[G.R. No. 123101.
November 22, 2000] The prosecution presented the following testimonial evidence:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TITING
ARANAS @ TINGARDS/RONNIE, ANGELO PARACUELES, JUAN
VILLA @ JUANTOY, ELMER MANALILI, ET AL. accused.
ELMER MANALILI, accused-appellant.
DE LEON, JR., J.:
Before us is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Bohol, Tagbilaran City finding accused-appellant Elmer Manalili guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified piracy and sentencing him to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify certain individuals.
FACTS:
That on or about the 15th day of December, 1992 in the seawaters of the
municipality of Ubay, Province of Bohol, Philippines, which is part of the
Philippine waters and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, Elmer
Manalili, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with
intent to gain, and by means of violence against or intimidation of persons,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously seize by boarding a
passenger sea vessel M/V J & N Princess, owned by one Nelson Uy and under
the complement of Gervacio Uy and Saturnino Gaudicos with 19 officers and
crew members and while on board said vessel, seized its radio and
subsequently demanded and divested them and its passengers cash in the
amount of P200,000.00, Philippine Currency and valuables and equipments
worth P350,000.00, Philippine currency or in the total amount of Five
Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P550,000.00), Philippine Currency, and on the
occasion of said piracy, accused committed the crime of physical injuries on
the person of Ernesto Magalona, the quarter master; Acts committed
contrary to the provisions of Art. 123 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by PD 532.
Accused Titing Aranas alias Tingards, Angelo Paracueles, Juan Villa alias
Juantoy, Gaudencio Tolsidas and Rodrigo Salas remain at large. Hence, this
case proceeded only against appellant Elmer Manalili who was arrested on
January 21, 1993 in Cebu City. When arraigned on August 23, 1993, appellant
Manalili pleaded not guilty and waived his right to pre-trial. Thereafter, trial
ensued.
Prosecution witness Gervacio Ong Uy, 62, operations manager of the
cargo-passenger vessel M/V J & N Princess, testified that at 9:40 in the
evening of December 15, 1992, Tuesday, he boarded said vessel. The vessel
plies the route between Ubay, Bohol and Cebu (and vice-versa) every other
day or every Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday. It leaves the port of Ubay, Bohol
at 10:00 o clock in the evening. About twenty minutes after departure on said
date, he went down to urinate at the lower deck. After urinating, two persons
were standing behind him; one was pointing a gun at his back and the other
was holding his collar. They ordered him to go upstairs to the third or upper
deck. Arriving there, they told him to open the radio room, and they
destroyed the radio. They also ordered that all lockers of the room be
opened. They told him that they were military men looking for firearms and
shabu. He opened all lockers except that of quartermaster Ernesto Magalona,
who was not around as he was hiding. The crew members looked for him, and
when he appeared, the pirates scolded and hit him with an armalite. He was
about 3 meters away from Magalona. Magalona opened his locker but the
pirates were not able to find anything inside. When the locker was opened,
he saw that the left hand of one pirate had a tattoo with the initials G.V.[4]
The pirates took from Gervacio Uy P30,500.00 in cash and his wristwatch
worth P1,500.00. From an inventory made by the purser, the pirates divested
from the passengers P200,000.00 in cash, and P300,000.00 worth of personal
belongings including radio and jewelry.[5]
After the robbery, the leader of the pirates told the quartermaster to
stop the engine of the vessel, then there was a gunshot, which was apparently
a signal for the get-away pumpboat. Before the pirates left, they told Uys
group not to go back to Ubay, but to proceed to Cebu, otherwise the boat
would be strafed.Nevertheless, they proceeded to Talibon, Bohol in order to
report the incident to the police. They arrived in Cebu at 5:00 o clock in the
morning of December 16, 1992.[6]
Gervacio Uy declared that he identified the two persons who initially
pointed a gun at him through pictures. The one who pointed an armalite at
him was about 56 in height, regular in built, brown complexion, with straight
hair and between 25 to 28 years old. The second man was older, about 42
years old, 53 or 54 in height, medium built with brown complexion and black
hair; he was carrying what looked like an uzi gun. From pictures presented by
the Central Intelligence Service (CIS) when he was investigated, he identified
the two as Titing Aranas and Paracueles, all at large. When appellant Elmer
Manalili was presented during the preliminary investigation before the
municipal judge of Ubay, he told Municipal Judge Napuli that his face was
familiar among the eight pirates. However, quartermaster Magalona and
Boiser, a passenger, identified him as one of the pirates.[7]
On cross-examination, Gervacio Uy said that out of the 20 pictures
presented to him for identification by the CIS, he only positively identified
Titing Aranas and Angelo Paracueles. He saw Elmer Manalili for the first time
when he was presented before Judge Napuli for investigation.[8]
Prosecution witness Ernesto Magalona, 39, quartermaster of M/V J &
N Princess since 1991 to the present, testified that on December 15, 1992, he
was on board the said vessel which left the port of Ubay, Bohol bound for
Cebu at 10:00 o clock in the evening. He was off-duty then. At the time of the
robbery, he was on the second deck of the boat. He was lying on his cot near
the passage way leading to the upper deck when someone
shouted, Ayaw paglihok kay duna miy pangitaon nga shabu ug armas nga uzi,
meaning, Do not move, we are searching for shabu and uzi gun. Then he saw
their manager Gervacio Uy being escorted by two armed men. One was
armed with an armalite pointed at Uy. The other man was also
armed because something was bulging at his waist, but he did not see the
kind of firearm he was carrying. He could identify the two armed men who
escorted Uy, because he was about three to four meters away from them and
the place was well illuminated with fluorescent lights. He identified one of
the said armed men by pointing to a person inside the court room who, when
asked his name, answered that he was Elmer Manalili. He declared that the
other man carried a long firearm. Describing the manner Uy was escorted, he
said that the man holding the armalite was also holding the collar of Uy and
pushing him while appellant followed. Uy and the two armed men eventually
reached the third deck where the armed men destroyed the radio. He came
to know that the radio was destroyed because the purser who came from the
third deck looking for him told him so. He tried to cover his face with
his malong, but ultimately a pirate saw him and struck him with his gun
hitting his right ear so he was forced to stand up and go with them to the third
deck. When he was at the third or upper deck, Uy was on his way down to the
second deck escorted by appellant. Immediately after his locker was opened,
he was instructed to return to his cot and ordered to lie down.[9]
Magalona said that there were about eight (8) pirates. He could only
remember and identify the two armed men who escorted Gervacio Uy
because the movements of the pirates were so fast and coordinated. He
could remember Elmer Manalili because he was facing him and he saw him
frontally. The pirates divested the passengers of their belongings. His wallet
containing P1,000.00 was taken.[10]
On cross-examination, Magalona stated that when the robbers
announced a hold-up, he was lying down. They were ordered to remain lying
down, face down for less than an hour. The robbers were in pairs stationed
at the lower deck, second deck and third deck while the other two made
rounds of these decks. When the passengers were divested of their
belongings, operations manager Uy was at the third or upper deck escorted
by the two armed men, one of whom was the appellant. He was positive that
from the start, the two armed men escorted Uy from the comfort room at the
lower deck to the second deck and then the third or upper deck where the
radio room was located. They did not separate from Uy but always followed
him, and he had a good look at them when they passed by the second deck.[11]
After the incident, Magalona saw the appellant at the office of the chief
of police in Ubay, Bohol and then during the investigation at the office of the
municipal judge. He also saw the appellant from pictures of suspects shown
to him at the office of the chief of police.[12]
Prosecution witness SPO2 Alex Henson Reyes, a member of the
Philippine National Police (PNP), Ubay, Bohol, testified that on December 15,
1992 he was a passenger of M/V J & N Princess bound for Cebu. He was asleep
when the boat left the port of Ubay, but was awakened by a gunfire. Then he
saw a pirate aiming an armalite rifle, and another one, about 16 years old,
aiming his carbine rifle, at him. Another pirate got his bag, and taken
therefrom was his service revolver, a caliber .38 Smith and Wesson, issued by
the Chief of Police. The gun had twelve (12) rounds of ammunition. After the
incident, he went to the PNP in Bohol, and from pictures that were shown to
him, he identified the pirate who got his bag as Angelo Paracueles. He did not
see the appellant during the incident.[13]
Due to fright suffered at the time of the incident, SPO2 Reyes asked for
moral damages of P50,000.00, and actual damages of P50,000.00 for the loss
of the gun, and P288.00 for the 12 rounds of ammunition.[14]
Prosecution witness PO3 Saul Pino Cuyno,[15] a member of the PNP,
Ubay, Bohol, testified that in the evening of December 15, 1992, he was also
a passenger of M/V J & N Princess. The pirates took from him P80.00 in cash
and his watch worth P4,000.00 The armed men mentioned by SPO2 Reyes
were the same men who aimed their guns at him. From pictures that were
shown to him after the incident, he identified one of the armed men as
Angelo Paracueles.[16]
On the other hand, appellant Elmer Manalili denied that he was involved
in the piracy committed on board M/V J & N Princess in the evening of
December 15, 1992 in the seawaters of Ubay, Bohol inasmuch as he was in
his residence in Cebu City at that time.
Defense witness Jeffrey Dadula Perandos, 26, single, third year high
school, industrial painter, testified that he knew appellant since they were
neighbors at Cabantan St., Mabolo, Cebu City. Appellant started to live there
when he was eight (8) years old and stayed with his elder brother Junior
Manalili. He does not know appellants father because the latter died in
Camotes Island before appellant transferred to Mabolo, Cebu City. In 1989,
appellant married Cherry Mae Elimino from Lutopan, Cebu. After their
marriage, they stayed in Lutopan for a while, and resided in Nivel, Lahug,
Cebu City in October or November 1992.[17]
Perandos said that he has been working as an industrial painter since he
was 15 years old. In December 1992, he was hired to paint the house of Mr.
Chua in La Guardia, Lahug, Cebu City. His companions were appellant,
Reynaldo Cardona, Ernesto Dadula and master painter Nicomedes Baguio
who was the head of their group. They started painting the house of Mr. Chua
sometime during the first week of December, but he did not finish painting
the house because he transferred to another painting job at Basak, Mandaue
and stopped working with Mr. Chua about the end of January 1993.[18]
According to Perandos, when they started working at La Guardia, he and
Reynaldo Cardona slept at appellants house. On December 14, 1992, he,
appellant and Reynaldo Cardona started painting the house of Mr. Chua at
8:00 o clock in the morning and stopped working at 5:00 o clock in the
afternoon. Then they proceeded to the house of appellant together with
Reynaldo Cardona and ate supper there at 8:00 o clock in the
evening. Appellants wife was not around because she was working as an
entertainer in a karaoke bar. Thereafter, they had a drinking spree, and then
slept in appellants house. The next day, December 15, 1992, they went to
work at the Chuas residence early in the morning and stopped working at 5:00
o clock in the afternoon. They proceeded to appellants house and arrived
there at 6:00 o clock in the evening. Appellants wife was still around and they
ate supper with her. She left for work at 6:30 in the evening. Appellant was
left to take care of their child. After supper, he, Reynaldo Cardona and
appellant were drinking until 10:00 o clock in the evening. Appellant slept
ahead of them at 11:00 o clock that night.[19]
Perandos stated that appellant was working continuously at the Chuas
residence from the first week of December until his arrest at about 7:00 o
clock in the evening of January 21, 1993. He knew of the arrest because
appellant was arrested at the side of his house. At that time, appellant went
to his house in order for them to borrow money from a close friend, money
lender Cecilia Cupta. After the arrest, he visited appellant at Camp Sotero
Cabahug, Cebu City and asked why he was arrested. Appellant said he was
only a suspect.[20]
On cross-examination, Perandos said that he was asked to testify by
appellants wife, Cherry Mae, and appellant himself in a letter handcarried by
Cherry Mae.In said letter, appellant also asked Reynaldo Cardona, his
neighbor, to testify for him. Appellants wife paid for his fare.[21]
Defense witness Reynaldo Cupta Cardona, 21, single, elementary
graduate, painter, and a resident of 55-B Cabantan Street, Barangay Mabolo,
Cebu City, testified that appellant resided in Nivel, Lahug, Cebu City. He knew
appellant since they worked together in painting the house of Alfonso Chua
at La Guardia, Lahug, Cebu City. Aside from appellant, his other companions
were Jeffrey Perandos, Ernesto Dadula and Nicolas Baguio. They started
painting in December 1992 and finished the work in February 1993. However,
appellant was arrested on January 21, 1993 so only four of them finished the
painting job.[22]
Cardona stated that on December 14, 1992, he, appellant and Jeffrey
Perandos started painting the house of Mr. Chua at 7:00 o clock in the
morning, and stopped working at 5:00 o clock in the afternoon. Then they
proceeded to the house of appellant where they slept to save on fare. They
ate supper at 6:00 o clock in the evening together with appellants wife Cherry
Mae, who did not work as it was her day-off. Appellant went to bed at past
7:00 o clock in the evening, and slept with his child. He and Cherry Mae talked
about her work, while Jeffrey Perandos listened. They all slept at 10:00 to
11:00 o clock that night. The following day, December 15, 1992, they went to
work at Mr. Chuas residence at 7:00 o clock in the morning. They stopped
working at 5:00 o clock in the afternoon, then proceeded to appellants
house. They ate supper at 6:00 o clock in the evening with Cherry Mae as it
was still her day-off. Appellant slept ahead because he had to make his child
sleep. They conversed with Cherry Mae after they cleaned the house, and
slept at past 10:00 o clock that night. The following day, December 16, 1992,
he woke up ahead and prepared his baon at 5:50 in the morning. Appellant
and Jeffrey Perandos woke up at the same time. Appellant played ball with
his child. They left for work at past 6:00 o clock in the morning, and started
working at 7:00 o clock. His companions were appellant, Jeffrey Perandos,
Nicolas Baguio and Ernesto Dadula.[23]
On cross-examination, Cardona said that appellants wife requested him
to testify in this case, and gave him P70.00 for fare. On December 3, 1993,
she gave him and Jeffrey Perandos more than P200.00.[24]
On re-direct examination, Cardona clarified that while they were staying
at appellants house when they were then painting the house of Mr. Chua,
they contributed money for their food.[25]
Defense witness Cherry Mae Manalili declared that she was appellants
wife. In December 1992, her husband was a painter. She knew Jeffrey
Perandos and Reynaldo Cardona since the time they had a painting job
together with her husband at the Chuas residence in La Guardia, Lahug, Cebu
City. At that time, her family consisting of her husband and one-year-old
child, was residing at Nivel, Lahug, Cebu City. They rented a room and kitchen
from one Nang Ason in the middle of November. She was then working at the
X-O Karaoke Bar. Her work was from 7:30 in the evening to 2:00 o clock in the
morning. In June 1993, she transferred to Steves Karaoke Bar where she is
presently employed.[26]
Cherry Mae said that while working with her husband at the Chuas
residence, Perandos and Cardona lived with her family at Nivel, Lahug, Cebu
City since December 7, 1992 to minimize travel expenses. They contributed
money for their food.[27]
She stated that on December 14, 1992, Perandos and Cardona were still
staying with them. When she left for work at 7:30 in the evening, her husband
was at home taking care of their child. On December 15, 1992, she left for
work at about 8:00 o clock in the evening. Her husband, their son, Perandos
and Cardona were left at home. She arrived home at about 1:20 in the
morning after their Christmas party. It was her husband who opened the door
of their house; their child, Perandos and Cardona were still sleeping.[28]
According to Cherry Mae, Perandos and Cardona stayed in their house
from December 7, 1992 to January 21, 1993. They left when her husband was
arrested.At the time of his arrest, she was in Lutopan, Toledo City as she
attended the burial of her grandmother on January 20, 1993. It was Perandos
who informed her that her husband was arrested at 7:00 o clock in the
evening of January 21, 1993 in Mabolo, Cebu City. He was in Mabolo at that
time because he wanted to borrow money.[29]
Appellant Elmer Manalili y Pogio, 24 years old, testified that he was a
painter by profession. He does not know the co-accused Titing Aranas, Angelo
Paracueles, Juan Villa, Gaudencio Tolsidas and Rodrigo Salas. He denied that
in the evening of December 15, 1992, he was at the wharf of Ubay, Bohol.[30]
He is married to Cherry Mae Elemino who is employed as a disco karaoke
entertainer in Cebu City. They got married in 1989, and then lived with his in-
laws in Lutopan for about a year in 1990 before transferring to Lahug, Cebu
City.[31]
Appellant stated that in December 1992, they resided in Nivel, Lahug,
Cebu City. In the morning and afternoon of December 15, 1992, he was
working as a painter in the house of Mr. Chua in La Guardia, Lahug. In the
evening, he was at home with his wife and child, Reynaldo Cardona and
Jeffrey Perandos. That night, his wife left after 7:00 o clock in the evening and
attended a party given by her employer at the X-O Karaoke Bar.[32]
He was arrested at 7:00 o clock in the evening of January 21, 1993, at
Cabantan Street, Mabolo, Cebu City by policemen without a warrant of
arrest. He was in Mabolo to borrow money from the spouses Cupta, who
were neighbors of Jeffrey Perandos. At that time, his wife was in Lutopan as
she attended the burial of her grandmother. After his arrest, he was brought
to Camp Cabahug, Cebu City and then brought to Bohol on January 24, 1993
and detained at Camp Dagohoy in Tagbilaran City until September 10,
1993. He was later transferred to the Bohol Detention and Rehabilitation
Center.[33]
According to appellant, while he was in the municipal jail of Ubay, Bohol,
about 30 people, whom he did not know, came to see him at his prison
cell. Two of them were prosecution witnesses Gervacio Uy and Ernesto
Magalona. It was Magalona who asked him, Who is Elmer Manalili? He
answered that he was the one.There were four inmates then inside the prison
cell. Uy did not talk to him, but just took a good look at him. Magalona
pointed at him as one of the pirates and said mao mao, which means, looked
like one of the pirates.[34]
 Appellant denied that he was in the vicinity of Ubay, Bohol in the evening
of December 15, 1992. He went to Bohol for the first time when he was
brought to Tagbilaran City after he was arrested by the police in Cebu City.[35]
Although prosecution witness Gervacio Uy testified that one of the
pirates who opened the locker of the quartermaster had a tattoo with the
initials GV on his left hand, the court found no such tatoo mark on appellants
left hand. Moreover, appellants height is 5 feet 7 and 1/2 inches.[36]
The trial court found that prosecution witnesses Gervacio Uy and
Ernesto Magalona identified appellant as one of the pirates. It held that the
defense of alibi could not prevail over said positive identification.[37] On
September 2, 1994, the trial court rendered judgment against appellant, the
dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing premises, this Court finds accused
ELMER MANALILI GUILTY of Qualified Piracy beyond reasonable doubt and
hereby sentences him to a penalty of imprisonment of RECLUSION
PERPETUA. Further, accused Elmer Manalili is ordered to reimburse and pay
complaining witnesses the following:
Complaining witness Gervacio Ong Uy:
1. P30,500.00 - representing cash taken from him by the pirates:
2. P1,500.00 - value of his Seiko watch;
3. P4,000.00 - value of his diamond ring;
4. P10,000.00 - representing actual, exemplary, and
moral damages.
B. Complaining witness Ernesto Rodriguez Magalona:
1. P1,000.00 - representing cash taken from him
together with his wallet;
2. P10,000.00 - representing cash taken from him
together with his wallet;
C. Complaining witness SPO2 Alex Henson Reyes:
1. P200.00 - cash taken from him together with his
wallet;
2. P15,288.00 - value of the government issued
firearm and live bullets taken by
the pirates;
3. P10,000.00 - representing actual, exemplary,
and moral damages.
D. Complaining witness PO3 Saul Cuyno Pino:
1. P80.00 - representing cash taken from him
together with his wallet;
2. P4,000.00 - value of his Seiko watch;
3. P10,000.00 - representing actual, exemplary, and
moral damages.
But without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Without pronouncement as to Costs.
SO ORDERED.[38]
Appellant Elmer Manalili ascribes to the trial court the following errors:
I. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN THE APPRECIATION OF
THE TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCES BOTH FOR THE PROSECUTION
AND THE DEFENSE;
II. THE COURT A QUO COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR IN THE
APPRECIATION OF THE EVIDENCES FOR THE DEFENSE
REGARDING THE IDENTITY OF ACCUSED ELMER MANALILI,
RESULTING TO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION.[39]
The appeal is meritorious.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in appreciating the
testimonial evidence of both the prosecution and defense which led to his
conviction. He argues that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that he was one of the pirates in this case.
We agree. A careful review of the records shows that about twenty
minutes after the vessel M/V J & N Princess left the port of Ubay, Bohol bound
for Cebu on December 15, 1992, prosecution witness Gervacio Uy, the
operations manager of the vessel, urinated at the lower deck. After urinating,
two persons were standing behind him; one pointed a gun at his back, while
the other held his collar. He was ordered to go upstairs with them to the third
or upper deck where the radio room was located, and they then destroyed
the radio.[40] When asked whether he could identify the two armed men who
initially pointed a gun at him, Uy replied in the affirmative, and stated that he
had identified them through pictures presented by the CIS as Titing Aranas
and Angelo Paracueles. This is reflected in the records thus:
FISCAL:
Q. You said that initially there were two persons after they pointed a gun
at you, if you can see these persons, can you still identify them?
A. Yes, I identified them thru the pictures.
Q. Could you describe to this Honorable Court the description of these
two persons?
A. The one who pointed an armalite he was about 56 in height, regular in
built, brown complexion and his age is between 25 and 28 years old.
The second suspect is older, I think about 42 years old, 53 or 54 in height
, medium built, brown complexion.
Q. How about the hair?
A. The hair is straight.
Q. How about the second?
A. Black hair and he was carrying like an uzi gun.
Q. You said a while ago that you were showed pictures, where?
A. There were pictures presented by the CIS when I was investigated.
Q. And did you identify those pictures?
A. I positively identified two, one is Titing Aranas and the other
Paracuellos, all at large.[41]
On the other hand, prosecution witness Ernesto Magalona,
quartermaster of the same vessel, testified that while he was lying on his cot
at the second deck near the passage way to the upper deck, someone
shouted, Do not move, we are searching for shabu and uzi gun. Then he saw
their manager, Gervacio Uy, being escorted by two armed men. One was
armed with an armalite pointed at Uy; the other was also armed but he did
not see the kind of firearm he was carrying at his waist. He could identify the
two armed men who escorted Uy because he was three to four meters away
from them and the place was well illuminated with fluorescent lights. He
identified one of the armed men as appellant. He said that the other man
holding the armalite was also holding the collar of Uy while pushing him,
while appellant followed fast. Uy and the two armed men eventually reached
the third or upper deck where the armed men destroyed the radio as
reported to him by the purser who came down looking for him from the upper
deck.[42] Of the eight pirates, he could only remember and identify the two
armed men who escorted Uy, because their movements were so fast and
coordinated.[43] He stated that from the start the two armed men, one of
whom he identified as the appellant, escorted Uy from the comfort room at
the lower deck to the second deck and then proceeded to the third or upper
deck where the radio room was located. They did always followed Uy, and he
had a good look at them when they passed by the second deck.[44]
From the foregoing, prosecution witness Gervacio Uy identified the two
armed men, who initially pointed a gun at him in the comfort room at the
lower deck, and who ordered him to go with them to the radio room at the
third or upper deck, as Titing Aranas and Angelo Paracueles. On the other
hand, prosecution witness Ernesto Magalona who saw Gervacio Uy and the
two armed men as they passed by the second deck on their way to the third
deck, identified one of those two armed men as appellant Elmer Manalili.
Where eyewitnesses contradict themselves on a vital question, such as
the identity of the offender, the element of reasonable doubt is injected and
cannot be lightly disregarded.[45] The identity of the offender, like the crime
itself must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.[46] In the case at bench,
there is no positive identification of the appellant inasmuch as prosecution
eyewitnesses Uy and Magalona contradicted themselves on the identity of
the alleged offender.
Moreover, although prosecution witness Gervacio Uy stated that one of
the pirates who opened the locker of Ernesto Magalona had a tattoo on his
left hand with the initials GV, the trial court did not see any tattoo mark on
the appellants left hand.[47]
Further, witness Uy declared that he saw appellant for the first time
during the investigation before the municipal judge of Ubay.[48] He told the
municipal judge that appellants face was familiar among the eight seajackers,
but Magalona identified appellant as one of the pirates.[49] Compared with
the identification made by Magalona, Uys statement that appellants face was
familiar among the pirates is characterized by uncertainty. His identification of the pirates who committed the crime charged. Hence, the appellant must
of appellant in the trial court based on the aforementioned statement be acquitted.
retained its doubtful tenor.
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the trial court is REVERSED and
Significantly, the passenger named Boiser who allegedly identified the SET ASIDE, and appellant Elmer Manalili is hereby ACQUITTED on the ground
appellant as one of the pirates before the municipal judge of Ubay was of reasonable doubt.
significantly not presented as a witness by the prosecution. The records show
The Director of Prisons is hereby directed to cause the immediate
thus:
release of appellant unless the latter is being lawfully held for another cause,
FISCAL LIGASON: and to inform the Court accordingly within ten (10) days from notice hereof.
I would like to made (sic) manifestation, Your Honor, that I did not SO ORDERED
present Ms. Alma Casil and Melecio Boiser, they were listed, but
after I confronted them that they did not identify this accused, so
that I did not present them, because there are others who can
identify.[50]
From the foregoing, it appears that the prosecution failed to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that appellant was one of the eight men who
committed qualified piracy in the instant case.
Appellants defense of alibi is generally considered a weak
defense. However, it assumes importance when his identification as an
alleged offender in the crime charged is inconclusive or
unreliable.[51] Appellant asserted that at the time of the piracy in the
seawaters of Ubay, Bohol, he was in his residence in Cebu City, and which
alibi was corroborated by Jeffrey Perandos, Reynaldo Cardona and his wife,
Cherry Mae Manalili. Although alibi can be fabricated, it is not always false
and without merit, and when coupled with the improbabilities and
uncertainties of the prosecution evidence, the defense of alibi deserves
merit.[52]
Besides, the prosecution has the burden of proof in establishing the guilt
of the accused.[53] When the prosecution fails to discharge its burden, an
accused need not even offer evidence in his behalf.[54] In every criminal
prosecution, the identity of the offender or offenders must be established by
proof beyond reasonable doubt.[55] There must be moral certainty in an
unprejudiced mind that it was accused-appellant who committed the
crime. Absent this required quantum of evidence would mean exoneration
for accused-appellant.[56] It is our view, therefore, and we hold that the
prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellant was one
 BOOK II. CRIMES AND PENALTIES
1. This defines the specific felonies, the manner by which they are
committed, their elements and their corresponding penalties.
2. The felonies are grouped into Titles depending upon the nature of
the felonies, the rights affected and the persons liable. There are 15 titles
each subdivided into chapters and the latter into articles.
3. Several felonies have either been repealed or amended by special
laws.
TITLE ONE. CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF
NATIONS
1. Crimes against the law of nations are punishable anywhere being
crimes against the family of nations.
2. Crimes against national security include the so called ―war crimes‖
and those committed both in times of war and in times of peace.
3. Rebellion is not a crime against national security although in scope,
magnitude and purpose, it poses a danger to the security of the existing
political order.
Art. 114. TREASON
I. Concept: the act of turning one‘s back to one‘s country during war
and siding with the enemy. It is essentially a war crime. The Philippines must
be involved in a shooting war with a foreign country, not just a breaking off
of diplomatic relations. It may be a declared or undeclared war. The concept
is of American Origin.
II. Its essence is the breach of allegiance to the Philippine government.
It is disloyalty in times of war in favor of the enemy. Persons liable are
Filipinos and resident aliens provided they are not the nationals of the enemy
country. The resident aliens are expected to remain loyal in exchange for the
protection of the law and of the government given to them during their
residency in the Philippines. They are allowed to leave the Philippines back to
their own country or to go to a third country, otherwise they are interned.
III. As a political crime: it absorbs ordinary crimes which are used as
aggravating circumstances; it is continuing and transitory. It may be
committed outside of the Philippines.
IV. There are two modes of commission:
A). Fist Mode: By levying war against the Philippines
1. It must be in support of the enemy else it becomes sedition or
rebellion
2. It requires a number of people assembled who engage in actual
combat with the government, or at least assembled for purposes of effecting
a treasonable design.
B). Second Mode: By adherence to the enemy giving them aid or
comfort.
1. Adherence is favoring the enemy emotionally or intellectually;
harboring feelings of sympathy. Giving aid or comfort is any act to strengthen
the enemy or to weaken the government‘s ability to fight the enemy. E.g.:
giving them food, shelter, ammunition; data or information, intelligence or
engaging in black propaganda against the government.
2. The giving of aid or comfort must be to the enemy as an enemy and
not by reason of humanitarian considerations.
V. Proof of Guilt:
A. By the plea of guilt
B. The two-witness rule: on the testimony of two witnesses to the same
over act. This applies only to the second mode i.e. adherence to the enemy.
The purpose is to guard against fabricated testimony considering that
emotions run high in time of war, and because treason is the highest crime
committed by a citizen, and on account of the penalty therefore.
VI. Defenses Not Allowed:
A. Righteous action: collaboration saved lives of civilians and soldiers
B. Suspended Allegiance Due to Change of Sovereignty
Art. 115. Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Treason
A. If treason is actually committed, the conspiracy and proposal are
absorbed.
Art. 116. Misprision of Treason
 A. This is a crime by omission or by silence, being an act of concealment
of one‘s knowledge about the existence of a conspiracy to commit treason.
The essence of the crime is the failure to report to the proper authorities
about the existence of a conspiracy to commit treason. This may be
committed in peace time.
B. Only Filipinos are liable.
C. There is no liability if the conspirators actually commit treason since,
by then, the treason is known to the government.
D. The penalty is that of an accessory i.e. two degrees lower, but article
20 will not be applied even if he is related to the principal in the crime of
treason.
Art. 117. Espionage (Military)
I. Two Laws are involved:
A. Art. 117 which enumerates two acts by which espionage is
committed
1. by the unauthorized entry into a warship, naval/military
establishment or reservation to obtain information or confidential
data relative to the defense of the Philippines
2. disclosure of such data by a public officer to the representative of a
foreign country
A. C.A. 616 enacted in 1941:
1. It expanded and broadened the acts of espionage to cover virtually
any act or means or modes of obtaining, disclosing to any person, any data
involving national defense or related to the security of the state.
2. It also punishes conspiracies to commit espionage
3. It punishes the act of harboring or concealing a spy with a penalty of
not more than 10 years or a fine of no more than P10,000.00
4. It punishes the act of destroying or injuring war materials or national
defense materials ( sabotage).
B. Offenders may be Filipinos or aliens and may be committed in war or
in peace time.
C. This is the first of several offenses which involve the unlawful
disclosure of secret or sensitive information or data which affects national
security.
D. In the light of electronic gadgets, google earth, unmanned satellites
and other modern technology of obtaining information, the two laws on
espionage needs appropriate amendment.
E. The two laws refer more to military espionage rather than to
diplomatic or economic espionage.
Art. 118. Inciting to War and Giving Motives for Reprisals
A. This is committed only during peace time.
B. The essence is the commission of hostile or unlawful acts against the
persons or properties of the nationals of a foreign country which acts could
provoke hostilities or reprisals from the foreign country against the persons
or properties of Filipinos within that foreign country, or as reason for that
foreign
country to declare war against the Philippines.
C. The hostile acts must be committed against the foreign nationals as
foreign nationals and not when they become the indiscriminate victims of
ordinary crimes.
D. Examples: flag-burning, confiscation of their properties; mass
ejectment; expulsion from school on account of their nationality or religion;
destruction of the military installation built by Vietnam or China on the
disputed Spratley Islands.
Art. 119. Violation of Neutrality
A. Concept: The Philippines has adopted a policy of neutrality on the
occasion of a war between third countries. The accused violates rules and
regulations issued by the government to enforce neutrality.
B. Examples: secret sale of goods, food or war materials to a combatant
state which sale is forbidden by the government.
Art. 120. Correspondence with Hostile Country
A. Concept: The Philippines is at war with a country and the accused
corresponds with a person in the enemy country or territory occupied by the
enemy troops. The correspondence is in whatever form such as by mail, radio,
texting or by e-mail provided:
 1. The correspondence is prohibited, even if the communication is
innocent
2. Or is in ciphers or conventional signs
3. If notice or information is given which might be useful to the enemy
such as providing news as to the morale of the troops, state of preparedness
of the Philippines; public support to the war. This by itself is an act of treason
if done intentionally.
Art. 121. Flight to Enemy Country
A. The flight must be prohibited. The purpose is immaterial. Mere
attempt constitutes the crime.
CRIMES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS
CONCEPT AND SOURCES : These are acts or omissions which are
considered as crimes against all nations and not merely against a particular
state or country. Any country which first acquired jurisdiction over the person
of the accused may prosecute the offender under its own laws, or waive
jurisdiction and turn over the offender to another country, or to an
international tribunal established to try these crimes.
These crimes are found in several statutes:
(i). The Revised Penal Code defines and penalizes the traditional crimes
which are piracy and mutiny in the high seas
(ii). The Rome Statute of International Criminal Court (iii). Special
Penal Laws passed by Congress
Art. 122 Piracy and Mutiny in the High Seas.
A. PIRACY IN THE HIGH SEAS
1. This is essentially robbery or depredation committed on board a ship
in the high seas. Hence there must be the use and application of force,
violence, threat, or intimidation against persons.
2. The purpose of the pirates is gain and the object may either be the
vessel itself which includes military sea crafts; its cargo; the personal effects
of the passengers/crew; or all of these.
3. If the purpose is to hold the vessel, crew and passengers hostage for
the purpose of demanding ransom or political reasons, the act may be
considered as terrorism.
QUESTION: What about the act of members of the Green Peace
Movement boarding a Japanese Whaling ship to dramatize their protest
against the killing of whales? ANSWER: Since the purpose is not gain, their act
can not be considered as piracy.
4. The term ―high seas‖ refers to the waters beyond the territorial
waters or jurisdiction of any country. However piracy is a continuing offense
and need not be committed wholly in the high seas as the crime may
commence in the territorial waters of a foreign country and continue in the
high seas, or start in the high seas and end up in the territorial waters of a
country.
5. Pirates are ―Hostis Humanis Generis‖ and may therefore be tried
anywhere by any country under its own internal penal laws. The first country
which captures the pirates may try them to the exclusion of other countries.
6. The offenders are generally strangers to the vessels in that they do
not belong to the crew or are not legitimate passengers. Those posing as
passengers/crew are still pirates, including legitimate passengers/crew who
conspire with pirates.
7. If the offenders are crew members/passengers, the crime is Robbery
in the High Seas or Mutiny, depending upon the purpose.
8. Qualified piracy:
a). whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the
same
b). whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means
of saving themselves c). whenever the crime is accompanied by murder,
homicide, physical injuries or rape.
(i) these crimes are not separate offenses and neither can they be
complexed, they become qualified aggravating circumstance
(ii) the term murder or homicide should be understood to mean that
there was a killing
II. Mutiny In the High Seas

1. Concept: The raising of commotions, disturbances, or acts of
disobedience to the commands of the ship captain, which acts involve
violence.
2. The purpose is not gain but it may be to voice displeasure, opposition,
disobedience to the policies, rules or regulations enforced by the captain. The
mutineers may however seize the ship in order to enforce their will or to have
their way, but the primary purpose is not gain. Example: the Mutiny on the
Bounty.
3. The offenders are either the crew themselves or the passengers.
However, where slaves managed to seize the ship and take control of it, the
crime was considered as mutiny as said slaves while being transported, were
considered as passengers.
4. Qualified by (i) when the offenders abandon the victims without
means of saving themselves or
(ii) when it is accompanied by rape, murder, homicide or physical injuries
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
This treaty which was adopted in Rome in 1997 and became enforced in
2001,established the International Criminal Court. It created four
international crimes; (i) genocide (ii) Crimes against Humanity (iii) War Crimes
and (iv) Crimes of Aggression
I. Genocide: acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part,
a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, which includes the following:
a).killing members of the group, causing serious bodily injury or mental
harm
b). deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
c). imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group d).
forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
II. Crimes Against Humanity: offenses against human dignity or grave
humiliation or degradation of human being as part of either a government
policy or a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government
or de facto authority. Ordinary crimes such as murder, massacre, human
experimentation, extrajudicial punishments, military use of children,
kidnapping, become crimes against humanity if part of a widespread or
systematic practice.
III. War Crimes. Serious violations of the laws and customs of war giving
rise to individual criminal responsibility, such as the Geneva conventions of
August 12, 1949. These are serious violations of the laws and customs
applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework
of international law.
a). murder, maltreatment of POWS or civilian internees b). killing of
hostages
c). murder, maltreatment or deportation of civilian residents of an
occupied territory to slave labor camps
d). killing or punishing spies without a fair trial
e). wanton destruction of cities or towns not warranted by military
necessity
Iv. Crimes of Aggression which involves: (i) planning, preparation,
initiation, execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control
over or direct the political or military action of a state, if the act of aggression
which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of
the UN Charter and (ii) use of armed force by a state against the sovereign
territorial integrity or political independence of another state, or in any
manner inconsistent with the UN Charter
a). invasion, military occupation, annexation, bombardment, against the
territory of another state b). blockading of ports
c). military attacks
d). sending of mercenaries or allowing its territory as base for
mercenaries
Special Philippine Penal Laws which provide for extra territorial
application:
R.A. 9372. AN ACT TO SECURE TO SECURE
THE STATE AND PROTECT OUR PEOPLE FROM TERRORISM
(THE HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007)
 1. It created the crime known as terrorism and declared it to be ― a ii. Is the term ―populace‘ to be interpreted as referring to the local
crime against the Filipino people, against humanity, and against the law of inhabitants where the acts were committed, or does it refer to the national
nations‖. population?

II. Defines the crime of terrorism to be the commission of ―any of the C. The purpose of the accused must be to coerce the government to
crimes of : (THE PREDICATE CRIMES) give into an unlawful demand
i. The word ―demand‖ is broad enough as to cover not only political,
A. Under the Revised Penal Code. criminal or monetarial demands but also those which maybe categorized as
i. Piracy in general and Mutiny in the High Seas or in the Philippine social or economic, or even religious. This however is qualified by the word
Waters ― unlawful‖.
ii. rebellion ii. The government is therefore held hostage by the terrorists.
iii. Coup d‘etat
iv. Murder IV. Other Acts/Persons Liable
v. Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
A. Conspiracy to commit terrorism. The penalty is the same as terrorism
B. Under Special Laws itself ( i.e. 40 years of imprisonment)
i. Arson under P.D. 1613
ii. Violation of R.A. 6969 ( Toxic Substance and Nuclear Waste Control) B. Accomplices- he cooperates in the execution of either terrorism or
iii. R.A. 5207 ( Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968) conspiracy to commit terrorism by previous or simultaneous acts (Penalty is
iv. Hijacking 17 yrs. 4 months and one day to 20 years)
v. Piracy in Phil. Waters and Highway Robbery
vi. P.D. 1866 ( Possession and Manufacture of Firearms/explosives) C. Accessory-The acts punished are the same as that under Article 19 of
the RPC. The penalty is 10 yrs. And one day to 12 years
thereby sowing and creating a condition of widespread and
extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the 1. The law however adopts the absolutory cause of exemption of
government to give in to an unlawful demand” accessories from liability with respect to their relatives

III. Requirements for Terrorism
A. The accused ( maybe a single individual or a group, Filipinos or foreign
nationals) must commit any of the enumerated crimes referred to as the
PREDICATE CRIMES
B. There results a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and
panic among the populace
i. The extent and degree of fear and panic, including the number of
people affected in order to meet the term ―populace‖, are questions of facts
to be determined by the courts and on a case to case basis.
V. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and Recording of
Communications
A. Authorizes the grant of Judicial Authorization to listen, intercept, and
record, any communication, message, conversation, discussion, or of spoken
or written words between members of (i) a judicially declared and outlawed
terrorist organization or association or group, or (ii) of any person charged
with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism
1. The Judicial Authorization can only be issued by the Court of Appeals
(a) upon a written application filed by a police or law enforcement official or
members of his team and (b). after an ex parte hearing establishing (c).
probable cause that terrorism/conspiracy to commit terrorism has been
committed, or is being committed, or is about to be committed ( note that
the wording is not attempted)
2. The applicant must have been authorized in writing to file the
application by the Anti Terrorism Council ( The Body created to implement
the law and assume responsibility for the effective implementation of the
anti-terrorism[policy of the country)
3. The Judicial Authority is effective for a maximum period not to
exceed 30 days from date of receipt of the written order and may be
extended for another similar period
B. Punishes the act of failure to notify the person subject of the
surveillance, monitoring or interception, if no case was filed within the 30 day
period/life time of the Order of Court authorizing the surveillance
C. Punishes any person who conducts any unauthorized or malicious
interceptions and or recording of any form of communications, messages,
conversations, discussions or spoken or written words
VI. Provides for a Judicial Declaration of Terrorists and Outlawed
organization, association, or group of persons, by any RTC upon application
by the DOJ and upon prior notice to the group affected.
VII. Procedure when a suspected terrorist is arrested
A. A suspected terrorist maybe arrested by any law enforcement
personnel provided:
1. The law enforcement agent was duly authorized in writing by the Anti
Terrorism Council
2. The arrest was the result of a surveillance or examination of bank
deposits
B. Upon arrest and prior to actual detention, the law enforcement agent
must present the suspected terrorist before any judge at the latter‘s
residence or office nearest the place of arrest, at any time of the day or night.
The judge shall, within three days, submit a written report of the presentation
to the court where the suspect shall have been charged.
C. Immediately after taking custody of a person charged or suspected
as a terrorist, the police or law enforcement personnel shall notify in writing
the judge of the nearest place of apprehension or arrest, but if the arrest is
made during non-office days or after office hours, the written notice shall be
served at the nearest residence of the judge nearest the place of arrest
D. Failure to notify in writing is punished by 10 years and one day to12
years of imprisonment
VIII. Period of Detention has been extended to three days
A. The three day period is counted from the moment the person
charged or suspected as terrorist has been apprehended or arrested,
detained and taken into custody
B. In the event of an actual or imminent terrorist attack, suspects may
not be detained for more than three days without the written approval of the
Human Rights Commission, or judge of the MTC RTC, Sandiganbayan or Court
of Appeals nearest the place of arrest
C. If arrest was on a nonworking day or hour, the person arrested shall
be brought to the residence of any of the above named officials nearest the
place of arrest.
IX. Other Acts Punished As Offenses (punished by imprisonment of 10
years and one day to 12 years) which acts are related to the arrest/detention
of suspected terrorists
A. Violation of the rights of a person detained
1. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the arrest; to remain
silent; to counsel
2. To communicate and confer with counsel at any time without
restriction
3. To communicate at any time and without restrictions with members
of family or relatives and be visited by them
4. To avail of the services of a physician of choice
B. Offenses relating to an official log book:
 1. Failure to keep official logbook detailing the name of the person
arrested the date and time of initial admission for custody and arrest; state
of his health; date and time of removal from his cell, and his return thereto;
date and time of visits and by whom; all other important data bearing on his
treatment while under arrest and custody
2. Failure to promptly issue a certified true copy of the entries of the log
book
C. Using threat, intimidation, coercion, inflicting physical pain, or
torment or mental emotional, moral or psychological pressure which shall
vitiate the free will
D. Punishes Infidelity in the Custody of Detained Persons
1. The penalty is 12 years and one day to 20 years if the person detained
is a prisoner by final
judgment
2. The penalty is 6 years and one day to 12 years if the prisoner is a
detention prisoner
E. Punishes the act of knowingly furnishing False Testimony, forged
document or spurious evidence in any investigation or hearing under the law
( 12 yrs and one day to 20 years)
X. Prosecution under the Law is a bar to another prosecution under the
Revised Penal Code or any other special law for any offense or felony which
is necessarily included in the offense charged under the law
XI. If the suspect is acquitted he is entitled to P500,000.00 for every day
of detention without a warrant of arrest.
A. Any person who delays the release or refuses to release the amount
shall be punished by imprisonment of 6 months
XII.Provisions on the Identity of the Informant
A. The officer to whom the name of the suspect was first revealed shall
record the real name and specific address of the informant and shall report
the same to his superior officer who shall in turn transmit the information to
the Congressional Oversight Committee within 5 days after the suspect was
placed under arrest, or his properties sequestered seized or frozen.
B. The data shall be considered confidential and shall not be
unnecessarily revealed until after the proceedings against the suspect shall
have been terminated.
( NOTE: It would seem that the confidentiality of the informant‘s identity
is not permanent but may be revealed, not like the provisions of the Rules of
Evidence which considers the confidentiality as permanent)
XIII. Territorial Application of the law:
The law applies to any person who commits an act covered by the law if
committed:
A. Within the terrestrial domain, interior waters, maritime zone and
airspace of the Philippines
B. Inside the territorial limits of the Philippines
C. On board a Philippine ship or airship
D. Within any embassy, consulate, diplomatic premises belonging to or
occupied by the Philippine government in an official capacity
E. Against Philippine citizens or persons of Philippine descent where
their citizenship or ethnicity was a factor in the commission of the crime
F. Directly against the Philippine government.
XIV. The provisions of the law shall be automatically suspended
one month before and two months after the holding of any election.
-o0o-
R.A 9851: THE PHILIPPINE ACT ON CRIMES AGAINST INTERNATIONAL
HUMANITARIAN
LAW, GENOCIDE
AND OTHER CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.
This act defines and penalizes three crimes known as: (i) War Crimes or
crimes against International Human Humanitarian Law (ii) Genocide and (iii)
Other Crimes Against Humanity.
 I. War Crimes or Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law
A. In case of an International armed conflict, which is defined as the use
of force or armed violence between two or more states including belligerent
occupation, those which are grave violations of the Geneva Convention of
August 12, 1949, which are :
(a) Willful killing
(b) Torture or inhuman treatment including biological experiments
(c) Willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
(d) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by
military necessity
B. Violations in the course of an armed conflict between government
authorities and organized armed groups or between such armed groups
within a state, are not included. Hence atrocities committed by and between
the government and the NPA/MILF are not covered.
(iii).Trafficking In Persons or for Violation of RA. 10364 ― The Expanded
Anti-Trafficking Against Persons Act of 2012‖ where the accused is a Filipino
or permanent resident of the Philippines, or the act is against a Filipino
citizen.
III. Piracy and Mutiny in Philippine Waters
1. These crimes are punished by Pres. Decree No. 532 as amended by
R.A. 7659 (The Heinous Crime law).
2. The concept of piracy/mutiny as committed in the high seas whether
simple or qualified, applies as well when committed within Philippine waters.
Hence when the taking does not involve violence, the crime is theft. The
offenders include crew members/passengers.
3. The term Philippine waters include: (i) those waters around, between
and connecting the islands
(ii) all waters belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title
including the territorial waters, insular shelves and sea bed (iii) navigable
rivers.
4. The term vessel includes any water craft in Philippine waters whether
moving or anchored so long as it is sea worthy, used in transporting of people
or goods or both. This includes a fisherman‘s banca and a submarine, as well
as vessels owned by aliens.
5. Crimes other than murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape may
qualify the piracy. However intimidating the ship captain may constitute
direct assault.
6. The decree creates and punishes the crime of AIDING OR ABETTING
PIRACY.
a. This is a crime in itself although the acts involve the acts of an
accessory.
b. The penalty however is that of an accomplice.
c. Examples: by profiting one‘s self or helping the pirates profit from the
effects of the crime; harboring the pirates, providing information/data on the
sailing route ad/or schedule of ships.
THE ANTI HIJACKING LAW ( R.A. 6235)
(Aircraft piracy)
I. The four acts punished
1. Hijacking of a Foreign Aircraft
2. Hijacking of a Philippine Plane
3. Violation of Rules inimical to civil aviation by a). carrying/loading
prohibited substances
b). carrying of certain substances in violation of rules and regulations
concerning their transportation
II. Hijacking of a Philippine aircraft or one registered under the laws of
the Philippines. This includes helicopters. They maybe privately used/owned
or commercial planes or government owned, civilian or military aircraft.
A). Two ways of commission
(i). by usurping or seizing control while it is in flight
a) In flight means when the exterior doors are closed following
embarkation until opened for disembarkation. There are passengers on
board.
b).It is not necessary that the plane is already airborne and may still be
in the tarmac or it has taxied but the passengers have not yet been allowed
to disembark
c). If not in flight, the crime may either be theft or robbery, or threats or
coercion
 (ii) compelling the pilot to change the course or the destination of the
aircraft a). this presuppose the plane is already in flight else it is coercion or
threat b). the flight may be a domestic or international flight
III. Hijacking of Foreign Aircraft A). How committed
i). usurping or seizing control of the aircraft while within Philippine
territory
a). It need not be in flight because it is considered in transit while in the
Philippines
b). It is enough that the hijackers are on board the aircraft and have
commenced instructing the pilots or crew even if the engine has not yet been
revved
ii). Compelling the plane to land in the Philippines
a). This presupposes that the Philippine is not the point of destination or
a stop over
b). Does this apply when the plane is forced to land to refuel or obtain
food or to land a sick passenger?

IV. When Qualified:

a). By firing upon the pilot, member of the crew or passenger even if they
are not hit b). exploding or attempting to explode any bomb or explosive to
destroy the aircraft
c). if the crime is accompanied by a killing, physical injuries or rape (
other crimes should be treated as separate offenses such as robbery or theft)

NB: This is another unique instance when an act punished under the RPC
qualifies a violation of a special law

IV. Acts Inimical to Civil Aviation

A). By carrying or loading on board an aircraft operating as a public utility

passenger aircraft in the Philippines, any flammable corrosive, explosive or
poisonous substances.
i) If there results any injury or damage to property on account of said
prohibited substances, they shall be separate offenses
B). By loading or carrying or transporting on board a cargo aircraft
operating as a public utility in the Philippines, any of the substances if not
done in accordance with the rules and regulations set and promulgated by
the Air Transportation Office