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
FACTS: M/T Tabangao is a cargo vessel owned by PNOC and sailing near the coast of Mindoro
loaded with barrels of kerosene, gasoline, and diesel oil. The vessel was suddenly boarded, with
the use of an aluminum ladder, by seven (7) fully armed pirates. They detained and took control
of the vessel. The name M/T Tabangao and the PNOC logo were painted over with black. Then
the vessel was painted with the name “Galilee”. The ship crew was forced to sail to Singapore.
After losing radio contact with the vessel, the PNOC reported the disappearance to the
Philippine Coast Guard and secured the assistance of the armed forces.

In Singapore, the vessel was awaiting another vessel, but it did not arrive. Instead, the vessel
went back to Batangas Philippines and remained at sea. Days later, it went back again to
Singapore. This time, another vessel called the Navi Pride anchored beside it. Accused, Cheong
San Hiong, supervised the Navi Pride’s crew and received the cargo of M/T Tabangao/Galilee.
After the transfer was completed, M/T Tabangao went back to the Philippines and the original
crew members were released by the pirates in batches. The crews were ordered not to tell
authorities of what happened, otherwise they would be killed. Despite such warning, the chief
engineer of the crew, reported the incident to the coast guard.

Afterwards, an Information was charged against all the accused with qualified piracy or
violation of the PD 532 – Piracy in the Philippine Waters. During trial, all the accused put up
denials and alibis. As to accused Cheong San Hiong, the Captain of the Navi Pride, he argues
that the trial court cannot acquire jurisdiction since the transfer of cargoes was actually
committed outside Philippine waters.

ISSUE: Whether the trial court has jurisdiction over the case

RULING: YES. Although Presidential Decree No. 532 requires that the attack and seizure of the
vessel and its cargo be committed in Philippine waters, the disposition by the pirates of the
vessel and its cargo is still deemed part of the act of piracy, hence, the same need not be
committed in Philippine waters. Verily, Presidential Decree No. 532 should be applied with
more force here since its purpose is precisely to discourage and prevent piracy in Philippine
waters. Moreover, piracy falls under Title One of Book Two of the Revised Penal Code. As such,
it is an exception to the rule on territoriality in criminal law. In the present case, the attack and
the seizure of MT Tabangao and its cargo were committed in Philippine waters, although the
captive vessel was later brought by the pirates to Singapore, where its cargo was off-loaded,
transferred and sold. The Court further ruled that regardless of the law penalizing piracy, it
remains to be a reprehensible crime against the whole world.