10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED rights without the assistance of counsel.

” By analogy, but without prejudice

to the sanctions imposed by law for the illegal practice of law, it is amply
People vs. Tulin
shown that the rights of accused-appellants were sufficiently and properly
G.R. No. 111709. August 30, 2001.* protected by the appearance of Mr. Tomas Posadas. An examination of the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROGER P. record will show that he knew the technical rules of procedure. Hence, we
TULIN, VIRGILIO I. LOYOLA, CECILIO O. CHANGCO, ANDRES C. rule that there was a valid waiver of the right to sufficient representation
INFANTE, CHEONG SAN HIONG, and JOHN DOES, accused-appellants. during the trial, considering that it was unequivocally, knowingly, and
Right to Counsel; Waiver; Waiver of the right to sufficient intelligently made and with the full assistance of a bona fide lawyer, Atty.
representation during the trial as covered by the due process clauses shall Abdul Basar. Accordingly, denial of due process cannot be successfully
only be valid if made with the full assistance of a bona fide lawyer.—On the invoked where a valid waiver of rights has been made (People vs. Serzo, 274
first issue, the record reveals that a manifestation (Exhibit “20”, Record) SCRA 553 [1997]; Sayson vs. People, 166 SCRA 680 [1988]).
was executed by accused-appellants Tulin, Loyola, Changco, and Infante, Same; Same; Miranda Rights; The right to counsel during custodial
Jr. on February 11, 1991, stating that they were adopting the evidence investigation may not be waived except in writing and in the presence of
adduced when they were represented by a non-lawyer. Such waiver of the counsel.—However, we must quickly add that the right to counsel during
right to sufficient representation during the trial as covered by the due custodial investigation may not be waived except in writing and in the
process clause shall only be valid if made with the full assistance of a bona presence of counsel, x x x Such rights originated from Miranda v.
fide lawyer. During the trial, accused-appellants, as represented by Atty. Arizona (384 U.S. 436 [1966]) which gave birth to the so-called Miranda
Abdul Basar, made a categorical manifestation that said accused- doctrine which is to the effect that prior to any questioning during custodial
appellants were apprised of the nature and legal consequences of the investigation, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain
subject manifestation, and that they voluntarily and intelligently executed silent, that any statement he gives may be used as evidence against him,
the same. They and that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or
_______________ appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided
the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. The
* THIRD DIVISION. Constitution even adds the more stringent requirement that the waiver
11 must be in writing and made in the presence of counsel.
VOL. 364, AUGUST 30, 2001 11 12
People vs. Tulin 12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
also affirmed the truthfulness of its contents when asked in open People vs. Tulin
court (tsn, February 11, 1992, pp. 7-59). Same; Same; Same; The absence of counsel during the execution of the
Same; Same; There is a valid waiver of the right to sufficient so-called confessions of the accused make them invalid.—Saliently, the
representation during the trial where such waiver is unequivocally, absence of counsel during the execution of the so-called confessions of the
knowingly, and intelligently made and with the full assistance of a bona accused-appellants make them invalid. In fact, the very basic reading of
fide lawyer.—It is true that an accused person shall be entitled to be the Miranda rights was not even shown in the case at bar. Paragraph [3]
present and to defend himself in person and by counsel at every stage of of the aforestated Section 12 sets forth the so-called “fruit from the
the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of judgment (Section poisonous tree doctrine,” a phrase minted by Mr. Justice Felix Frankfurter
1, Rule 115, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure). This is hinged on the in the celebrated case of Nardone vs. United States (308 U.S. 388 [1939]).
fact that a layman is not versed on the technicalities of trial. However, it According to this rule, once the primary source (the “tree”) is shown to have
is also provided by law that “[r]ights may be waived, unless the waiver is been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the
contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs or “fruit”) derived from it is also inadmissible. The rule is based on the
prejudicial to a third person with right recognized by law.” (Article 6, Civil principle that evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be used
Code of the Philippines). Thus, the same section of Rule 115 adds that to gain other evidence because the originally illegally obtained evidence
“[u]pon motion, the accused may be allowed to defend himself in person taints all evidence subsequently obtained (People vs. Alicando, 251 SCRA
when it sufficiently appears to the court that he can properly protect his 293 [1995]). Thus, in this case, the uncounselled extrajudicial confessions
1
of accused-appellants, without a valid waiver of the right to counsel, are Criminal Law; Conspiracy; To be a conspirator, one need not
inadmissible and whatever information is derived therefrom shall be participate in every detail of execution—he need not even take part in every
regarded as likewise inadmissible in evidence against them. act or need not even know the exact part to be performed by the others in the
Witnesses; Greater weight is given to the categorical identification of execution of the conspiracy.—We likewise uphold the trial court’s finding of
the accused by the prosecution witnesses than to the accused’s plain denial conspiracy. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
of participation in the commission of the crime.—We also agree with the agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it
trial court’s finding that accused-appellants’ defense of denial is not (Article 8, Revised Penal Code). To be a conspirator, one need not
supported by any hard evidence but their bare testimony. Greater weight participate in every detail of execution; he need not even take part in every
is given to the categorical identification of the accused by the prosecution act or need not even know the exact part to be performed by the others in
witnesses than to the accused’s plain denial of participation in the the execution of the conspiracy. As noted by the trial court, there are times
commission of the crime (People v. Baccay, 284 SCRA 296 [1998]). Instead, when conspirators are assigned separate and different tasks which may
accused-appellants Tulin, Loyola, and Infante, Jr. narrated a patently appear unrelated to one another, but in fact, constitute a whole and
desperate tale that they were hired by three complete strangers (allegedly collective effort to achieve a common criminal design.
Captain Edilberto Liboon, Second Mate Christian Torralba, and their Same; Piracy; Statutes; Republic Act No. 7659 neither superseded nor
companion) while said accused-appellants were conversing with one amended the provisions on piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532—
another along the seashore at Apkaya, Balibago, Calatagan, Batangas, to piracy under Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and piracy
work on board the “M/T Tabangao” which was then anchored off-shore. And under Presidential Decree No. 532 exist harmoniously as separate laws.—
readily, said accused-appellants agreed to work as cooks and handymen for Republic Act No. 7659 neither superseded nor amended the provisions on
an indefinite period of time without even saying goodbye to their families, piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532. There is no contradiction
without even knowing their destination or the details of their voyage, between the two laws. There is likewise no ambiguity and hence, there is
without the personal effects needed for a long voyage at sea. Such evidence no need to construe or interpret the law. All the presidential decree did was
is incredible and clearly not in accord with human experience. As pointed to widen the coverage of the law, in keeping with the intent to protect the
out by the trial court, it is incredible that Captain Liboon, Second Mate citizenry as well as neighboring states from crimes against the law of
Torralba, and their companion “had to leave the vessel at 9:30 o’clock in nations. As expressed in one of the “whereas” clauses of Presidential
the evening and venture in a completely unfamiliar place merely to recruit Decree No. 532, piracy is “among the highest forms of lawlessness
five (5) cooks or handymen (p. 113, Rollo).” condemned by the penal statutes of all countries.” For this reason, piracy
13 under the Article 122, as amended, and piracy under Presidential Decree
VOL. 364, AUGUST 30, 2001 13 No. 532 exist harmoniously as separate laws.
14
People vs. Tulin
Alibi; Alibi is fundamentally and inherently a weak defense, much 14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
more so when uncorroborated by other witnesses.—Anent accused- People vs. Tulin
appellant Changco’s defense of denial with the alibi that on May 14 and Same; Same; International Law; Jurisdiction; Although Presidential
17, he was at his place of work and that on April 10, 1991, he was in his Decree No. 532 requires that the attack and seizure of the vessel and its
house in Bacoor, Cavite, sleeping, suffice it to state that alibi is cargo be committed in Philippine waters, the disposition by the pirates of
fundamentally and inherently a weak defense, much more so when the vessel and its cargo is still deemed part of the act of piracy, hence, the
uncorroborated by other witnesses (People v. Adora, 275 SCRA 441 [1997]) same need not be committed in Philippine waters.—As regards the
considering that it is easy to fabricate and concoct, and difficult to disprove. contention that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person
Accused-appellant must adduce clear and convincing evidence that, at of accused-appellant Hiong since the crime was committed outside
about midnight on April 10, 1991, it was physically impossible for him to Philippine waters, suffice it to state that unquestionably, the attack on and
have been in Calatagan, Batangas. Changco not only failed to do this, he seizure of “M/T Tabangao” (renamed “M/T Galilee” by the pirates) and its
was likewise unable to prove that he was in his place of work on the dates cargo were committed in Philippine waters, although the captive vessel
aforestated. was later brought by the pirates to Singapore where its cargo was off
loaded, transferred, and sold. And such transfer was done under accused-
2
appellant Hiong’s direct supervision. Although Presidential Decree No. 532 cannot be correctly said that accused-appellant was “merely following the
requires that the attack and seizure of the vessel and its cargo be orders of his superiors.” An individual is justified in performing an act in
committed in Philippine waters, the disposition by the pirates of the vessel obedience to an order issued by a superior if such order, is for some lawful
and its cargo is still deemed part of the act of piracy, hence, the same need purpose and that the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order
not be committed in Philippine waters. is lawful (Reyes, Revised Penal Code, Vol. 1, 1981 ed., p. 212). Notably, the
Same; Same; Same; Same; Piracy falls under Title One of Book Two alleged order of Hiong’s superior Chua Kim Leng Timothy, is a patent
of the Revised Penal Code, and, as such, is an exception to the rule on violation not only of Philippine, but of international law. Such violation
territoriality in criminal law; It is likewise well-settled that regardless of was committed on board a Philippine-operated vessel. Moreover, the
the law penalizing the same, piracy is a reprehensible crime against the means used by Hiong in carrying out said order was equally unlawful. He
whole world.—Moreover, piracy falls under Title One of Book Two of the misled port and immigration authorities, falsified records, using a mere
Revised Penal Code. As such, it is an exception to the rule on territoriality clerk, Frankie Loh, to consummate said acts. During the trial, Hiong
in criminal law. The same principle applies even if Hiong, in the instant presented himself, and the trial court was convinced, that he was an
case, were charged, not with a violation of qualified piracy under the penal intelligent and articulate Port Captain. These circumstances show that he
code but under a special law, Presidential Decree No. 532 which penalizes must have realized the nature and the implications of the order of Chua
piracy in Philippine waters. Verily, Presidential Decree No. 532 should be Kim Leng Timothy. Thereafter, he could have refused to follow orders to
applied with more force here since its purpose is precisely to discourage conclude the deal and to effect the transfer of the cargo to the “Navi Pride.”
and prevent piracy in Philippine waters (People v. Catantan, 278 SCRA He did not do so, for which reason, he must now suffer the consequences of
761 [1997]). It is likewise, well-settled that regardless of the law penalizing his actions.
the same, piracy is a reprehensible crime against the whole world (People
v. Lol-lo, 43 Phil. 19 [1922]). APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Br. 49.
Same; Same; Conspiracy; Right to be Informed; One charged as a
principal by direct participation under Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
532 may be validly convicted as an accomplice under Section 4 of said law; The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
If there is lack of complete evidence of conspiracy, the liability is that of an Rodrigo, Berenguer & Guno counsel de oficio for Roger Tulin, V.I.
accomplice and not as principal.—However, does this constitute a violation Loyola, CO. Changco and A.C. Infante.
of accused-appellant’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and Britanico, Consunji & Sarmiento Law Offices for accused-appellant
cause of the accusation against him on the ground that he was convicted Cheong San Hiong.
as an accomplice under Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 532 even 16
though he was charged as a principal by direct participation under Section 16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
15
People vs. Tulin
VOL. 364, AUGUST 30, 2001 15
People vs. Tulin MELO, J.:
2 of said law? x x x The ruling of the trial court is within well-settled
jurisprudence that if there is lack of complete evidence of conspiracy, the This is one of the older cases which unfortunately has remained in docket
liability is that of an accomplice and not as principal (People v. of the Court for sometime. It was reassigned, together with other similar
Tolentino, 40 SCRA 514 [1971]). Any doubt as to the participation of an cases, to undersigned ponente in pursuance of A.M. No. 00-9-03-SC dated
individual in the commission of the crime is always resolved in favor of February 27, 2001.
lesser responsibility (People v. Corbes, 270 SCRA 465 [1997]; People vs. In the evening of March 2, 1991, “M/T Tabangao,” a cargo vessel owned
Elfano, Jr., 125 SCRA 792 [1983]; People v. Pastores, 40 SCRA 498 [1971]). by the PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation, loaded with 2,000
Same; Same; Justifying Circumstances; Obedience to Lawful Order of barrels of kerosene, 2,600 barrels of regular gasoline, and 40,000 barrels of
Superior; An individual is justified in performing an act in obedience to an diesel oil, with a total value of P40,426,793.87, was sailing off the coast of
order issued by a superior if such order, is for some lawful purpose and that Mindoro near Silonay Island.
the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful.—It
3
 The vessel, manned by 21 crew members, including Captain Edilberto to Imus, Cavite and gave P20,000.00 to Captain Libo-on for fare of the crew
Libo-on, Second Mate Christian Torralba, and Operator Isaias Ervas, was in proceeding to their respective homes. The second batch was fetched by
suddenly boarded, with the use of an aluminum ladder, by seven fully accused-appellant Changco at midnight of April 10, 1991 and were brought
armed pirates led by Emilio Changco, older brother of accused-appellant to different places in Metro Manila.
Cecilio Changco. The pirates, including accused-appellants Tulin, Loyola, On April 12, 1991, the Chief Engineer, accompanied by the members of
and Infante, Jr. were armed with M-16 rifles, .45 and .38 caliber handguns, the crew, called the PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation office to
and bolos. They detained the crew and took complete control of the vessel. report the incident. The crew members were brought to the Coast Guard
Thereafter, accused-appellant Loyola ordered three crew members to paint Office for investigation. The incident was also reported to the National
over, using black paint, the name “M/T Tabangao” on the front and rear Bureau of Investigation where the officers and members of the crew
portions of the vessel, as well as the PNOC logo on the chimney of the executed sworn statements regarding the incident.
vessel. The vessel was then painted with the name “Galilee,” with registry A series of arrests was thereafter effected as follows:
at San Lorenzo, Honduras. The crew was forced to sail to Singapore, all the
while sending misleading radio messages to PNOC that the ship was 1. a.On May 19, 1991, the NBI received verified information that the
undergoing repairs. pirates were present at U.K. Beach, Balibago, Calatagan,
PNOC, after losing radio contact with the vessel, reported the Batangas. After three days of surveillance, accused-appellant
disappearance of the vessel to the Philippine Coast Guard and secured the Tulin was arrested and brought to the NBI headquarters in
assistance of the Philippine Air Force and the Philippine Navy. However, Manila.
search and rescue operations yielded negative results. On March 9, 1991, 2. b.Accused-appellants Infante, Jr. and Loyola were arrested by
the ship arrived in the vicinity of Singapore and cruised around the area chance at Aguinaldo Hi-way by NBI agents as the latter were
presumably to await another vessel which, however, failed to arrive. The pursuing the mastermind, who managed to evade arrest.
pirates were thus forced to return to the Philippines on March 14, 1991, 3. c.On May 20, 1991, accused-appellants Hiong and Changco were
arriving at Calatagan, Batangas on March 20, 1991 where it remained at arrested at the lobby of Alpha Hotel in Batangas City.
sea.
On March 28, 1991, the “M/T Tabangao” again sailed to and anchored 18
about 10 to 18 nautical miles from Singapore’s shoreline
18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
17
VOL. 364, AUGUST 30, 2001 17 People vs. Tulin
On October 24, 1991, an Information charging qualified piracy or violation
People vs. Tulin of Presidential Decree No. 532 (Piracy in Philippine Waters) was filed
where another vessel called “Navi Pride” anchored beside it. Emilio against accused-appellants, as follows:
Changco ordered the crew of “M/T Tabangao” to transfer the vessel’s cargo The undersigned State Prosecutor accuses ROGER P. TULIN, VIRGILIO
to the hold of “Navi Pride.” Accused-appellant Cheong San Hiong I. LOYOLA, CECILIO O. CHANGCO, ANDRES C. INFANTE, and
supervised the crew of “Navi Pride” in receiving the cargo. The transfer, CHEONG SAN HIONG, and nine (9) other JOHN DOES of qualified piracy
after an interruption, with both vessels leaving the area, was completed on (Violation of P.D. No. 532), committed as follows:
March 30, 1991. That on or about and during the period from March 2 to April 10, 1991,
On March 30, 1991, “M/T Tabangao” returned to the same area and both dates inclusive, and for sometime prior and subsequent thereto, and
completed the transfer of cargo to “Navi Pride.” within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, then
On April 8, 1991, “M/T Tabangao” arrived at Calatagan, Batangas, but manning a motor launch and armed with high powered guns, conspiring
the vessel remained at sea. On April 10, 1991, the members of the crew and confederating together and mutually helping one another, did then
were released in three batches with the stern warning not to report the and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously fire upon, board and seize
incident to government authorities for a period of two days or until April while in the Philippine waters M/T PNOC TABANGCO loaded with
12, 1991, otherwise they would be killed. The first batch was fetched from petroleum products, together with the complement and crew members,
the shoreline by a newly painted passenger jeep driven by accused- employing violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things,
appellant Cecilio Changco, brother of Emilio Changco, who brought them
4
then direct the vessel to proceed to Singapore where the cargoes were On March 2, 1991, the day before “M/T Tabangao” was seized by Emilio
unloaded and thereafter returned to the Philippines on April 10, 1991, in Changco and his cohorts, Hiong’s name was listed in the company’s letter
violation of the aforesaid law. to the Mercantile Section of the Maritime Department of the Singapore
CONTRARY TO LAW. government as the radio telephone operator on board the vessel “Ching
(pp. 119-20, Rollo.) Ma.”
This was docketed as Criminal Case No. 91-94896 before Branch 49 of the The company was then dealing for the first time with Paul Gan, a
Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region stationed in Singaporean broker, who offered to sell to the former bunker oil for the
Manila. Upon arraignment, accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to the amount of 300,000.00 Singapore dollars. After the company paid over one-
charge. Trial thereupon ensued. half of the aforesaid amount to Paul Gan, the latter, together with Joseph
Accused-appellants Tulin, Infante, Jr., and Loyola, notwithstanding Ng, Operations Superintendent of the firm, proceeded to the high seas on
some inconsistencies in their testimony as to where they were on March 1, board “Navi Pride” but failed to locate the contact vessel.
1991, maintained the defense of denial, and disputed the charge, as well as The transaction with Paul Gan finally pushed through on March 27,
the transfer of any cargo from “M/T Tabangao” to the “Navi Pride.” All of 1991. Hiong, upon his return on board the vessel “Ching Ma,” was assigned
them claimed having their own respective sources of livelihood. Their story to supervise a ship-to-ship transfer of diesel oil off
is to the effect that on March 2, 1991, while they were conversing by the 20
beach, a red speedboat with Captain Edilberto Liboon and Second Mate 20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Christian Torralba on board, approached the seashore. Captain Liboon
People vs. Tulin
inquired from the three if they wanted to work in a vessel. They were told
the port of Singapore, the contact vessel to be designated by Paul Gan.
that the work was light and that each worker was to be
Hiong was ordered to ascertain the quantity and quality of the oil and was
19
given the amount of 300,000.00 Singapore Dollars for the purchase. Hiong,
VOL. 364, AUGUST 30, 2001 19 together with Paul Gan, and the surveyor William Yao, on board “Navi
People vs. Tulin Pride” sailed toward a vessel called “M/T Galilee”. Hiong was told that “M/T
paid P3,000.00 a month with additional compensation if they worked Galilee” would be making the transfer. Although no inspection of “Navi
beyond that period. They agreed even though they had no sea-going Pride” was made by the port authorities before departure, Navi Marine
experience. On board, they cooked, cleaned the vessel, prepared coffee, and Services, Pte., Ltd. was able to procure a port clearance upon submission
ran errands for the officers. They denied having gone to Singapore, of General Declaration and crew list. Hiong, Paul Gan, and the brokers
claiming that the vessel only went to Batangas. Upon arrival thereat in the were not in the crew list submitted and did not pass through the
morning of March 21, 1991, they were paid P1,000.00 each as salary for immigration. The General Declaration falsely reflected that the vessel
nineteen days of work, and were told that the balance would be remitted carried 11,900 tons.
to their addresses. There was neither receipt nor contracts of employment On March 28, 1991, “Navi Pride” reached the location of “M/T Galilee.”
signed by the parties. The brokers then told the Captain of the vessel to shipside with “M/T
Accused-appellant Changco categorically denied the charge, averring Galilee” and then transfer of the oil transpired. Hiong and the surveyor
that he was at home sleeping on April 10, 1991. He testified that he is the William Yao met the Captain of “M/T Galilee,” called “Captain Bobby” (who
younger brother of Emilio Changco, Jr. later turned out to be Emilio Changco). Hiong claimed that he did not ask
Accused-appellant Cheong San Hiong, also known as Ramzan Ali, for the full name of Changco nor did he ask for the latter’s personal card.
adduced evidence that he studied in Sydney, Australia, obtaining the Upon completion of the transfer, Hiong took the soundings of the tanks
“Certificate” as Chief Officer, and later completed the course as a “Master” in the “Navi Pride” and took samples of the cargo. The surveyor prepared
of a vessel, working as such for two years on board a vessel. He was the survey report which “Captain Bobby” signed under the name “Roberto
employed at Navi Marine Services, Pte., Ltd. as Port Captain. The Castillo.” Hiong then handed the payment to Paul Gan and William Yao.
company was engaged in the business of trading petroleum, including Upon arrival at Singapore in the morning of March 29, 1991, Hiong
shipoil, bunker lube oil, and petroleum to domestic and international reported the quantity and quality of the cargo to the company.
markets. It owned four vessels, one of which was “Navi Pride.” Thereafter, Hiong was again asked to supervise another transfer of oil
purchased by the firm from “M/T Galilee” to “Navi Pride.” The same
5
procedure as in the first transfer was observed. This time, Hiong was told in full. All the accused including Cheong San Hiong are hereby ordered to
that that there were food and drinks, including beer, purchased by the return to the Caltex Philippines, Inc. the cargo of the “M/T Tabangao,” or
company for the crew of “M/T Galilee. The transfer took ten hours and was if the accused can no longer return the said cargo to said corporation, all
completed on March 30, 1991. Paul Gan was paid in full for the transfer. the accused are hereby condemned to pay, jointly and severally, to the
On April 29 or 30, 1991, Emilio Changco intimated to Hiong that he had Caltex Refinery, Inc., the value of said cargo in the amount of
four vessels and wanted to offer its cargo to cargo operators. Hiong was P40,426,793.87, Philippine Currency plus interests until said amount is
asked to act as a broker or ship agent for the sale of the cargo in Singapore. paid in full. After the accused Cheong San Hiong has served his sentence,
Hiong went to the Philippines to discuss the he shall be deported to Singapore.
21 22
VOL. 364, AUGUST 30, 2001 21 22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Tulin People vs. Tulin
matter with Emilio Changco, who laid out the details of the new transfer, All the accused shall be credited for the full period of their detention at the
this time with “M/T Polaris” as contact vessel. Hiong was told that the National Bureau of Investigation and the City Jail of Manila during the
vessel was scheduled to arrive at the port of Batangas that weekend. After pendency of this case provided that they agreed in writing to abide by and
being billeted at Alpha Hotel in Batangas City, where Hiong checked in comply strictly with the rules and regulations of the City Jail of Manila
under the name “SONNY CSH.” A person by the name of “KEVIN and the National Bureau of Investigation. With costs against all the
OCAMPO,” who later turned out to be Emilio Changco himself, also accused.
checked in at Alpha Hotel. From accused-appellant Cecilio Changco, Hiong SO ORDERED.
found out that the vessel was not arriving. Hiong was thereafter arrested (pp. 149-150, Rollo.)
by NBI agents. The matter was then elevated to this Court. The arguments of accused-
After trial, a 95-page decision was rendered convicting accused- appellants may be summarized as follows:
appellants of the crime charged. The dispositive portion of said decision Roger P. Tulin, Virgilio I. Loyola, Andres C. Infante, Jr., and Cecilio O.
reads: Changco
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing considerations, judgment is Accused-appellants Tulin, Loyola, Infante, Jr., and Cecilio Changco
hereby rendered by this Court finding the accused Roger Tulin, Virgilio assert that the trial court erred in allowing them to adopt the proceedings
Loyola, Andres Infante, Jr. and Cecilio Changco guilty beyond reasonable taken during the time they were being represented by Mr. Tomas Posadas,
doubt, as principals, of the crime of piracy in Philippine Waters defined in a non-lawyer, thereby depriving them of their constitutional right to
Section 2(d) of Presidential Decree No. 532 and the accused Cheong San procedural due process.
Hiong, as accomplice, to said crime. Under Section 3(a) of the said law, the In this regard, said accused-appellants narrate that Mr. Posadas
penalty for the principals of said crime is mandatory death. However, entered his appearance as counsel for all of them. However, in the course
considering that, under the 1987 Constitution, the Court cannot impose of the proceedings, or on February 11, 1992, the trial court discovered that
the death penalty, the accused Roger Tulin, Virgilio Loyola, Andres Mr. Posadas was not a member of the Philippine Bar. This was after Mr.
Infante, Jr., and Cecilio Changco are hereby each meted the penalty of Posadas had presented and examined seven witnesses for the accused.
RECLUSION PERPETUA, with all the accessory penalties of the law. The Further, accused-appellants Tulin, Loyola, Infante, Cecilio Changco
accused Cheong San Hiong is hereby meted the penalty of RECLUSION uniformly contend that during the custodial investigation, they were
PERPETUA, pursuant to Article 52 of the Revised Penal Code in relation subjected to physical violence; were forced to sign statements without being
to Section 5 of PD 532. The accused Roger Tulin, Virgilio Loyola, Andres given the opportunity to read the contents of the same; were denied
Infante, Jr. and Cecilio Changco are hereby ordered to return to the PNOC assistance of counsel, and were not informed of their rights, in violation of
Shipping and Transport Corporation the “M/T Tabangao” or if the accused their constitutional rights.
can no longer return the same, the said accused are hereby ordered to Said accused-appellants also argue that the trial court erred in finding
remit, jointly and severally, to said corporation the value thereof in the that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that they committed
amount of P11,240,000.00, Philippine Currency, with interests thereon, at the crime of qualified piracy. They allege that the pirates were
the rate of 6% per annum from March 2, 1991 until the said amount is paid outnumbered by the crew who totaled 22 and who were not guarded at all
6
times. The crew, so these accused-appellants conclude, could have People vs. Tulin
overpowered the alleged pirates. The issues of the instant case may be summarized as follows: (1) what are
23 the legal effects and implications of the fact that a non-lawyer represented
VOL. 364, AUGUST 30, 2001 23 accused-appellants during the trial?; (2) what are the legal effects and
People vs. Tulin implications of the absence of counsel during the custodial investigation?;
(3) did the trial court err in finding that the prosecution was able to prove
Cheong San Hiong beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellants committed the crime of
qualified piracy?; (4) did Republic Act No. 7659 obliterate the crime
In his brief, Cheong argues that: (1) Republic Act No. 7659 in effect committed by accused-appellant Cheong?; and (5) can accused-appellant
obliterated the crime committed by him; (2) the trial court erred in Cheong be convicted as accomplice when he was not charged as such and
declaring that the burden is lodged on him to prove by clear and convincing when the acts allegedly committed by him were done or executed outside
evidence that he had no knowledge that Emilio Changco and his cohorts Philippine waters and territory?
attacked and seized the “M/T Tabangao” and/or that the cargo of the vessel On the first issue, the record reveals that a manifestation (Exhibit “20,”
was stolen or the subject of theft or robbery or piracy; (3) the trial court Record) was executed by accused-appellants Tulin, Loyola, Changco, and
erred in finding him guilty as an accomplice to the crime of qualified piracy Infante, Jr. on February 11, 1991, stating that they were adopting the
under Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti- evidence adduced when they were represented by a non-lawyer. Such
Robbery Law of 1974); (4) the trial court erred in convicting and punishing waiver of the right to sufficient representation during the trial as covered
him as an accomplice when the acts allegedly committed by him were done by the due process clause shall only be valid if made with the full assistance
or executed outside of Philippine waters and territory, stripping the of a bona fide lawyer. During the trial, accused-appellants, as represented
Philippine courts of jurisdiction to hold him for trial, to convict, and by Atty. Abdul Basar, made a categorical manifestation that said accused-
sentence; (5) the trial court erred in making factual conclusions without appellants were apprised of the nature and legal consequences of the
evidence on record to prove the same and which in fact are contrary to the subject manifestation, and that they voluntarily and intelligently executed
evidence adduced during trial; (6) the trial court erred in convicting him as the same. They also affirmed the truthfulness of its contents when asked
an accomplice under Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 532 when he was in open court (tsn, February 11, 1992, pp. 7-59).
charged as a principal by direct participation under said decree, thus It is true that an accused person shall be entitled to be present raid to
violating his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of defend himself in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings,
the accusation against him. from arraignment to promulgation of judgment (Section 1, Rule 115,
Cheong also posits that the evidence against the other accused- Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure). This is hinged on the fact that a
appellants do not prove any participation on his part in the commission of layman is not versed on the technicalities of trial. However, it is also
the crime of qualified piracy. He further argues that he had not in any way provided by law that “[r]ights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary
participated in the seajacking of “M/T Tabangao” and in committing the to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs or prejudicial to
crime of qualified piracy, and that he was not aware that the vessel and its a third person with right recognized by law.” (Article 6, Civil Code of the
cargo were pirated. Philippines). Thus, the same section of Rule 115 adds that “[u]pon motion,
As legal basis for his appeal, he explains that he was charged under the the accused may be allowed to defend himself in person when it sufficiently
information with qualified piracy as principal under Section 2 of appears to the court that he can properly protect his rights
Presidential Decree No. 532 which refers to Philippine waters. In the case 25
at bar, he argues that he was convicted for acts done outside Philippine VOL. 364, AUGUST 30, 2001 25
waters or territory. For the State to have criminal jurisdiction, the act must People vs. Tulin
have been committed within its territory. without the assistance of counsel.” By analogy, but without prejudice to the
We affirm the conviction of all the accused-appellants. sanctions imposed by law for the illegal practice of law, it is amply shown
24 that the rights of accused-appellants were sufficiently and properly
24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED protected by the appearance of Mr. Tomas Posadas. An examination of the

7
record will show that he knew the technical rules of procedure. Hence, we Saliently, the absence of counsel during the execution of the so-called
rule that there was a valid waiver of the right to sufficient representation confessions of the accused-appellants make them invalid. In fact, the very
during the trial, considering that it was unequivocally, knowingly, and basic reading of the Miranda rights was not even shown in the case at bar.
intelligently made and with the full assistance of a bona fide lawyer, Atty. Paragraph [3] of the aforestated Section 12 sets forth the so-called “fruit
Abdul Basar. Accordingly, denial of due process cannot be successfully from the poisonous tree doctrine,” a phrase minted by Mr. Justice Felix
invoked where a valid waiver of rights has been made (People vs. Serzo, 274 Frankfurter in the celebrated case of Nardone vs. United States (308 U.S.
SCRA 553 [1997]; Sayson vs. People, 166 SCRA 680 [1988]). 388 [1939]). According to this rule, once the primary source (the “tree”) is
However, we must quickly add that the right to counsel during shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative
custodial investigation may not be waived except in writing and in the evidence (the “fruit”) derived from it is also inadmissible. The rule is based
presence of counsel. on the principle that evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be
Section 12, Article III of the Constitution reads: used to gain other evidence because the originally illegally obtained
SEC. 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained (People vs.
offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and Alicando, 251 SCRA 293 [1995]). Thus, in this case, the uncounselled
to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If extrajudicial confessions of accused-appellants, without a valid waiver of
the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with the right to counsel, are inadmissible and whatever information is derived
one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence therefrom shall be regarded as like wise inadmissible in evidence against
of counsel. them.
However, regardless of the inadmissibility of the subject confessions,
1. (2)No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other there is sufficient evidence to convict accused-appellants with moral
means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret certainty. We agree with the sound deduction of the trial court that indeed,
detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms Emilio Changco (Exhibits “IT and “UU”) and accused-appellants Tulin,
of detention are prohibited. Loyola, and Infante, Jr. did conspire and confederate to commit the crime
2. (3)Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or charged. In the words of then trial judge, now Justice Romeo J. Callejo of
Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. the Court of Appeals—
3. (4)The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations . . . The Prosecution presented to the Court an array of witnesses, officers
of this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of and members of the crew of the “M/T Tabangao” no less, who identified and
victims of torture or similar practices, and their families. pointed to the said Accused as among those who attacked and seized, the
“M/T Tabangao” on March 2, 1991, at about 6:30 o’clock in the afternoon,
Such rights originated from Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436 [1966]) off Lubang Island, Mindoro, with its cargo, and brought the said vessel,
which gave birth to the so-called Miranda doctrine which is to the effect with its cargo, and the officers and crew of the vessel, in the vicinity of
that prior to any questioning during custodial investigation, the person Horsebough Lighthouse, about sixty-six nautical miles off the
must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement 27
he gives may be used as evidence VOL. 364, AUGUST 30, 2001 27
26 People vs. Tulin
26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED shoreline of Singapore and sold its cargo to the Accused Cheong San Hiong
People vs. Tulin upon which the cargo was discharged from the “M/T Tabangao” to the “Navi
against him, and that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, either Pride” for the price of about $500,000.00 (American Dollars) on March 29,
retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these and 30, 1991 . . .
rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly, and xxx
intelligently. The Constitution even adds the more stringent requirement xxx
that the waiver must be in writing and made in the presence of counsel. xxx
The Master, the officers and members of the crew of the “M/T
Tabangao” were on board the vessel with the Accused and their cohorts
8
from March 2, 1991 up to April 10, 1991 or for more than one (1) month. is fundamentally and inherently a weak defense, much more so when
There can be no scintilla of doubt in the mind of the Court that the officers uncorroborated by other witnesses (People v. Adora, 275 SCRA 441 [1997])
and crew of the vessel could and did see and identify the seajackers and considering that it is easy to fabricate and concoct, and difficult to disprove.
their leader. In fact, immediately after the Accused were taken into custody Accused-appellant must adduce deaf and convincing evidence that, at
by the operatives of the National Bureau of Investigation, Benjamin Suyo, about midnight on April 10, 1991, it was physically impossible for him to
Norberto Senosa, Christian Torralba and Isaias Wervas executed their have been in Calatagan, Batangas. Changco not only failed to do this, he
“Joint Affidavit” (Exhibit “B”) and pointed to and identified the said was likewise unable to prove that he was in his place of work on the dates
Accused as some of the pirates. aforestated.
xxx It is doctrinal that the trial court’s evaluation of the credibility of a
xxx testimony is accorded the highest respect, for trial courts have an
xxx untrammeled opportunity to observe directly the demeanor of witnesses
Indeed, when they testified before this Court on their defense, the three and, thus, to determine whether a certain witness is telling the truth
(3) Accused admitted to the Court that they, in fact, boarded the said vessel (People v. Obello, 284 SCRA 79 [1998]).
in the evening of March 2, 1991 and remained on board when the vessel We likewise uphold the trial court’s finding of conspiracy. A conspiracy
sailed to its destination, which turned out to be off the port of Singapore. exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
(pp. 108-112, Rollo.) commission of a felony and decide to commit it (Article 8, Revised Penal
We also agree with the trial court’s finding that accused-appellants’ Code). To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every detail of
defense of denial is not supported by any hard evidence but their bare execution; he need not even take part in every act or need not even know
testimony. Greater weight is given to the categorical identification of the the exact part to be performed by the others in the execution of the
accused by the prosecution witnesses than to the accused’s plain denial of conspiracy. As noted by the trial court, there are times when conspirators
participation in the commission of the crime (People v. Baccay, 284 SCRA are assigned separate and different tasks which may appear unrelated to
296 [1998]). Instead, accused-appellants Tulin, Loyola, and Infante, Jr. one an-
narrated a patently desperate tale that they were hired by three complete 29
strangers (allegedly Captain Edilberto Liboon, Second Mate Christian VOL. 364, AUGUST 30, 2001 29
Torralba, and their companion) while said accused-appellants were
People vs. Tulin
conversing with one another along the seashore at Apkaya, Balibago,
other, but in fact, constitute a whole and collective effort to achieve a
Calatagan, Batangas, to work on board the “M/T Tabangao” which
common criminal design.
28
We affirm the trial court’s finding that Emilio Changco, accused-
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED appellants Tulin, Loyola, and Infante, Jr. and others, were the ones
People vs. Tulin assigned to attack and seize the “M/T Tabangao” off Lubang, Mindoro,
was then anchored off-shore. And readily, said accused-appellants agreed while accused-appellant Cecilio Changco was to fetch the master and the
to work as cooks and handymen for an indefinite period of time without members of the crew from the shoreline of Calatagan, Batangas after the
even saying goodbye to their families, without even knowing their transfer, and bring them to Imus, Cavite, and to provide the crew and the
destination or the details of their voyage, without the personal effects officers of the vessel with money for their fare and food provisions on their
needed for a long voyage at sea. Such evidence is incredible and clearly not way home. These acts had to be well-coordinated. Accused-appellant
in accord with human experience. As pointed out by the trial court, it is Cecilio Changco need not be present at the time of the attack and seizure
incredible that Captain Liboon, Second Mate Torralba, and their of “M/T Tabangao” since he performed his task in view of an objective
companion “had to leave the vessel at 9:30 o’clock in the evening and common to all other accused-appellants.
venture in a completely unfamiliar place merely to recruit five (5) cooks or Of notable importance is the connection of accused-appellants to one
handymen (p. 113, Rollo).” another. Accused-appellant Cecilio Changco is the younger brother of
Anent accused-appellant Changco’s defense of denial with the alibi that Emilio Changco (aka Captain Bobby/Captain Roberto Castillo/Kevin
on May 14 and 17, he was at his place of work and that on April 10, 1991, Ocampo), owner of Phil-Asia Shipping Lines. Cecilio worked for his brother
he was in his house in Bacoor, Cavite, sleeping, suffice it to state that alibi in said corporation. Their residences are approximately six or seven
9
kilometers away from each other. Their families are close. Accused- SEC. 2. Definition of Terms.—The following shall mean and be understood,
appellant Tulin, on the other hand, has known Cecilio since their parents as follows:
were neighbors in Aplaya, Balibago, Calatagan, Batangas. Accused- d. Piracy.—Any attack upon or seizure of any vessel, or the taking away
appellant Loyola’s wife is a relative of the Changco brothers by affinity. of the whole or part thereof or its cargo, equipment, or the personal
Besides, Loyola and Emilio Changco had both been accused in a seajacking belongings of its complement or passengers, irrespective of the value
case regarding “M/T Isla Luzon” and its cargo of steel coils and plates off thereof, by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or force
Cebu and Bohol in 1989. Emilio Changco (aka Kevin Ocampo) was upon things, committed by any person, including a passenger or member
convicted of the crime while Loyola at that time remained at large. of the complement of said vessel in Philippine waters, shall be considered
As for accused-appellant Hiong, he ratiocinates that he can no longer as
be convicted of piracy in Philippine waters as defined and penalized in 31
Sections 2[d] and 3[a], respectively of Presidential Decree No. 532 because VOL. 364, AUGUST 30, 2001 31
Republic Act No. 7659 (effective January 1, 1994), which amended Article
People vs. Tulin
122 of the Revised Penal Code, has impliedly superseded Presidential
piracy. The offenders shall be considered as pirates and punished as
Decree No. 532. He reasons out that Presidential Decree No. 532 has been
hereinafter provided (italics supplied).
rendered “superfluous or duplicitous” because both Article 122 of the
To summarize, Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code, before its
Revised Penal Code, as amended, and Presidential Decree No. 532 punish
amendment, provided that piracy must be committed on the high seas by
piracy committed in Philippine waters. He maintains that in order to
any person not a member of its complement nor a passenger thereof. Upon
recon-
its amendment by Republic Act No. 7659, the coverage of the pertinent
30
provision was widened to include offenses committed “in Philippine
30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED waters.” On the other hand, under Presidential Decree No. 532 (issued in
People vs. Tulin 1974), the coverage of the law on piracy embraces any person including “a
cile the two laws, the word “any person” mentioned in Section 1[d] of passenger or member of the complement of said vessel in Philippine
Presidential Decree No. 532 must be omitted such that Presidential Decree waters.” Hence, passenger or not, a member of the complement or not, any
No. 532 shall only apply to offenders who are members of the complement person is covered by the law.
or to passengers of the vessel, whereas Republic Act No. 7659 shall apply Republic Act No. 7659 neither superseded nor amended the provisions
to offenders who are neither members of the complement or passengers of on piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532. There is no contradiction
the vessel, hence, excluding him from the coverage of the law. between the two laws. There is likewise no ambiguity and hence, there is
Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code, used to provide: no need to construe or interpret the law. All the presidential decree did was
Article 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas.—The penalty to widen the coverage of the law, in keeping with the intent to protect the
of reclusion temporal shall be inflicted upon any person who, on the high citizenry as well as neighboring states from crimes against the law of
seas, shall attack or seize a vessel or, not being a member of its complement nations. As expressed in one of the “whereas” clauses of Presidential
nor a passenger, shall seize the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its Decree No. 532, piracy is “among the highest forms of lawlessness
equipment, or personal belongings of its complement or passengers. condemned by the penal statutes of all countries.” For this reason, piracy
(Italics supplied.) under the Article 122, as amended, and piracy under Presidential Decree
Article 122, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 (January 1, 1994), reads: No. 532 exist harmoniously as separate laws.
Article 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine As regards the contention that the trial court did not acquire
waters.—The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be inflicted upon any jurisdiction over the person of accused-appellant Hiong since the crime was
person who, on the high seas, or in Philippine waters, shall attack or seize committed outside Philippine waters, suffice it to state that
a vessel or, not being a member of its complement nor a passenger, shall unquestionably, the attack on and seizure of “M/T Tabangao” (renamed
seize the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its equipment, or personal “M/T Galilee” by the pirates) and its cargo were committed in Philippine
belongings of its complement or passengers. waters, although the captive vessel was later brought by the pirates to
(Italics ours) Singapore where its cargo was off-loaded, transferred, and sold. And such
On the other hand, Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 532 provides: transfer was done under accused-appellant Hiong’s direct supervision.
10
Although Presidential Decree No. 532 requires that the attack and seizure pirates or brigands or in any manner derives any benefit therefrom; or any
of the vessel and its cargo be committed in Philippine waters, the person who directly or indirectly abets the commission of piracy or highway
disposition by the pirates of the vessel and its cargo is still deemed part of robbery or brigandage, shall be considered as an accomplice of the principal
the act of officers and be punished in accordance with Rules prescribed by the
32 Revised Penal Code.
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED It shall be presumed that any person who does any of the acts provided
in this Section has performed them knowingly, unless the contrary is
People vs. Tulin
proven.
piracy, hence, the same need not be committed in Philippine waters.
The ruling of the trial court is within well-settled jurisprudence that if
Moreover, piracy falls under Title One of Book Two of the Revised Penal
there is lack of complete evidence of conspiracy, the liability is that of an
Code. As such, it is an exception to the rule on territoriality in criminal
accomplice and not as principal (People v. Tolentino, 40 SCRA 514 [1971]).
law. The same principle applies even if Hiong, in the instant case, were
Any doubt as to the participation of an individual in the commission of the
charged, not with a violation of qualified piracy under the penal code but
crime is always resolved in favor of lesser responsibility (People v.
under a special law, Presidential Decree No. 532 which penalizes piracy in
Corbes, 270 SCRA 465 [1997]; People vs. Elfano, Jr., 125 SCRA
Philippine waters. Verily, Presidential Decree No. 532 should be applied
792 [1983]; People v. Pastores, 40 SCRA 498 [1971]).
with more force here since its purpose is precisely to discourage and
Emphasis must also be placed on the last paragraph of Section 4 of
prevent piracy in Philippine waters (People v. Catantan, 278 SCRA
Presidential Decree No. 532 which presumes that any person who does any
761 [1997]). It is likewise, well-settled that regardless of the law penalizing
of the acts provided in said section has performed them knowingly, unless
the same, piracy is a reprehensible crime against the whole world (People
the contrary is proven. In the case at bar, accused-appellant Hiong had
v. Lol-lo, 43 Phil. 19 [1922]).
failed to overcome the legal presumption that he knowingly abetted or
However, does this constitute a violation of accused-appellant’s
aided in the commission of piracy, received property taken by such pirates
constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
and derived benefit therefrom.
accusation against him on the ground that he was convicted as an
The record discloses that accused-appellant Hiong aided the pirates in
accomplice under Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 532 even though he
disposing of the stolen cargo by personally directing its transfer from “M/T
was charged as a principal by direct participation under Section 2 of said
Galilee” to “M/T Navi Pride”. He profited therefrom by buying the hijacked
law?
cargo for Navi Marine Services, Pte., Ltd. (tsn, June 3, 1992, pp. 15-23). He
The trial court found that there was insufficiency of evidence showing:
even tested the quality and verified the quantity of the petroleum products,
a) that accused-appellant Hiong directly participated in the attack and
connived with Navi Marine Services personnel in falsifying the General
seizure of “M/T Tabangao” and its cargo; (b) that he induced Emilio
Declarations and Crew List to ensure that the illegal transfer went
Changco and his group in the attack and seizure of “M/T Tabangao” and
through, undetected by Singapore Port Authorities, and supplied the
its cargo; (c) and that his act was indispensable in the attack on and seizure
pirates with food, beer, and other provisions for their maintenance while
of “M/T Tabangao” and its cargo. Nevertheless, the trial court found that
in port (tsn, June 3, 1992, pp. 133-134).
accused-appellant Hiong’s participation was indisputably one which aided
We believe that the falsification of the General Declaration (Arrival and
or abetted Emilio Changco and his band of pirates in the disposition of the
Departure) and Crew List was accomplished and utilized by accused-
stolen cargo under Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 532 which provides:
appellant Hiong and Navi Marine Services personnel in
SEC. 4. Aiding pirates or highway robbers/brigands or abetting piracy or
34
highway robbery brigandage.—Any person who knowingly and in any
manner aids or protects pirates or highway robbers/brigands, such as 34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
giving them information about the movement of police or other peace People vs. Tulin
officers of the government, or acquires or receives property taken by such the execution of their scheme to avert detection by Singapore Port
33 Authorities. Hence, had accused-appellant Hiong not falsified said entries,
VOL. 364, AUGUST 30, 2001 33 the Singapore Port Authorities could have easily discovered the illegal
activities that took place and this would have resulted in his arrest and
People vs. Tulin
11
prosecution in Singapore. Moreover, the transfer of the stolen cargo from and scrutinize the papers and documentation relative to the “M/T Galilee”;
“M/T Galilee” to “Navi Pride” could not have been effected. he did not even verify the identity of Captain Robert Castillo whom he met
We completely uphold the factual findings of the trial court showing in for the first time nor did he check the source of the cargo; he knew that the
detail accused-appellant Hiong’s role in the disposition of the pirated goods transfer took place 66 nautical miles off Singapore in the dead of the night
summarized as follows: that on March 27, 1991, Hiong with Captain Biddy which a marine vessel of his firm did not ordinarily do; it was also the first
Santos boarded the “Navi Pride,” one of the vessels of the Navi Marine, to time Navi Marine transacted with Paul Gan involving a large sum of
rendezvous with the “M/T Galilee”; that the firm submitted the crew list of money without any receipt issued therefor; he was not even aware if Paul
the vessel (Exhibit “8-CSH,” Record) to the port authorities, excluding the Gan was a Singaporean national and thus safe to deal with. It should also
name of Hiong; that the “General Declaration” (for departure) of the “Navi be noted that the value of the cargo was P40,426,793.87 or roughly more
Pride” for its voyage off port of Singapore (Exhibits “HH” and “8-A CSH”, than US$1,000,000.00 (computed at P30.00 to $1, the exchange rate at that
Record) falsely stated that the vessel was scheduled to depart at 2200 (10 time). Manifestly, the cargo was sold for less than one-half of its value.
o’clock in the evening), that there were no passengers on board, and the Accused-appellant Hiong should have been aware of this irregularity.
purpose of the voyage was for “cargo operation” and that the vessel was to Nobody in his right mind would go to far away Singapore, spend much time
unload and transfer 1,900 tons of cargo; that after the transfer of the fuel and money for transportation—only to sell at the aforestated price if it
from “M/T Galilee” with Emilio Changco a.k.a. Captain Bobby a.k.a. were legitimate sale involved. This, in addition to the act of falsifying
Roberto Castillo at the helm, the surveyor prepared the “Quantity records, clearly shows that accused-appellant Hiong was well aware that
Certificate” (Exhibit “11-C CSH”, Record) stating that the cargo the cargo that his firm was acquiring was purloined.
transferred to the “Navi Pride” was 2,406 gross cubic meters; that although Lastly, it cannot be correctly said that accused-appellant was “merely
Hiong was not the Master of the vessel, he affixed his signature on the following the orders of his superiors.” An individual is justified in
“Certificate” above the word “Master” (Exhibit “11-C-2 CSH”, Record); that performing an act in obedience to an order issued by a superior if such
he then paid $150,000.00 but did not require any receipt for the amount; order, is for some lawful purpose and that the means used by the
that Emilio Changco also did not issue one; and that in the requisite subordinate to carry out said order is lawful (Reyes, Revised Penal Code,
“General Declaration” upon its arrival at Singapore on March 29, 1991, at Vol. 1, 1981 ed., p. 212). Notably, the alleged order of Hiong’s superior Chua
7 o’clock in the evening, (Exhibits “JJ” and “13-A CSH”, Record), it was Kim Leng Timothy, is a patent violation not only of Philippine, but of
made to falsely appear that the “Navi Pride” unloaded 1,700 tons of cargo international law.
on the high seas during said voyage when in fact it acquired from the “M/T 36
Galilee” 2,000 metric tons of diesel oil. The second transfer transpired with 36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
the same irregularities as discussed above. It was likewise supervised by
People vs. Tulin
accused-appellant Cheong from his end while Emilio Changco supervised
Such violation was committed on board a Philippine-operated vessel.
the transfer from his end.
Moreover, the means used by Hiong in carrying out said order was equally
35
unlawful. He misled port and immigration authorities, falsified records,
VOL. 364, AUGUST 30, 2001 35 using a mere clerk, Frankie Loh, to consummate said acts. During the trial,
People vs. Tulin Hiong presented himself, and the trial court was convinced, that he was an
Accused-appellant Hiong maintains that he was merely following the intelligent and articulate Port Captain. These circumstances show that he
orders of his superiors and that he has no knowledge of the illegality of the must have realized the nature and the implications of the order of Chua
source of the cargo. Kim Leng Timothy. Thereafter, he could have refused to follow orders to
First and foremost, accused-appellant Hiong cannot deny knowledge of conclude the deal and to effect the transfer of the cargo to the “Navi Pride.”
the source and nature of the cargo since he himself received the same from He did not do so, for which reason, he must now suffer the consequences of
“M/T Tabangao”. Second, considering that he is a highly educated mariner, his actions.
he should have avoided any participation in the cargo transfer given the WHEREFORE, finding the conviction of accused-appellants justified by
very suspicious circumstances under which it was acquired. He failed to the evidence on record, the Court hereby AFFIRMS the judgment of the
show a single piece of deed or bill of sale or even a purchase order or any trial court in toto.
contract of sale for the purchase by the firm; he never bothered to ask for SO ORDERED.
12
 Vitug, Panganiban, Gonzaga-Reyes and Sandoval-Gutierrez,
JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed in toto.
Notes.—Infractions of the so called “Miranda rights” render
inadmissible only the extrajudicial confession or admission made during
custodial investigation—the admissibility of other evidence, provided they
are relevant to the issue and is not otherwise excluded by law or rules, is
not affected even if obtained or taken in the course of custodial
investigation. (People vs. Malimit, 264 SCRA 167 [1996])
Even if the order is illegal if it is patently legal and the subordinate is
not aware of its illegality, the subordinate is not liable, for then there would
only be a mistake of fact committed in good faith. (Tabuena vs.
Sandiganbayan, 268 SCRA 332 [1997])

——o0o——

37
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

13