascertained.

Catantan and Ursal abandoned the Pilapils only because their pumpboat broke down and it was necessary
to transfer to another pumpboat that would take them back to their lair. Unfortunately for the pirates
their "new" pumpboat ran out of gas so they were apprehended by the police soon after the Pilapils
reported the matter to the local authorities.

The fact that the revolver used by the appellant to seize the boat was not produced in evidence cannot
exculpate him from the crime. The fact remains, and we state it again, that Catantan and his co-accused
Ursal seized through force and intimidation the pumpboat of the Pilapils while the latter were fishing in
Philippine waters.
DOCTRINE:

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 upon things, committed by any person, including a passenger or member of the complement of
said vessel, in Philippine waters, shall be considered as piracy.