Criminal Law 2 Cases (Full Text)

7/26/2019 Criminal Law 2 Cases (Full Text)

1/853

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 17958 February 27, 1922

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLN!S,plaintiff-appellee,vs.LOL"LO a#$ SR%,defendants-appellants.

Thos. D. Aitken for appellants.

Acting Attorney-General Tuason for appellee.

MLCOLM, J.:

The days when piates oa!ed the seas, when pictues"ue buccanees li#e Captain Aveyand Captain $idd and Batholo!ew Robets %ipped the i!a%ination, when %ostes"ue butes li#eBlac#bead flouished, see! fa away in the pa%es of histoy and o!ance. Nevetheless, the ecodbefoe us tells a tale of twentieth centuy piacy in the south seas, but stipped of all touches ofchivaly o of %eneosity, so as to pesent a hoible case of apine and nea !ude.

&n o about 'une (), *+), two boats left !atuta, a utch possession, fo Peta, anothe utchpossession. n one of the boats was one individual, a utch sub/ect, and in the othe boat eleven!en, wo!en, and childen, li#ewise sub/ects of 0olland. Afte a nu!be of days of navi%ation, atabout 1 o2cloc# in the evenin%, the second boat aived between the slands of Buan% and Bu#id in

the utch East ndies. Thee the boat was suounded by si3vintas !anned by twenty-fou Moos alla!ed. The Moos fist as#ed fo food, but once on the utch boat, too fo the!selves all of theca%o, attac#ed so!e of the !en, and butally violated two of the wo!en by !ethods too hoible tothe descibed. All of the pesons on the utch boat, with the e3ception of the two youn% wo!en,wee a%ain placed on it and holes wee !ade in it, the idea that it would sub!e%e, althou%h as a!atte of fact, these people, afte eleven days of hadship and pivation, wee succoed violatin%the!, the Moos finally aived at Mauo, a utch possession. Two of the Moo !aaude wee 4ol-lo, who also aped one of the wo!en, and 5aaw. At Mauo the two wo!en wee able to escape.

4ol-lo and 5aaw late etuned to thei ho!e in 5outh 6bian, Tawi-Tawi, 5ulu, Philippine slands.Thee they wee aested and wee cha%ed in the Cout of 7ist nstance of 5ulu with the ci!e of

piacy. A de!ue was inteposed by counsel de officiofo the Moos, based on the %ounds that theoffense cha%ed was not within the /uisdiction of the Cout of 7ist nstance, no of any cout of thePhilippine slands, and that the facts did not constitute a public offense, unde the laws in foce in thePhilippine slands. Afte the de!ue was oveuled by the tial /ud%e, tial was had, and a /ud%!entwas endeed findin% the two defendants %uilty and sentencin% each of the! to life i!pison!ent8cadena perpetua9, to etun to%ethe with $inawalan% and Maulanis, defendants in anothe case, tothe offended paties, the thity-nine sac#s of copas which had been obbed, o to inde!nify the! inthe a!ount of +: upees, and to pay a one-half pat of the costs.


2/853

A vey leaned and e3haustive bief has been filed in this cout by the attoneyde officio. By apocess of eli!ination, howeve, cetain "uestions can be "uic#ly disposed of.

The poven facts ae not disputed. All of the ele!ents of the ci!e of piacy ae pesent. Piacy isobbey o focible depedation on the hi%h seas, without lawful authoity and done animo furandi,

and in the spiit and intention of univesal hostility.

t cannot be contended with any de%ee of foce as was done in the love cout and as is a%ain donein this cout, that the Cout of 7ist nstance was without /uisdiction of the case. Piates ae inlaw hostes humani generis. Piacy is a ci!e not a%ainst any paticula state but a%ainst all !an#ind.t !ay be punished in the co!petent tibunal of any county whee the offende !ay be found o intowhich he !ay be caied. The /uisdiction of piacy unli#e all othe ci!es has no teitoial li!its. As itis a%ainst all so !ay it be punished by all. No does it !atte that the ci!e was co!!itted within the/uisdictional (-!ile li!it of a foei%n state, ;fo those li!its, thou%h neutal to wa, ae not neutal toci!es.; 86.5. vs. 7ulon% , ? @heat., *=:.9

The !ost seious "uestion which is s"uaely pesented to this cout fo decision fo the fist ti!e iswhethe o not the povisions of the Penal Code dealin% with the ci!e of piacy ae still in foce.Aticle *?( to *? of the Penal Code eads as follows

ART. *?(. The ci!e of piacy co!!itted a%ainst 5paniads, o the sub/ects of anothenation not at wa with 5pain, shall be punished with a penalty an%in% fo! cadenatemporal to cadena perpetua.

f the ci!e be co!!itted a%ainst nonbelli%eent sub/ects of anothe nation at wa with5pain, it shall be punished with the penalty ofpresidio mayor.

ART. *?:. Those who co!!it the ci!es efeed to in the fist paa%aph of the ne3tpecedin% aticle shall suffe the penalty of cadena perpetua o death, and those who co!!itthe ci!es efeed to in the second paa%aph of the sa!e aticle, fo!cadenatemporalto cadena perpetua

*. @heneve they have seied so!e vessel by boadin% o fiin% upon the sa!e.

. @heneve the ci!e is acco!panied by !ude, ho!icide, o by any of thephysical in/uies specified in aticles fou hunded and fouteen and fou hunded andfifteen and in paa%aphs one and two of aticle fou hunded and si3teen.

(. @heneve it is acco!panied by any of the offenses a%ainst chastity specified inChapte , Title D, of this boo#.

:. @heneve the piates have abandoned any pesons without !eans of savin%the!selves.

?. n evey case, the captain o s#ippe of the piates.


3/853

ART. *??. @ith espect to the povisions of this title, as well as all othes of this code, when5pain is !entioned it shall be undestood as includin% any pat of the national teitoy.

ART. *?. 7o the pupose of applyin% the povisions of this code, evey peson, who,accodin% to the Constitution of the Monachy, has the status of a 5paniad shall be

consideed as such.

The %eneal ules of public law eco%nied and acted on by the 6nited 5tates elatin% to the effect ofa tansfe of teitoy fo! anothe 5tate to the 6nited 5tates ae well-#nown. The political law of thefo!e soveei%nty is necessaily chan%ed. The !unicipal law in so fa as it is consistent with theConstitution, the laws of the 6nited 5tates, o the chaacteistics and institutions of the %oven!ent,e!ains in foce. As a coollay to the !ain ules, laws subsistin% at the ti!e of tansfe, desi%ned tosecue %ood ode and peace in the co!!unity, which ae stictly of a !unicipal chaacte, continueuntil by diect action of the new %oven!ent they ae alteed o epealed. 8Chica%o, Roc# slands,etc., R. Co. vs. Mclinn , **: 6.5., ?:.9

These pinciples of the public law wee %iven specific application to the Philippines by thenstuctions of Pesident Mc$inley of May *+, *=+=, to eneal @esley Meitt, the Co!!andin%eneal of the A!y of &ccupation in the Philippines, when he said

Thou%h the powes of the !ilitay occupant ae absolute and supe!e, and i!!ediatelyopeate upon the political condition of the inhabitants, the !unicipal laws of the con"ueedteitoy, such as affect pivate i%hts of peson and popety,and provide for the punishmentof crime, ae consideed as continuin% in foce, so fa as they ae co!patible with the newode of thin%s, until they ae suspended o supeseded by the occupyin% belli%eentF andpactice they ae not usually abo%ated, but ae allowed to e!ain in foce, and to bead!inisteed by the odinay tibunals, substantially as they wee befoe the occupations.

This enli%htened pactice is so fa as possible, to be adheed to on the pesent occasion.8&fficial aette, Peli!inay Nu!be, 'an. *, *+)(, p. *. 5ee also eneal MeittPocla!ation of Au%ust *:, *=+=.9

t cannot ad!it of doubt that the aticles of the 5panish Penal Code dealin% with piacy wee !eantto include the Philippine slands. Aticle *? of the Penal Code in elation to aticle * of theConstitution of the 5panish Monachy, would also !a#e the povisions of the Code applicable notonly to 5paniads but to 7ilipinos.

The opinion of otius was that piacy by the law of nations is the sa!e thin% as piacy by the civillaw, and he has neve been disputed. The specific povisions of the Penal Code ae si!ila in teno

to statutoy povisions elsewhee and to the concepts of the public law. This !ust necessaily be so,considein% that the Penal Code finds its inspiation in this espect in the Novelas, the Partidas, andthe Novisima Recopilacion.

The Constitution of the 6nited 5tates declaes that the Con%ess shall have the powe to define andpunish piacies and felonies co!!itted on the hi%h seas, and offenses a%ainst the law of nations.86.5. Const. At. , sec. =, cl. *).9 The Con%ess, in puttin% on the statute boo#s the necessayancillay le%islation, povided that whoeve, on the hi%h seas, co!!its the ci!e of piacyas defined


4/853

by the la of nations, and is aftewads bou%ht into o found in the 6nited 5tates, shall bei!pisoned fo life. 86.5. Ci!. Code, sec. +)F penalty fo!ely death 6.5. Rev. 5tat., sec. ?(=.9The fa!es of the Constitution and the !e!bes of Con%ess wee content to let a definition ofpiacy est on its univesal conception unde the law of nations.

t is evident that the povisions of the Penal Code now in foce in the Philippines elatin% to piacyae not inconsistent with the coespondin% povisions in foce in the 6nited 5tates.

By the Teaty of Pais, 5pain ceded the Philippine slands to the 6nited 5tates. A lo%ical constuctionof aticles of the Penal Code, li#e the aticles dealin% with the ci!e of piacy, would be that wheeve;5pain; is !entioned, it should be substituted by the wods ;6nited 5tates; and wheeve;5paniads; ae !entioned, the wod should be substituted by the e3pession ;citiens of the 6nited5tates and citiens of the Philippine slands.; so!ewhat si!ila easonin% led this cout in the caseof 6nited 5tates vs. 5!ith 8, (+ Phil., ?((9 to %ive to the wod ;authoity; as found in the PenalCode a li!ited !eanin%, which would no lon%e co!pehend all eli%ious, !ilitay, and civil offices,but only public offices in the oven!ent of the Philippine slands.

6nde the constuction above indicated, aticle *?( of the Penal Code would ead as follows

The ci!e of piacy co!!itted a%ainst citiens of the 6nited 5tates and citiens of thePhilippine slands, o the sub/ects of anothe nation not at wa with the 6nited 5tates, shallbe punished with a penalty an%in% fo! cadena te!poal to cadena pepetua.

f the ci!e be co!!itted a%ainst nonbelli%eent sub/ects of anothe nation at wa with the6nited 5tates, it shall be punished with the penalty of pesidio !ayo.

@e hold those povisions of the Penal code dealin% with the ci!e of piacy, notably aticles *?( and

*?:, to be still in foce in the Philippines.

The ci!e falls unde the fist paa%aph of aticle *?( of the Penal Code in elation to aticle *?:.Thee ae pesent at least two of the cicu!stances na!ed in the last cited aticle as authoiin%eithe cadena perpetuao death. The ci!e of piacy was acco!panied by 8*9 an offense a%ainstchastity and 89 the abandon!ent of pesons without appaent !eans of savin% the!selves. t is,theefoe, only necessay fo us to dete!ine as to whethe the penalty ofcadena perpetua o deathshould be i!posed. n this connection, the tial cout, findin% pesent the one a%%avatin%cicu!stance of noctunity, and co!pensatin% the sa!e by the one !iti%atin% cicu!stance of lac#of instuction povided by aticle **, as a!ended, of the Penal Code, sentenced the accused to lifei!pison!ent. At least thee a%%avatin% cicu!stances, that the won% done in the co!!ission of

the ci!e was delibeately au%!ented by causin% othe won%s not necessay fo its co!!ission,that advanta%e was ta#en of supeio sten%th, and that !eans wee e!ployed which addedi%no!iny to the natual effects of the act, !ust also be ta#en into consideation in fi3in% the penalty.Considein%, theefoe, the nu!be and i!potance of the "ualifyin% and a%%avatin% cicu!stanceshee pesent, which cannot be offset by the sole !iti%atin% cicu!stance of lac# of instuction, andthe hoible natue of the ci!e co!!itted, it beco!es ou duty to i!pose capital punish!ent.


5/853

The vote upon the sentence is unani!ous with e%ad to the popiety of the i!position of the deathpenalty upon the defendant and appellant 4o-lo 8the accused who aped on of the wo!en9, but is notunani!ous with e%ad to the cout, M. 'ustice Ro!ualde, e%istes his nonconfo!ity. naccodance with povisions of Act No. 1, it esults, theefoe, that the /ud%!ent of the tial coutas to the defendant and appellant 5aaw is affi!ed, and is evesed as to the defendant and

appellant 4ol-lo, who is found %uilty of the ci!e of piacy and is sentenced theefo to be hun% untildead, at such ti!e and place as shall be fi3ed by the /ud%e of fist instance of the Twenty-si3th'udicial istict. The two appellants to%ethe with $inawalan% and Maulanis, defendants in anothecase, shall inde!nify /ointly and seveally the offended paties in the e"uivalent of +: upees, andshall pay a one-half pat of the costs of both instances. 5o odeed.

Araullo! ".#.! #ohnson! Avance$a! %illamor! &strand! #ohns and Romualde'! ##.! concur.


Manila

T0R G5&N

G.R. No. 1117&9 u'u() *&, 2&&1

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.ROGER P. TULIN, +IRGILIO I. LOOL, CECILIO O. CHNGCO, N!RES C. INFNTE,CHEONG SN HIONG, a#$ -OHN !OES,accused-appellants.

MELO, J.

This is one of the olde cases which unfotunately has e!ained in doc#et of the Cout fo so!eti!e.t was eassi%ned, to%ethe with othe si!ila cases, to undesi%nedponentein pusuance of A.M.No. ))-+-)(-5C dated 7ebuay 1, ))*.

n the evenin% of Mach , *++*, ;MHT Taban%ao,; a ca%o vessel owned by the PN&C 5hippin% andTanspot Copoation, loaded with ,))) baels of #eosene, ,)) baels of e%ula %asoline, and:),))) baels of diesel oil, with a total value of P:),:,1+(,=1, was sailin% off the coast of Mindoonea 5ilonay sland.

The vessel, !anned by * cew !e!bes, includin% Captain Edilbeto 4ibo-on, 5econd MateChistian Toalba, and &peato saias Evas, was suddenly boaded, with the use of an alu!inu!ladde, by seven fully a!ed piates led by E!ilio Chan%co, olde bothe of accused-appellantCecilio Chan%co. The piates, includin% accused-appellants Tulin, 4oyola, and nfante, '. weea!ed with M-* ifles, .:? and .(= calibe hand%uns, and bolos. They detained the cew and too#co!plete contol of the vessel. Theeafte, accused-appellant 4oyola odeed thee cew !e!bes topaint ove, usin% blac# paint, the na!e ;MHT Taban%ao; on the font and ea potions of the vessel,


6/853

as well as the PN&C lo%o on the chi!ney of the vessel. The vessel was then painted with the na!e;alilee,; with e%isty at 5an 4oeno, 0onduas. The cew was foced to sail to 5in%apoe, all thewhile sendin% !isleadin% adio !essa%es to PN&C that the ship was unde%oin% epais.

PN&C, afte losin% adio contact with the vessel, epoted the disappeaance of the vessel to thePhilippine Coast uad and secued the assistance of the Philippine Ai 7oce and the Philippine

Navy. 0oweve, seach and escue opeations yielded ne%ative esults. &n Mach +, *++*, the shipaived in the vicinity of 5in%apoe and cuised aound the aea pesu!ably to await anothe vesselwhich, howeve, failed to aive. The piates wee thus foced to etun to the Philippines on Mach*:, *++*, aivin% at Calata%an, Batan%as on Mach ), *++* whee it e!ained at sea.

&n Mach =, *++*, the ;MHT Taban%ao; a%ain sailed to and anchoed about *) to *= nautical!iles fo! 5in%apoe2s shoeline whee anothe vessel called ;Navi Pide; anchoed beside it. E!ilioChan%co odeed the cew of ;MHT Taban%ao; to tansfe the vessel2s ca%o to the hold of ;NaviPide;. Accused-appellant Cheon% 5an 0ion% supevised the cew of ;Navi Pide; in eceivin% theca%o. The tansfe, afte an inteuption, with both vessels leavin% the aea, was co!pleted onMach (), *++*.

&n Mach (), *++*, ;MHT Taban%ao; etuned to the sa!e aea and co!pleted the tansfe of ca%oto ;Navi Pide.;

&n Apil =, *++*, ;MHT Taban%ao; aived at Calata%an, Batan%as, but the vessel e!ained at sea.&n Apil *), *++*, the !e!bes of the cew wee eleased in thee batches with the sten wanin%not to epot the incident to %oven!ent authoities fo a peiod of two days o until Apil *, *++*,othewise they would be #illed. The fist batch was fetched fo! the shoeline by a newly paintedpassen%e /eep diven by accused-appellant Cecilio Chan%co, bothe of E!ilio Chan%co, whobou%ht the! to !us, Cavite and %ave P),))).)) to Captain 4ibo-on fo fae of the cew inpoceedin% to thei espective ho!es. The second batch was fetched by accused-appellant Chan%coat !idni%ht of Apil *), *++* and wee bou%ht to diffeent places in Meto Manila.

&n Apil *, *++*, the Chief En%inee, acco!panied by the !e!bes of the cew, called the PN&C5hippin% and Tanspot Copoation office to epot the incident. The cew !e!bes wee bou%ht tothe Coast uad &ffice fo investi%ation. The incident was also epoted to the National Bueau ofnvesti%ation whee the offices and !e!bes of the cew e3ecuted swon state!ents e%adin% theincident.

A seies of aests was theeafte effected as follows

a. &n May *+, *++*, the NB eceived veified info!ation that the piates wee pesent at 6.$.Beach, Baliba%o, Calata%an, Batan%as. Afte thee days of suveillance, accused-appellant Tulin wasaested and bou%ht to the NB head"uates in Manila.

b. Accused-appellants nfante, '. and 4oyola wee aested by chance at A%uinaldo 0i-way by NB

a%ents as the latte wee pusuin% the !aste!ind, whoMANAE to evade aest.

c. &n May ), *++*, accused-appellants 0ion% and Chan%co wee aested at the lobby of Alpha0otel in Batan%as City.

&n &ctobe :, *++*, an nfo!ation cha%in% "ualified piacy o violation of Pesidential ecee No.?( 8Piacy in Philippine @ates9 was filed a%ainst accused-appellants, as follows
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/gr_111709_2001.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/gr_111709_2001.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/gr_111709_2001.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/gr_111709_2001.html


7/853

The undesi%ned 5tate Posecuto accuses R&ER P. T64N, GR4& . 4&I&4A,CEC4& &. C0ANC&, ANRE5 C. N7ANTE, and C0E&N 5AN 0&N, and nine 8+9othe '&0N &E5 of "ualified piacy 8Giolation of P.. No. ?(9, co!!itted as follows

That on o about and duin% the peiod fo! Mach to Apil *), *++*, both datesinclusive, and fo so!eti!e pio and subse"uent theeto, and within the /uisdiction

of this 0onoable Cout, the said accused, then !annin% a !oto launch and a!edwith hi%h poweed %uns, conspiin% and confedeatin% to%ethe and !utually helpin%one anothe, did then and thee, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously fie upon, boadand seie while in the Philippine wates MHT PN&C TABANC& loaded withpetoleu! poducts, to%ethe with the co!ple!ent and cew !e!bes, e!ployin%violence a%ainst o inti!idation of pesons o foce upon thin%s, then diect thevessel to poceed to 5in%apoe whee the ca%oes wee unloaded and theeafteetuned to the Philippines on Apil *), *++*, in violation of the afoesaid law.

C&NTRARI T& 4A@.

8pp. **+-), Rollo.9

This was doc#eted as Ci!inal Case No. +*-+:=+ befoe Banch :+ of the Re%ional Tial Cout ofthe National Capital 'udicial Re%ion stationed in Manila. 6pon aai%n!ent, accused-appellantspleaded not %uilty to the cha%e. Tial theeupon ensued.

Accused-appellants Tulin, nfante, '., and 4oyola, notwithstandin% so!e inconsistencies in theitesti!ony as to whee they wee on Mach *, *++*, !aintained the defense of denial, and disputedthe cha%e, as well as the tansfe of any ca%o fo! ;MHT Taban%ao; to the ;Navi Pide.; All of the!clai!ed havin% thei own espective souces of livelihood. Thei stoy is to the effect that on Mach ,*++*, while they wee convesin% by the beach, a ed speedboat with Captain Edilbeto 4iboon and

5econd Mate Chistian Toalba on boad, appoached the seashoe. Captain 4iboon in"uied fo!the thee if they wanted to wo# in a vessel. They wee told that the wo# was li%ht and that eachwo#e was to be paid P(,))).)) a !onth with additional co!pensation if they wo#ed beyond thatpeiod. They a%eed even thou%h they had no sea-%oin% e3peience. &n boad, they coo#ed,cleaned the vessel, pepaed coffee, and an eands fo the offices. They denied havin% %one to5in%apoe, clai!in% that the vessel only went to Batan%as. 6pon aival theeat in the !onin% ofMach *, *++*, they wee paid P*,))).)) each as salay fo nineteen days of wo#, and wee toldthat the balance would be e!itted to thei addesses. Thee was neithe eceipt no contacts ofe!ploy!ent si%ned by the paties.

Accused-appellant Chan%co cate%oically denied the cha%e, avein% that he was at ho!e sleepin%on Apil *), *++*. 0e testified that he is the youn%e bothe of E!ilio Chan%co, '.

Accused-appellant Cheon% 5an 0ion%, also #nown as Ra!an Ali, adduced evidence that hestudied in 5ydney, Austalia, obtainin% the ;Cetificate; as Chief &ffice, and late co!pleted thecouse as a ;Maste; of a vessel, wo#in% as such fo two yeas on boad a vessel. 0e wase!ployed at Navi Maine 5evices, Pte., 4td. as Pot Captain. The co!pany was en%a%ed in thebusiness of tadin% petoleu!, includin% shipoil, bun#e lube oil, and petoleu! to do!estic andintenational !a#ets. t owned fou vessels, one of which was ;Navi Pide.;


8/853

&n Mach , *++*, the day befoe ;MHT Taban%ao; was seied by E!ilio Chan%co and his cohots,0ion%2s na!e was listed in the co!pany2s lette to the Mecantile 5ection of the Maiti!eepat!ent of the 5in%apoe %oven!ent as the adio telephone opeato on boad the vessel;Chin% Ma.;

The co!pany was then dealin% fo the fist ti!e with Paul an, a 5in%apoean bo#e, who offeed to

sell to the fo!e bun#e oil fo the a!ount of ()),))).)) 5in%apoe dollas. Afte the co!pany paidove one-half of the afoesaid a!ount to Paul an, the latte, to%ethe with 'oseph N%, &peations5upeintendent of the fi!, poceeded to the hi%h seas on boad ;Navi Pide; but failed to locate thecontact vessel.

The tansaction with Paul an finally pushed thou%h on Mach 1, *++*. 0ion%, upon his etun onboad the vessel ;Chin% Ma,; was assi%ned to supevise a ship-to-ship tansfe of diesel oil off thepot of 5in%apoe, the contact vessel to be desi%nated by Paul an. 0ion% was odeed to ascetainthe "uantity and "uality of the oil and was %iven the a!ount of ()),))).)) 5in%apoe ollas fo thepuchase. 0ion%, to%ethe with Paul an, and the suveyo @illia! Iao, on boad ;Navi Pide; sailedtowad a vessel called ;MHT alilee;. 0ion% was told that ;MHT alilee; would be !a#in% the tansfe.Althou%h no inspection of ;Navi Pide; was !ade by the pot authoities befoe depatue, Navi

Maine 5evices, Pte., 4td. was able to pocue a pot cleaance upon sub!ission of enealeclaation and cew list. 0ion%, Paul an, and the bo#es wee not in the cew list sub!itted anddid not pass thou%h the i!!i%ation. The eneal eclaation falsely eflected that the vesselcaied **,+)) tons.

&n Mach =, *++*, ;Navi Pide; eached the location of ;MHT alilee;. The bo#es then told theCaptain of the vessel to ship-side with ;MHT alilee; and then tansfe of the oil tanspied. 0ion%and the suveyo @illia! Iao !et the Captain of ;MHT alilee,; called ;Captain Bobby; 8who latetuned out to be E!ilio Chan%co9. 0ion% clai!ed that he did not as# fo the full na!e of Chan%co nodid he as# fo the latte2s pesonal cad.

6pon co!pletion of the tansfe, 0ion% too# the soundin%s of the tan#s in the ;Navi Pide; and too#sa!ples of the ca%o. The suveyo pepaed the suvey epot which ;Captain Bobby; si%ned unde

the na!e ;Robeto Castillo.; 0ion% then handed the pay!ent to Paul an and @illia! Iao. 6ponaival at 5in%apoe in the !onin% of Mach +, *++*, 0ion% epoted the "uantity and "uality of theca%o to the co!pany.

Theeafte, 0ion% was a%ain as#ed to supevise anothe tansfe of oil puchased by the fi! ; fo!;MHT alilee; to ;Navi Pide.; The sa!e pocedue as in the fist tansfe was obseved. This ti!e,0ion% was told that that thee wee food and din#s, includin% bee, puchased by the co!pany fothe cew of ;MHT alilee. The tansfe too# ten hous and was co!pleted on Mach (), *++*. Paulan was paid in full fo the tansfe.

&n Apil + o (), *++*, E!ilio Chan%co inti!ated to 0ion% that he had fou vessels and wanted tooffe its ca%o to ca%o opeatos. 0ion% was as#ed to act as a bo#e o ship a%ent fo the sale of

the ca%o in 5in%apoe. 0ion% went to the Philippines to discuss the !atte with E!ilio Chan%co,who laid out the details of the new tansfe, this ti!e with ;MHT Polais; as contact vessel. 0ion% wastold that the vessel was scheduled to aive at the pot of Batan%as that wee#end. Afte bein% billetedat Alpha 0otel in Batan%as City, whee 0ion% chec#ed in unde the na!e ;5&NNI C50.; A pesonby the na!e of ;$EGN &CAMP&,; who late tuned out to be E!ilio Chan%co hi!self, also chec#edin at Alpha 0otel. 7o! accused-appellant Cecilio Chan%co, 0ion% found out that the vessel was notaivin%. 0ion% was theeafte aested by NB a%ents.


9/853

Afte tial, a +?-pa%e decision was endeed convictin% accused-appellants of the ci!e cha%ed.The dispositive potion of said decision eads

@0ERE7&RE, in the li%ht of the foe%oin% consideations, /ud%!ent is heeby endeed bythis Cout findin% the accused Ro%e Tulin, Gi%ilio 4oyola, Andes nfante, '. and CecilioChan%co %uilty beyond easonable doubt, asprincipals, of the ci!e of piacy in Philippine

@ates defined in 5ection 8d9 of Pesidential ecee No. ?( and the accused Cheon% 5an0ion%, as acco!plice, to said ci!e. 6nde 5ection (8a9 of the said law, the penalty fo thepincipals of said ci!e is !andatoy death. 0oweve, considein% that, unde the *+=1Constitution, the Cout cannot i!pose the death penalty, the accused Ro%e Tulin, Gi%ilio4oyola, Andes nfante, '., and Cecilio Chan%co ae heeby each !eted the penalty ofREC465&N PERPET6A, with all the accessoy penalties of the law. The accused Cheon%5an 0ion% is heeby !eted the penalty of REC465&N PERPET6A, pusuant to Aticle ?of the Revised Penal Code in elation to 5ection ? of P ?(. The accused Ro%e Tulin,Gi%ilio 4oyola, Andes nfante, '. and Cecilio Chan%co ae heeby odeed to etun to thePN&C 5hippin% and Tanspot Copoation the ;MHT Taban%ao; o if the accused can nolon%e etun the sa!e, the said accused ae heeby odeed to e!it, /ointly and seveally, tosaid copoation the value theeof in the a!ount of P**,:),))).)), Philippine Cuency, withinteests theeon, at the ate of J pe annu! fo! Mach , *++* until the said a!ount ispaid in full. All the accused includin% Cheon% 5an 0ion% ae heeby odeed to etun to theCalte3 Philippines, nc. the ca%o of the ;MHT Taban%ao;, o if the accused can no lon%eetun the said ca%o to said copoation, all the accused ae heeby conde!ned to pay,/ointly and seveally, to the Calte3 Refiney, nc., the value of said ca%o in the a!ount ofP:),:,1+(.=1, Philippine Cuency plus inteests until said a!ount is paid in full. Afte theaccused Cheon% 5an 0ion% has seved his sentence, he shall be depoted to 5in%apoe.

All the accused shall be cedited fo the full peiod of thei detention at the National Bueauof nvesti%ation and the City 'ail of Manila duin% the pendency of this case povided thatthey a%eed in witin% to abide by and co!ply stictly with the ules and e%ulations of theCity 'ail of Manila and the National Bueau of nvesti%ation. @ith costs a%ainst all theaccused.

5& &RERE.

8pp. *:+-*?), Rollo.9

The !atte was then elevated to this Cout. The a%u!ents of accused-appellants !ay besu!!aied as follows

Roger P. Tulin! %irgilio (. )oyola! Andres ". (nfante! #r.! and "ecilio &. "hangco

Accused-appellants Tulin, 4oyola, nfante, '., and Cecilio Chan%co asset that the tial cout eed inallowin% the! to adopt the poceedin%s ta#en duin% the ti!e they wee bein% epesented by M.To!as Posadas, a non-lawye, theeby depivin% the! of thei constitutional i%ht to pocedual duepocess.

n this e%ad, said accused-appellants naate that M. Posadas enteed his appeaance as counselfo all of the!. 0oweve, in the couse of the poceedin%s, o on 7ebuay **, *++, the tial cout


10/853

discoveed that M. Posadas was not a !e!be of the Philippine Ba. This was afte M. Posadashad pesented and e3a!ined seven witnesses fo the accused.

7uthe, accused-appellants Tulin, 4oyola, nfante, Cecilio, Chan%co unifo!ly contend that duin%the custodial investi%ation, they wee sub/ected to physical violenceF wee foced to si%n state!entswithout bein% %iven the oppotunity to ead the contents of the sa!eF wee denied assistance of

counsel, and wee not info!ed of thei i%hts, in violation of thei constitutional i%hts.

5aid accused-appellants also a%ue that the tial cout eed in findin% that the posecution povedbeyond easonable doubt that they co!!itted the ci!e of "ualified piacy. They alle%e that thepiates wee outnu!beed by the cew who totaled and who wee not %uaded at all ti!es. Thecew, so these accused-appellants conclude, could have ovepoweed the alle%ed piates.

"heong *an +iong

n his bief, Cheon% a%ues that 8*9 Republic Act No. 1?+ in effect obliteated the ci!e co!!ittedby hi!F 89 the tial cout eed in declain% that the buden is lod%ed on hi! to pove by clea andconvincin% evidence that he had no #nowled%e that E!ilio Chan%co and his cohots attac#ed and

seied the ;MHT Taban%ao; andHo that the ca%o of the vessel was stolen o the sub/ect of theft oobbey o piacyF 8(9 the tial cout eed in findin% hi! %uilty as an acco!plice to the ci!e of"ualified piacy unde 5ection : of Pesidential ecee No. ?( 8Anti-Piacy and Anti-Robbey 4aw of*+1:9F 8:9 the tial cout eed in convictin% and punishin% hi! as an acco!plice when the actsalle%edly co!!itted by hi! wee done o e3ecuted outside of Philippine wates and teitoy,stippin% the Philippine couts of /uisdiction to hold hi! fo tial, to convict, and sentenceF 8?9 the tialcout eed in !a#in% factual conclusions without evidence on ecod to pove the sa!e and which infact ae contay to the evidence adduced duin% tialF 89 the tial cout eed in convictin% hi! as anacco!plice unde 5ection : of Pesidential ecee No. ?( when he was cha%ed as a pincipal bydiect paticipation unde said decee, thus violatin% his constitutional i%ht to be info!ed of thenatue and cause of the accusation a%ainst hi!.

Cheon% also posits that the evidence a%ainst the othe accused-appellants do not pove anypaticipation on his pat in the co!!ission of the ci!e of "ualified piacy. 0e futhe a%ues that hehad not in any way paticipated in the sea/ac#in% of ;MHT Taban%ao; and in co!!ittin% the ci!e of"ualified piacy, and that he was not awae that the vessel and its ca%o wee piated.

As le%al basis fo his appeal, he e3plains that he was cha%ed unde the info!ation with "ualifiedpiacy as pincipal unde 5ection of Pesidential ecee No. ?( which efes to Philippine wates.n the case at ba, he a%ues that he was convicted fo acts done outside Philippine wates oteitoy. 7o the 5tate to have ci!inal /uisdiction, the act !ust have been co!!itted within itsteitoy.

@e affi! the conviction of all the accused-appellants.

The issues of the instant case !ay be su!!aied as follows 8*9 what ae the le%al effects andi!plications of the fact that a non-lawye epesented accused-appellants duin% the tialKF 89 whatae the le%al effects and i!plications of the absence of counsel duin% the custodial investi%ationKF8(9 did the tial cout e in findin% that the posecution was able to pove beyond easonable doubtthat accused-appellants co!!itted the ci!e of "ualified piacyKF 8:9 did Republic Act No. 1?+obliteate the ci!e co!!itted by accused-appellant Cheon%KF and 8?9 can accused-appellantCheon% be convicted as acco!plice when he was not cha%ed as such and when the acts alle%edlyco!!itted by hi! wee done o e3ecuted outside Philippine wates and teitoyK


11/853

&n the fist issue, the ecod eveals that a !anifestation 8E3hibit ;);, Recod9 was e3ecuted byaccused-appellants Tulin, 4oyola, Chan%co, and nfante, '. on 7ebuay **, *++*, statin% that theywee adoptin% the evidence adduced when they wee epesented by a non-lawye. 5uch waive ofthe i%ht to sufficient epesentation duin% the tial as coveed by the due pocess clause shall onlybe valid if !ade with the full assistance of a bona fide lawye. uin% the tial, accused-appellants,as epesented by Atty. Abdul Basa, !ade a cate%oical !anifestation that said accused-appellants

wee appised of the natue and le%al conse"uences of the sub/ect !anifestation, and that theyvoluntaily and intelli%ently e3ecuted the sa!e. They also affi!ed the tuthfulness of its contentswhen as#ed in open cout 8tsn, 7ebuay **, *++, pp. 1-?+9.

t is tue that an accused peson shall be entitled to be pesent and to defend hi!self in peson andby counsel at evey sta%e of the poceedin%s, fo! aai%n!ent to po!ul%ation of /ud%!ent85ection *, Rule **?, Revised Rules of Ci!inal Pocedue9. This is hin%ed on the fact that a lay!anis not vesed on the technicalities of tial. 0oweve, it is also povided by law that ;i%hts !ay bewaived, unless the waive is contay to law, public ode, public policy, !oals, o %ood custo!s ope/udicial to a thid peson with i%ht eco%nied by law.; 8Aticle , Civil Code of the Philippines9.Thus, the sa!e section of Rule **? adds that ;pon !otion, the accused !ay be allowed to defendhi!self in peson when it sufficiently appeas to the cout that he can popely potect his i%htswithout the assistance of counsel.; By analo%y, but without pe/udice to the sanctions i!posed bylaw fo the ille%al pactice of law, it is a!ply shown that the i%hts of accused-appellants weesufficiently and popely potected by the appeaance of M. To!as Posadas. An e3a!ination of theecod will show that he #new the technical ules of pocedue. 0ence, we ule that thee was a validwaive of the i%ht to sufficient epesentation duin% the tial, considein% that it was une"uivocally,#nowin%ly, and intelli%ently !ade and with the full assistance of abona fidelawye, Atty. Abdul Basa.Accodin%ly, denial of due pocess cannot be successfully invo#ed whee a valid waive of i%hts hasbeen !ade 8People vs. *er'o, 1: 5CRA ??( F *ayson vs. People, * 5CRA =) 9.

0oweve, we !ust "uic#ly add that the i%ht to counsel duin% custodial investi%ation !ay not bewaived e3cept in witin% and in the pesence of counsel.

5ection *, Aticle of the Constitution eads

5ECT&N *. 8*9 Any peson unde investi%ation fo the co!!ission of an offense shall havethe i%ht to be info!ed of his i%ht to e!ain silent and to have co!petent and independentcounsel pefeably of his own choice. f the peson cannot affod the sevices of counsel, he!ust be povided with one. These i%hts cannot be waived e3cept in witin% and in thepesence of counsel.

89 No totue, foce, violence, theat, inti!idation, o any othe !eans which vitiate the feewill shall be used a%ainst hi!. 5ecet detention places, solitay, incommunicado, o othesi!ila fo!s of detention ae pohibited.

8(9 Any confession o ad!ission obtained in violation of this o 5ection *1 heeof shall be

inad!issible in evidence a%ainst hi!.

8:9 The law shall povide fo penal and civil sanctions fo violations of this section as well asco!pensation to and ehabilitation of victi!s of totue o si!ila pactices, and thei fa!ilies.

5uch i%hts oi%inated fo! ,iranda v. Ari'ona8(=: 6.5. :( 9 which %ave bith to the so-called Mianda doctine which is to the effect that pio to any "uestionin% duin% custodialinvesti%ation, the peson !ust be waned that he has a i%ht to e!ain silent, that any state!ent he%ives !ay be used as evidence a%ainst hi!, and that he has the i%ht to the pesence of an attoney,


12/853

eithe etained o appointed. The defendant !ay waive effectuation of these i%hts, povided thewaive is !ade voluntaily, #nowin%ly, and intelli%ently. The Constitution even adds the !oestin%ent e"uie!ent that the waive !ust be in witin% and !ade in the pesence of counsel.

5aliently, the absence of counsel duin% the e3ecution of the so-called confessions of the accused-appellants !a#e the! invalid. n fact, the vey basic eadin% of the Mianda i%hts was not even

shown in the case at ba. Paa%aph of the afoestated 5ection * sets foth the so-called ;fuitfo! the poisonous tee doctine,; a phase !inted by M. 'ustice 7eli3 7an#fute in the celebatedcase of Nardone vs. nited *tates8()= 6.5. (== 9. Accodin% to this ule, once the pi!aysouce 8the ;tee;9 is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any seconday o deivative evidence8the ;fuit;9 deived fo! it is also inad!issible. The ule is based on the pinciple that evidenceille%ally obtained by the 5tate should not be used to %ain othe evidence because the oi%inallyille%ally obtained evidence taints all evidence subse"uently obtained 8People vs. Alicando, ?*5CRA +( 9. Thus, in this case, the uncounselled e3ta/udicial confessions of accused-appellants, without a valid waive of the i%ht to counsel, ae inad!issible and whateve info!ationis deived theefo! shall be e%aded as li#ewise inad!issible in evidence a%ainst the!.

0oweve, e%adless of the inad!issibility of the sub/ect confessions, thee is sufficient evidence to

convict accused-appellants with !oal cetainty. @e a%ee with the sound deduction of the tial coutthat indeed, E!ilio Chan%co 8E3hibits ;6; and ;66;9 and accused-appellants Tulin, 4oyola, andnfante, '. did conspie and confedeate to co!!it the ci!e cha%ed. n the wods of then tial/ud%e, now 'ustice Ro!eo '. Calle/o of the Cout of Appeals L

. . . The Posecution pesented to the Cout an aay of witnesses, offices and !e!bes ofthe cew of the ;MHT Taban%ao; no less, who identified and pointed to the said Accused asa!on% those who attac#ed and seied, the ;MHT Taban%ao; on Mach , *++*, at about ()o2cloc# in the aftenoon, off 4uban% sland, Mindoo, with its ca%o, and bou%ht the saidvessel, with its ca%o, and the offices and cew of the vessel, in the vicinity of 0osebou%h4i%hthouse, about si3ty-si3 nautical !iles off the shoeline of 5in%apoe and sold its ca%o tothe Accused Cheon% 5an 0ion% upon which the ca%o was discha%ed fo! the ;MHTTaban%ao; to the ;Navi Pide; fo the pice of about ?)),))).)) 8A!eican ollas9 on

Mach +, and (), *++*. . .

333 333 333

The Maste, the offices and !e!bes of the cew of the ;MHT Taban%ao; wee on boad thevessel with the Accused and thei cohots fo! Mach , *++* up to Apil *), *++* o fo!oe than one 8*9 !onth. Thee can be no scintilla of doubt in the !ind of the Cout that theoffices and cew of the vessel could and did see and identify the sea/ac#es and thei leade.n fact, i!!ediately afte the Accused wee ta#en into custody by the opeatives of theNational Bueau of nvesti%ation, Ben/a!in 5uyo, Nobeto 5enosa, Chistian Toalba andsaias @evas e3ecuted thei ;'oint Affidavit; 8E3hibit ;B;9 and pointed to and identified thesaid Accused as so!e of the piates.

333 333 333

ndeed, when they testified befoe this Cout on thei defense, the thee 8(9 Accusedad!itted to the Cout that they, in fact, boaded the said vessel in the evenin% of Mach ,*++* and e!ained on boad when the vessel sailed to its destination, which tuned out to beoff the pot of 5in%apoe.


13/853

8pp. *)-**, Rollo.9

@e also a%ee with the tial cout2s findin% that accused-appellants2 defense of denial is not

suppoted by any had evidence but thei bae testi!ony. eate wei%ht is %iven to the cate%oicalidentification of the accused by the posecution witnesses than to the accused2s plain denial ofpaticipation in the co!!ission of the ci!e 8People v. accay, =: 5CRA + 9. nstead,accused-appellants Tulin, 4oyola, and nfante, '. naated a patently despeate tale that they weehied by thee co!plete stan%es 8alle%edly Captain Edilbeto 4iboon, 5econd Mate ChistianToalba, and thei co!panion9 while said accused-appellants wee convesin% with one anothealon% the seashoe at Aplaya, Baliba%o, Calata%an, Batan%as, to wo# on boad the ;MHT Taban%ao;which was then anchoed off-shoe. And eadily, said accused-appellants a%eed to wo# as coo#sand handy!en fo an indefinite peiod of ti!e without even sayin% %oodbye to thei fa!ilies, withouteven #nowin% thei destination o the details of thei voya%e, without the pesonal effects needed foa lon% voya%e at sea. 5uch evidence is incedible and clealy not in accod with hu!an e3peience.As pointed out by the tial cout, it is incedible that Captain 4iboon, 5econd Mate Toalba, and theico!panion ;had to leave the vessel at +() o2cloc# in the evenin% and ventue in a co!pletely

unfa!ilia place !eely to ecuit five 8?9 coo#s o handy!en 8p. **(, Rollo9.;

Anent accused-appellant Chan%co2s defense of denial with the alibi that on May *: and *1, he wasat his place of wo# and that on Apil *), *++*, he was in his house in Bacoo, Cavite, sleepin%,suffice it to state that alibi is funda!entally and inheently a wea# defense, !uch !oe so whenuncooboated by othe witnesses 8People v. Adora, 1? 5CRA ::* 9 considein% that it iseasy to fabicate and concoct, and difficult to dispove. Accused-appellant !ust adduce clea andconvincin% evidence that, at about !idni%ht on Apil *), *++*, it was physically i!possible fo hi! tohave been in Calata%an, Batan%as. Chan%co not only failed to do this, he was li#ewise unable topove that he was in his place of wo# on the dates afoestated.

t is doctinal that the tial cout2s evaluation of the cedibility of a testi!ony is accoded the hi%hest

espect, fo tial couts have an unta!!eled oppotunity to obseve diectly the de!eano ofwitnesses and, thus, to dete!ine whethe a cetain witness is tellin% the tuth 8People v. &bello, =:5CRA 1+ 9.

@e li#ewise uphold the tial cout2s findin% of conspiacy. A conspiacy e3ists when two o !oepesons co!e to an a%ee!ent concenin% the co!!ission of a felony and decide to co!!it it8Aticle =, Revised Penal Code9. To be a conspiato, one need not paticipate in evey detail ofe3ecutionF he need not even ta#e pat in evey act o need not even #now the e3act pat to bepefo!ed by the othes in the e3ecution of the conspiacy. As noted by the tial cout, thee aeti!es when conspiatos ae assi%ned sepaate and diffeent tas#s which !ay appea unelated toone anothe, but in fact, constitute a whole and collective effot to achieve a co!!on ci!inaldesi%n.

@e affi! the tial cout2s findin% that E!ilio Chan%co, accused-appellants Tulin, 4oyola, and nfante,'. and othes, wee the ones assi%ned to attac# and seie the ;MHT Taban%ao; off 4uban%, Mindoo,while accused-appellant Cecilio Chan%co was to fetch the !aste and the !e!bes of the cew fo!the shoeline of Calata%an, Batan%as afte the tansfe, and bin% the! to !us, Cavite, and topovide the cew and the offices of the vessel with !oney fo thei fae and food povisions on theiway ho!e. These acts had to be well-coodinated. Accused-appellant Cecilio Chan%co need not bepesent at the t i!e of the attac# and seiue of ;MHT Taban%ao; since he pefo!ed his tas# in viewof an ob/ective co!!on to all othe accused-appellants.


14/853

&f notable i!potance is the connection of accused-appellants to one anothe. Accused-appellantCecilio Chan%co is the youn%e bothe of E!ilio Chan%co 8a#a Captain BobbyHCaptain RobetoCastilloH$evin &ca!po9, owne of Phil-Asia 5hippin% 4ines. Cecilio wo#ed fo his bothe in saidcopoation. Thei esidences ae appo3i!ately si3 o seven #ilo!etes away fo! each othe. Theifa!ilies ae close. Accused-appellant Tulin, on the othe hand, has #nown Cecilio since thei paentswee nei%hbos in Aplaya, Baliba%o, Calata%an, Batan%as. Accused-appellant 4oyola2s wife is a

elative of the Chan%co bothes by affinity. Besides, 4oyola and E!ilio Chan%co had both beenaccused in a sea/ac#in% case e%adin% ;MHT sla 4uon; and its ca%o of steel coils and plates offCebu and Bohol in *+=+. E!ilio Chan%co 8a#a $evin &ca!po9 was convicted of the ci!e while4oyola at that ti!e e!ained at la%e.

As fo accused-appellant 0ion%, he atiocinates that he can no lon%e be convicted of piacy inPhilippine wates as defined and penalied in 5ections and (, espectively of Pesidentialecee No. ?( because Republic Act No. 1?+ 8effective 'anuay *, *++:9, which a!ended Aticle* of the Revised Penal Code, has i!pliedly supeseded Pesidential ecee No. ?(. 0e easonsout that Pesidential ecee No. ?( has been endeed ;supefluous o duplicitous; because bothAticle * of the Revised Penal Code, as a!ended, and Pesidential ecee No. ?( punish piacyco!!itted in Philippine wates. 0e !aintains that in ode to econcile the two laws, the wod ;anypeson; !entioned in 5ection * of Pesidential ecee No. ?( !ust be o!itted such thatPesidential ecee No. ?( shall only apply to offendes who ae !e!bes of the co!ple!ent o topassen%es of the vessel, wheeas Republic Act No. 1?+ shall apply to offendes who ae neithe!e!bes of the co!ple!ent o passen%es of the vessel, hence, e3cludin% hi! fo! the covea%eof the law.

Aticle * of the Revised Penal Code, used to povide

ARTC4E *. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas. L The penalty of eclusionte!poal shall be inflicted upon any peson who, on the hi%h seas, shall attac# o seie avessel o, not bein% a !e!be of its co!ple!ent no a passen%e, shall seie the whole opat of the ca%o of said vessel, its e"uip!ent, o pesonal belon%in%s of its co!ple!ent opassen%es.

8talics supplied.9

Aticle *, as a!ended by Republic Act No. 1?+ 8'anuay *, *++:9, eads

ARTC4E *. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine aters. L Thepenalty ofreclusion perpetuashall be inflicted upon any peson who, on the high seas! or inPhilippine aters, shall attac# o seie a vessel o,not being a member of its complementnor a passenger, shall seie the whole o pat of the ca%o of said vessel, its e"uip!ent, o

pesonal belon%in%s of its co!ple!ent o passen%es.

8talics ous9

&n the othe hand, 5ection of Pesidential ecee No. ?( povides


15/853

5ECT&N . Definition of Terms. L The followin% shall !ean and be undestood, as follows

d. Piracy. L Any attac# upon o seiue of any vessel o the ta#in% away of the whole o pattheeof o its ca%o, e"uip!ent, o the pesonal belon%in%s of its co!ple!ent o passen%es,iespective of the value theeof, by !eans of violence a%ainst o inti!idation of pesons ofoce upon thin%s, co!!itted by any person! including a passenger or member of the

complement of said vessel in Philippine aters, shall be consideed as piacy. The offendesshall be consideed as piates and punished as heeinafte povided 8talics supplied9.

To su!!aie, Aticle * of the Revised Penal Code, befoe its a!end!ent, povided that piacy!ust be co!!itted on the hi%h seas by any peson not a !e!be of its co!ple!ent no apassen%e theeof. 6pon its a!end!ent by Republic Act No. 1?+, the covea%e of the petinentpovision was widened to include offenses co!!itted ;in Philippine wates.; &n the othe hand,unde Pesidential ecee No. ?( 8issued in *+1:9, the covea%e of the law on piacye!baces any personincludin% ;a passen%e o !e!be of the co!ple!ent of said vessel inPhilippine wates.; 0ence, passen%e o not, a !e!be of the co!ple!ent o not, any peson iscoveed by the law.

Republic Act No. 1?+ neithe supeseded no a!ended the povisions on piacy unde Pesidentialecee No. ?(. Thee is no contadiction between the two laws. Thee is li#ewise no a!bi%uity andhence, thee is no need to constue o intepet the law. All the pesidential decee did was to widenthe covea%e of the law, in #eepin% with the intent to potect the citieny as well as nei%hboin%states fo! ci!es a%ainst the law of nations. As e3pessed in one of the ;wheeas; clauses ofPesidential ecee No. ?(, piacy is ;a!on% the hi%hest fo!s of lawlessness conde!ned by thepenal statutes of all counties.; 7o this eason, piacy unde the Aticle *, as a!ended, and piacyunde Pesidential ecee No. ?( e3ist ha!oniously as sepaate laws.

As e%ads the contention that the tial cout did not ac"uie /uisdiction ove the peson of accused-appellant 0ion% since the ci!e was co!!itted outside Philippine wates, suffice it to state thatun"uestionably, the attac# on and seiue of ;MHT Taban%ao; 8ena!ed ;MHT alilee; by the piates9and its ca%o wee co!!itted in Philippine wates, althou%h the captive vessel was late bou%ht by

the piates to 5in%apoe whee its ca%o was off-loaded, tansfeed, and sold. And such tansfe wasdone unde accused-appellant 0ion%2s diect supevision. Althou%h Pesidential ecee No. ?(e"uies that the attac# and seiue of the vessel and its ca%o be co!!itted in Philippine wates,the disposition by the piates of the vessel and its ca%o is still dee!ed pat of the act of piacy,hence, the sa!e need not be co!!itted in Philippine wates.

Moeove, piacy falls unde Title &ne of Boo# Two of the Revised Penal Code. As such, it is ane3ception to the ule on teitoiality in ci!inal law. The sa!e pinciple applies even if 0ion%, in theinstant case, wee cha%ed, not with a violation of "ualified piacy unde the penal code but unde aspecial law, Pesidential ecee No. ?( which penalies piacy in Philippine wates. Geily,Pesidential ecee No. ?( should be applied with !oe foce hee since its pupose is pecisely todiscoua%e and pevent piacy in Philippine wates 8People v. "atantan, 1= 5CRA 1* 9. t is

li#ewise, well-settled that e%adless of the law penaliin% the sa!e, piacy is a epehensible ci!ea%ainst the whole wold 8People v. )ol-lo, :( Phil. *+ 9.

0oweve, does this constitute a violation of accused-appellant2s constitutional i%ht to be info!ed ofthe natue and cause of the accusation a%ainst hi! on the %ound that he was convicted as anacco!plice unde 5ection : of Pesidential ecee No. ?( even thou%h he was cha%ed as apincipal by diect paticipation unde 5ection of said lawK

The tial cout found that thee was insufficiency of evidence showin%


16/853

8a9 that accused-appellant 0ion% diectly paticipated in the attac# and seiue of ;MHT Taban%ao;and its ca%oF 8b9 that he induced E!ilio Chan%co and his %oup in the attac# and seiue of ;MHTTaban%ao; and its ca%oF 8c9 and that his act was indispensable in the attac# on and seiue of ;MHTTaban%ao; and its ca%o. Nevetheless, the tial cout found that accused-appellant 0ion%2spaticipation was indisputably one which aided o abetted E!ilio Chan%co and his band of piates inthe disposition of the stolen ca%o unde 5ection : of Pesidential ecee No. ?( which povides

5ECT&N :.Aiding pirates or highay robbers/brigands or abetting piracy or highayrobbery brigandage. L Any peson who #nowin%ly and in any !anne aids o potectspiates o hi%hway obbesHbi%ands, such as %ivin% the! info!ation about the !ove!ent ofpolice o othe peace offices of the %oven!ent, o ac"uies o eceives popety ta#en bysuch piates o bi%ands o in any !anne deives any benefit theefo!F o any peson whodiectly o indiectly abets the co!!ission of piacy o hi%hway obbey o bi%anda%e, shallbe consideed as an acco!plice of the pincipal offices and be punished in accodance withRules pescibed by the Revised Penal Code.

t shall be pesu!ed that any peson who does any of the acts povided in this 5ection haspefo!ed the! #nowin%ly, unless the contay is poven.

The ulin% of the tial cout is within well-settled /uispudence that if thee is lac# of co!pleteevidence of conspiacy, the liability is that of an acco!plice and not as pincipal 8People v. Tolentino,:) 5CRA ?*: 9. Any doubt as to the paticipation of an individual in the co!!ission of theci!e is always esolved in favo of lesse esponsibility 8People v. "orbes, 1) 5CRA :?F People vs. 0lfano! #r., *? 5CRA 1+ FPeople v. Pastores, :) 5CRA :+= 9.

E!phasis !ust also be placed on the last paa%aph of 5ection : of Pesidential ecee No. ?(which pesu!es that any peson who does any of the acts povided in said section has pefo!edthe! #nowin%ly, unless the contay is poven. n the case at ba, accused-appellant 0ion% hadfailed to oveco!e the le%al pesu!ption that he #nowin%ly abetted o aided in the co!!ission ofpiacy, eceived popety ta#en by such piates and deived benefit theefo!.

The ecod discloses that accused-appellant 0ion% aided the piates in disposin% of the stolen ca%oby pesonally diectin% its tansfe fo! ;MHT alilee; to ;MHT Navi Pide;. 0e pofited theefo! bybuyin% the hi/ac#ed ca%o fo Navi Maine 5evices, Pte., 4td. 8tsn, 'une (, *++, pp. *?-(9. 0eeven tested the "uality and veified the "uantity of the petoleu! poducts, connived with NaviMaine 5evices pesonnel in falsifyin% the eneal eclaations and Cew 4ist to ensue that theille%al tansfe went thou%h, undetected by 5in%apoe Pot Authoities, and supplied, the piates withfood, bee, and othe povisions fo thei !aintenance while in pot 8tsn, 'une (, *++, pp. *((-*(:9.

@e believe that the falsification of the eneal eclaation 8Aival and epatue9 and Cew 4istwas acco!plished and utilied by accused-appellant 0ion% and Navi Maine 5evices pesonnel inthe e3ecution of thei sche!e to avet detection by 5in%apoe Pot Authoities. 0ence, had accused-appellant 0ion% not falsified said enties, the 5in%apoe Pot Authoities could have easily

discoveed the ille%al activities that too# place and this would have esulted in his aest andposecution in 5in%apoe. Moeove, the tansfe of the stolen ca%o fo! ;MHT alilee; to ;NaviPide; could not have been effected.

@e co!pletely uphold the factual findin%s of the tial cout showin% in detail accused-appellant0ion%2s ole in the disposition of the piated %oods su!!aied as follows that on Mach 1, *++*,0ion% with Captain Biddy 5antos boaded the ;Navi Pide,; one of the vessels of the Navi Maine, toendevous with the ;MHT alilee;F that the fi! sub!itted the cew list of the vessel 8E3hibit ;=-C50;, Recod9 to the pot authoities, e3cludin% the na!e of 0ion%F that the ;eneal eclaation;


17/853

8fo depatue9 of the ;Navi Pide; fo its voya%e off pot of 5in%apoe 8E3hibits ;00; and ;=-A C50;,Recod9 falsely stated that the vessel was scheduled to depat at )) 8*) o2cloc# in the evenin%9,that thee wee no passen%es on boad, and the pupose of the voya%e was fo ;ca%o opeation;and that the vessel was to unload and tansfe *,+)) tons of ca%oF that afte the tansfe of the fuelfo! ;MHT alilee; with E!ilio Chan%co a. #. a. Captain Bobby a. #. a. Robeto Castillo at the hel!,the suveyo pepaed the ;uantity Cetificate; 8E3hibit ;**-C C50, Recod9 statin% that the ca%o

tansfeed to the ;Navi Pide; was ,:) %oss cubic !etesF that althou%h 0ion% was not theMaste of the vessel, he affi3ed his si%natue on the ;Cetificate; above the wod ;Maste; 8E3hibit;**-C- C50;, Recod9F that he then paid P*?),))).)) but did not e"uie any eceipt fo thea!ountF that E!ilio Chan%co also did not issue oneF and that in the e"uisite ;eneal eclaation;upon its aival at 5in%apoe on Mach +, *++*, at 1 o2cloc# in the evenin%, 8E3hibits ;''; and ;*(-AC50;, Recod9, it was !ade to falsely appea that the ;Navi Pide; unloaded *,1)) tons of ca%o onthe hi%h seas duin% said voya%e when in fact it ac"uied fo! the ;MHT alilee; ,))) !etic tons ofdiesel oil. The second tansfe tanspied with the sa!e ie%ulaities as discussed above. t wasli#ewise supevised by accused-appellant Cheon% fo! his end while E!ilio Chan%co supevised thetansfe fo! his end.

Accused-appellant 0ion% !aintains that he was !eely followin% the odes of his supeios and thathe has no #nowled%e of the ille%ality of the souce of the ca%o.

7ist and foe!ost, accused-appellant 0ion% cannot deny #nowled%e of the souce and natue of theca%o since he hi!self eceived the sa!e fo! ;MHT Taban%ao;. 5econd, considein% that he is ahi%hly educated !aine, he should have avoided any paticipation in the ca%o tansfe %iven thevey suspicious cicu!stances unde which it was ac"uied. 0e failed to show a sin%le piece of deedo bill of sale o even a puchase ode o any contact of sale fo the puchase by the fi!F he nevebotheed to as# fo and scutinie the papes and docu!entation elative to the ;MHT alilee;F he didnot even veify the identity of Captain Robet Castillo who! he !et fo the fist ti!e no did he chec#the souce of the ca%oF he #new that the tansfe too# place nautical !iles off 5in%apoe in thedead of the ni%ht which a !aine vessel of his fi! did not odinaily doF it was also the fist ti!e NaviMaine tansacted with Paul an involvin% a la%e su! ofM&NEI without any eceipt issuedtheefoF he was not even awae if Paul an was a 5in%apoean national and thus safe to deal with.

t should also be noted that the value of the ca%o was P:),:,1+(.=1 o ou%hly !oe than65*,))),))).)) 8co!puted at P().)) to *,T0E EDC0ANE RATE at that ti!e9. Manifestly, theca%o was sold fo less than one-half of its value. Accused-appellant 0ion% should have been awaeof this ie%ulaity. Nobody in his i%ht !ind would %o to fa away 5in%apoe, spend !uch ti!e and!oney fo tanspotation L only to sell at the afoestated pice if it wee le%iti!ate sale involved.This, in addition to the act of falsifyin% ecods, clealy shows that accused-appellant 0ion% was wellawae that the ca%o that his fi! was ac"uiin% was puloined.

4astly, it cannot be coectly said that accused-appellant was ;!eely followin% the odes of hissupeios.; An individual is /ustified in pefo!in% an act in obedience to an ode issued by asupeio if such ode, is fo so!e lawful pupose and that the !eans used by the subodinate tocay out said ode is lawful 8Reyes, Revised Penal Code, Gol. *, *+=* ed., p. *9. Notably, thealle%ed ode of 0ion%2s supeio Chua $i! 4en% Ti!othy, is a patent violation not only of Philippine,but of intenational law. 5uch violation was co!!itted on boad a Philippine-opeated vessel.Moeove, the !eans used by 0ion% in cayin% out said ode was e"ually unlawful. 0e !isled potand i!!i%ation authoities, falsified ecods, usin% a !ee cle#, 7an#ie 4oh, to consu!!ate saidacts. uin% the tial, 0ion% pesented hi!self, and the tial cout was convinced, that he was anintelli%ent and aticulate Pot Captain. These cicu!stances show that he !ust have ealied thenatue and the i!plications of the ode of Chua $i! 4en% Ti!othy. Theeafte, he could haveefused to follow odes to conclude the deal and to effect the tansfe of the ca%o to the ;NaviPide.; 0e did not do so, fo which eason, he !ust now suffe the conse"uences of his actions.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/gr_111709_2001.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/gr_111709_2001.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/gr_111709_2001.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/gr_111709_2001.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/gr_111709_2001.html


18/853

@0ERE7&RE, findin% the conviction of accused-appellants /ustified by the evidence on ecod, theCout heeby A77RM5 the /ud%!ent of the tial cout in toto.

5& &RERE.

%itug! Panganiban! Gon'aga-Reyes and *andoval-Gutierre'! ## .!concu.


Manila

7R5T G5&N

G.R. No. 118&75 Se/)e0ber 5, 1997

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,(.EMILINO CTNTN y TONG, au(e$"a//e33a#).

4ELLOSILLO, J.:


19/853

EMILINO CTNTN a#$ -OSE MC+EN URSL alias460bo ere ar'e$ 6) 6o3a)6o#o P! No. 5*2 o)er6(e :#o# a( )e #)6"P6ray a#$ H6'ay Robbery La o 197; ora6#' o# 27 -u#e 199*, 63e ar0e$ 6) a 6rear0 a#$ a b3a$e$ ea/o#, a)6#' 6#o#(/6ray 6) o#e a#o)er, by 0ea#( o 6o3e#e a#$ 6#)606$a)6o#, 63u33y a#$ e3o#6ou(3ya))a:e$, a((au3)e$ a#$ 6#36)e$ /y(6a3 6#


20/853

you.5-ua#6)o, ob6ou(3y )err66e$, 600e$6a)e3y obeye$ a#$ Ur(a3 o//e$ 6# ro0 )e o)er/u0/boa) a#$


21/853

e(.

%633 you /3ea(e )e33 )e Cour) a) )a) a(

%63e e ere 6(6#' a) Tabo'o# a#o)er /u0/boa) arr6e$

a#$ )e /a((e#'er( o )a) /u0/boa) boar$e$ our /u0/boa).

No, )a) /u0/boa) 6 you (a6$ a//roae$ you, o0a#y ere r6$6#' 6# )a) /u0/boa)

Four.

%e# you (a6$ )e /a((e#'er( o )a) /u0/boa) boar$e$your /u0/boa), o $6$ )ey $o )a)

They approached somewhat suddenly and came aboard the

pumpboate0/a(6( (u//36e$D.

Ho 0a#y (u$$e#3y a0e aboar$ your /u0/boa)

O#3y o#e.

%a) $6$ )a) /er(o# $o e# e a0e aboar$ your/u0/boa)

!hen he boarded our pumpboat he aimed his revolver atuse0/a(6( (u//36e$D.

4y )e ay, e# e a60e$ 6( reo3er )o you, $6$ e (aya#y)6#' )o you

BBB BBB BBB

"e said, #dapa,# which means lie downe0/a(6( (u//36e$D.

COURT

To o0 $6$ e a60 )a) reo3er

He a60e$ )e reo3er o# 0e.

TRIL PROS. ECH+E

%a) e3(e $6$ e $o


22/853

Te# e or$ere$ 6( o0/a#6o# )o o0e aboar$ )e/u0/boa).

%a) $6$ e $o 6) 6( reo3er

He ()ru: 0y ae 6) )e reo3er, 6))6#' )e 3oer /or)6o#o 0y 3e) eye.

No, a)er you ere ()ru: 6) )e reo3er, a) $6$ )e(e/er(o#( $o

%e ere or$ere$ )o )a:e )e0 )o a er)a6# /3ae.

To a) /3ae $6$ e or$er you )o 'o

To !aa# Tabo'o#.>

To (u()a6# )e $ee#(e a#$ o#er) )6( a(e opiracy 6#)o o#e o grave coercionou3$ be )o6'#ore )e a) )a) a 6(6#' e((e3 ru6(6#' 6# P636//6#e a)er( a( (e6=e$ by )e au(e$by 0ea#( o 6o3e#e a'a6#() or 6#)606$a)6o# o /er(o#(. ( Eu'e#e P63a/63 )e()66e$, )eau(e$ (u$$e#3y a//roae$ )e0 a#$ boar$e$ )e6r /u0/boa) a#$ Ca)a#)a# a60e$ 6(reo3er a) )e0 a( e or$ere$ o0/3a6#6#' 6)#e(( Eu'e#e P63a/63 )o dapa or 36e $o# 6)ae $o#ar$(, a#$ )e# ()ru: 6( ae 6) a reo3er, 6))6#' )e 3oer /or)6o# o 6( 3e)eye, a)er 6, Ca)a#)a# )o3$ 6( 6)60( a) 'u# /o6#) )o )a:e )e0 )o !aa# Tabo'o#.

Te 6#6$e#) a//e#e$ a) *&& o?3o: 6# )e 0or#6#'. Te (u$$e# a//eara#e o a#o)er/u0/boa) 6) our /a((e#'er(, a33 ()ra#'er( )o )e0, ea(63y 6#)606$a)e$ )e P63a/63 bro)er(

)a) )ey ere 60/e33e$ )o (ub06) 6# o0/3e)e (urre#$er )o )e 0arau$er(. Te 0o0e#)Ca)a#)a#


23/853

offenders,with the end in view of eliminating all obstacle to theeconomic,social,educational and community progress of the people.

Te P63a/63 bro)er( are 0ere 6(ero3: o(e o#3y 0ea#( o 36e36oo$ 6( 6(6#' 6# (eaa)er(. Tey brae )e #a)ura3 e3e0e#)( a#$ o#)e#$ 6) )e u#:#o# ore( o )e (ea )o

br6#' o0e a bou#)6u3 are(). I) 6( o# )e(e (0a33 6(er0e# )a) )e )o#(/eo/3e $e/e#$or )e $a63y brea$. To 60/e$e )e6r 36e36oo$ ou3$ be )o $e/r6e )e0 o )e6r ery(ub(6()e#e, a#$ )e 36:e( o )e au(e$ 6)6# )e /ur6e o P! No. 5*2 are )e ob()a3e )o)e economic, social, educational and community progress of the people. Ha$ 6) #o) bee#or )e a#e /a((6#' o a#o)er /u0/boa), )e a)e o )e P63a/63 bro)er(, 3e) a3o#ee3/3e(( 6# a 3ou#$er6#', 0ea#$er6#' ou)r6''er 6) a bro:e# /ro a#$ a o#:e$"ou) e#'6#e6# o/e# (ea, ou3$ #o) be a(er)a6#e$.

%63e a//e33a#) 6#(6()( )a) e a#$ Ur(a3 a$ #o 6#)e#)6o# o $e/r66#' )e P63a/63(/er0a#e#)3y o )e6r boa), /roo o 6 )ey 3e) be6#$ )e bro)er( 6) )e6r boa), )e)ru) 6(, Ca)a#)a# a#$ Ur(a3 aba#$o#e$ )e P63a/63( o#3y beau(e )e6r /u0/boa) bro:e $o#

a#$ 6) a( #ee((ary )o )ra#(er )o a#o)er /u0/boa) )a) ou3$ )a:e )e0 ba: )o )e6r 3a6r.U#or)u#a)e3y or )e /6ra)e( )e6r #e /u0/boa) ra# ou) o 'a( (o )ey ere a//ree#$e$by )e /o36e (oo# a)er )e P63a/63( re/or)e$ )e 0a))er )o )e 3oa3 au)or6)6e(.

Te a) )a) )e reo3er u(e$ by )e a//e33a#) )o (e6=e )e boa) a( #o) /ro$ue$ 6#e6$e#e a##o) eBu3/a)e 60 ro0 )e r60e. Te a) re0a6#(, a#$ e ()a)e 6) a'a6#, )a)Ca)a#)a# a#$ 6( o"au(e$ Ur(a3 (e6=e$ )rou' ore a#$ 6#)606$a)6o# )e /u0/boa) o)e P63a/63( 63e )e 3a))er ere 6(6#' 6# P636//6#e a)er(.

%HEREFORE, 6#$6#' #o reer(6b3e error 6# )e $e6(6o# a//ea3e$ ro0, )e o#6)6o# oau(e$"a//e33a#) EMILINO CTNTN y TONG or )e r60e o /6ray /e#a36=e$ u#$er

P! No. 5*2 a#$ (e#)e#6#' 60 aor$6#'3y )o reclusion perpetua, 6( FFIRME!. Co()(a'a6#() au(e$"a//e33a#).

SO OR!ERE!.

$itug, %apunan and "ermosisima Jr., JJ., concur.


24/853


Manila

7R5T G5&N

G.R. No. 15;1*& O)ober 1, 2&&*

4ENITO STORG,petitione,vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,espondent.

E C 5 & N

NRES"SNTIGO, J.:

This is a petition fo eview unde Rule :? of the Rules of Cout, see#in% the evesal of a ecision ofthe 5andi%anbayan in Ci!inal Case No. :+=, dated 'uly ?, ))*,*as well as its Resolutionsdated 5epte!be =, ))* and 'uly *), )).

&n &ctobe =, *++=, the &ffice of the &!buds!an filed the followin% nfo!ation a%ainst BenitoAsto%a, Mayo of aa!, 5a!a, as well as a nu!be of his !en fo Abitay etention

That on o about the *st day of 5epte!be, *++1, and fo so!eti!e subse"uent theeto, at theMunicipality of aa!, Povince of 5a!a, Philippines, and within the /uisdiction of this 0onoableCout, the above-na!ed accused, a public office, bein% the Municipal Mayo of aa!, 5a!a, insuch capacity and co!!ittin% the offense in elation to office, connivin%, confedeatin% and !utuallyhelpin% with unidentified pesons, who ae heein efeed to unde fictitious na!es '&0N &E5,who wee a!ed with fiea!s of diffeent calibes, with delibeate intent, did then and thee willfully,unlawfully and feloniously detain Elpidio 5i!on, Moises dela Cu, @enifedo Maniscan, RenatoMilitante and Cisanto Pelias, ENR E!ployees, at the Municipality of aa!, by not allowin% the!to leave the place, without any le%al and valid %ounds theeby estainin% and depivin% the! ofthei pesonal libety fo nine 8+9 hous, but without e3ceedin% thee 8(9 days.

C&NTRARI T& 4A@.

&n 5epte!be *, *++1, Re%ional 5pecial &peations oup 8R5&9 of the epat!ent ofEnvion!ent and Natual Resouces 8ENR9 &ffice No. =, Tacloban City sent a tea! to the island ofaa!, @esten 5a!a to conduct intelli%ence %athein% and foest potection opeations in line withthe %oven!entOs ca!pai%n a%ainst ille%al lo%%in%. The tea! was co!posed of 7oeste Moisesdela Cu, 5cale @enifedo Maniscan, 7oest Ran%e Renato Militante, and Tee Ma#e Cisanto
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt2


25/853

Pelias, with Elpidio E. 5i!on, Chief of the 7oest Potection and 4aw Enfoce!ent 5ection, as tea!leade. The tea! was escoted by 5P&( Andes B. Cinco, '. and 5P&* Rufo Capo"uian.(

The tea! stopped at B%y. Ba%acay, aa!, @esten 5a!a at )) p.!., whee they saw twoyacht-li#e boats bein% constucted. Afte consultin% with the local baan%ay officials, the tea!

leaned that the boats belon%ed to a cetain Michael 7i%ueoa. 0oweve, since 7i%ueoa was notaound at the ti!e, the tea! left B%y. Ba%acay.:

En oute to B%y. Manun%ca, 5ta. Rita, 5a!a, the tea! spotted two !oe boats bein% constucted inthe vicinity of B%y. 4ucob-4ucob, aa!, 5a!a, between :()-?)) p.!., po!ptin% the! to stopand investi%ate. Thus, Maniscan and Militante dise!ba#ed fo! the ENROs sevice pu!p boat andpoceeded to the site of the boat constuction. Thee, they !et Mayo Asto%a. Afte convesin% withthe !ayo, Militante etuned to thei boat fo the pupose of fetchin% 5i!on, at the e"uest of MayoAsto%a.?

@hen 5i!on, acco!panied by dela Cu, 5P&( Cinco, and 5P&* Capo"uian, appoached Mayo

Asto%a to ty and e3plain the pupose of thei !ission, 5i!on was suddenly slapped had twice onthe shoulde by Mayo Asto%a, who e3clai!ed, ;Puwede #o #a!o papa%lan%uyon pa%-uli haTacloban. Ano, di #a !aaa! n%a natupa a#oK Natupa baya a#o. ii #a!o !a#auli yana #aypuwede #a!e e cha%e ha !isencounte.; 8 can !a#e you swi! bac# to Tacloban. onOt you #nowthat can bo3K can bo3. onOt you #now that can declae this a !isencounteK9Mayo Asto%athen odeed so!eone to fetch ;einfoce!ents,; and foty-five 8:?9 !inutes late, o between ?))-)) p.!., a banca aived beain% ten 8*)9 !en, so!e of the! dessed in fati%ue unifo!s. The!en wee a!ed with M-* and M*: ifles, and they po!ptly suounded the tea!, %uns pointed atthe tea! !e!bes.1At this, 5i!on tied to e3plain to Asto%a the pupose of his tea!Os !ission.=0ethen too# out his handheld C&M adio, sayin% that he was %oin% to contact his people at the ENRin Catbalo%an to info! the! of the tea!Os wheeabouts. 5uddenly, Mayo Asto%a focibly %abbed

5i!onOs adio, sayin%, ;Maupay n%a waay #a!o adio bis dii so!abut an iyo opisina #on hain#a!o, bis dii #a!o !a#a ao hin buli%.; 8tOs bette if you have no adio so that you office would not#now you wheeabouts and so that you cannot as# fo help9.+Mayo Asto%a a%ain slapped the i%htshoulde of 5i!on, addin%, ;$on% si%a #a!o ha 4eyte ayaw pa%dad-a dinhi ha 5a!a #ay dii #a!opuwede ha a#on.; 8f you ae tou%h %uys in 4eyte, do not bin% it to 5a!a because will not toleateit hee.9*)5i!on then as#ed Mayo Asto%a to allow the tea! to %o ho!e, at which Mayo Asto%aetoted that they would not be allowed to %o ho!e and that they would instead be bou%ht toaa!.**Mayo Asto%a then addessed the tea!, sayin%, ;$on !a%da#op !an la #a!o, unahon an!%a da%#o. $on !ada#op niyo an !%a da%#o, an #an 7i%ueoa dida ha Ba%acay puwede #o liwatipada#op an a#on.; 8f you eally want to confiscate anythin%, you stat with the bi%-ti!e. f youconfiscate the boats of 7i%ueoa at B%y. Ba%acay, will suende !ine.9*5i!on then tied to

eiteate his e"uest fo pe!ission to leave, which /ust succeeded in i#in% Mayo Asto%a, whoan%ily said, ;ii #a!o !a#a uli yana #ay dad on #o #a!o ha aa!, paa didto #ita !a% uoistoya.; 8Iou cannot %o ho!e now because will bin% you to aa!. @e will have !any thin%s todiscuss thee.9*(

The tea! was bou%ht to a house whee they wee told that they would be seved dinne. The tea!had dinne with Mayo Asto%a and seveal othes at a lon% table, and the !eal lasted between 1))-=)) p.!.*:Afte dinne, Militante, Maniscan and 5P&* Capo"uian wee allowed to %o down fo! the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt14


26/853

house, but not to leave the baan%ay.*?&n the othe hand, 5P&( Cinco and the est /ust sat in thehouse until )) a.!. when the tea! was finally allowed to leave.*1aphi1.n2t

Co!plainants filed a ci!inal co!plaint fo abitay detention a%ainst Mayo Asto%a and his !en,which led to the filin% of the above-"uoted nfo!ation.

Mayo Asto%a was subse"uently aai%ned on 'uly (, ))), wheein he pleaded not %uilty to theoffenses cha%ed.*1At the tial, the posecution pesented the testi!onies of 5P&* Capo"uian and5P&( Cinco, as well as thei 'oint Affidavit.*=0oweve, the pesentation of 5i!onOs testi!ony wasnot co!pleted, and none of his fellow tea! !e!bes ca!e fowad to testify. nstead, the !e!besof the tea! sent by the ENR R5& e3ecuted a 'oint Affidavit of esistance.*+

&n 'uly ?, ))*, the 5andi%anbayan po!ul%ated its ecision, disposin% of the case as follows

@0ERE7&RE, pe!ises consideed, /ud%!ent is heeby endeed findin% accused BENT&A5T&RA I B&CATCAT %uilty of Abitay etention, and in the absence of any !iti%atin% o

a%%avatin% cicu!stances, applyin% the ndete!inate 5entence 4aw, he is heeby sentenced tosuffe i!pison!ent of fou 8:9 !onths of aesto !ayo as !ini!u! to one 8*9 yea and ei%ht 8=9!onths of pision coectional as !a3i!u!.

5& &RERE.)

The accused filed a Motion fo Reconsideation dated 'uly **, ))**which was denied by the5andi%anabayan in a Resolution dated 5epte!be =, ))*.A 5econd Motion fo Reconsideationdated &ctobe :, ))*(was also filed, and this was si!ilaly denied in a Resolution dated 'uly *),)).:

0ence, the pesent petition, wheein the petitione assi%ns a sole eo fo eview

?.*. The tial cout %ievously eed in findin% the accused %uilty of Abitay etention as defined andpenalied unde Aticle *: of the Revised Penal Code, based on !ee speculations, su!ises andcon/ectues and, wose, notwithstandin% the Affidavit of esistance e3ecuted by the five 8?9co!plainin% witnesses wheein the latte cate%oically declaed petitioneOs innocence of the ci!echa%ed.?

Petitione contends that the posecution failed to establish the e"uied "uantu! of evidence topove the %uilt of the accused,especially in li%ht of the fact that the pivate co!plainants e3ecuteda 'oint Affidavit of esistance.1Petitione assets that nowhee in the ecods of the case is thee

any co!petent evidence that could sufficiently establish the fact that estaint was e!ployed uponthe pesons of the tea! !e!bes.=7uthe!oe, he clai!s that the !ee pesence of a!ed !en atthe scene does not "ualify as co!petent evidence to pove that fea was in fact instilled in the !indsof the tea! !e!bes, to the e3tent that they would feel co!pelled to stay in B%y. 4ucob-4ucob.+

Abitay etention is co!!itted by any public office o e!ployee who, without le%al %ounds,detains a peson.()The ele!ents of the ci!e ae
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt30


27/853

*. That the offende is a public office o e!ployee.

. That he detains a peson.

(. That the detention is without le%al %ounds.(*

That petitione, at the ti!e he co!!itted the acts assailed heein, was then Mayo of aa!, 5a!ais not disputed. 0ence, the fist ele!ent of Abitay etention, that the offende is a public office oe!ployee, is undeniably pesent.

Also, the ecods ae beeft of any alle%ation on the pat of petitione that his acts wee spued byso!e le%al pupose. &n the contay, he ad!itted that his acts wee !otivated by his ;instinct foself-pesevation; and the feelin% that he was bein% ;sin%led out.;(The detention was thus withoutle%al %ounds, theeby satisfyin% the thid ele!ent enu!eated above.

@hat e!ains is the dete!ination of whethe o not the tea! was actually detained.

n the case of People v. Acosta,((which involved the ille%al detention of a child, we found theaccused-appellant theein %uilty of #idnappin% despite the lac# of evidence to show that any physicalestaint was e!ployed upon the victi!. 0oweve, because the victi! was a boy of tende a%e andhe was waned not to leave until his %od!othe, the accused-appellant, had etuned, he waspactically a captive in the sense that he could not leave because of his fea to violate suchinstuction.(:

n the case of People v. Cote,(?we held that, in establishin% the intent to depive the victi! of hislibety, it is not necessay that the offended paty be #ept within an enclosue to estict he feedo!of loco!otion. At the ti!e of he escue, the offended paty in said case was found outside tal#in% to

the owne of the house whee she had been ta#en. 5he e3plained that she did not atte!pt to leavethe pe!ises fo fea that the #idnappes would !a#e %ood thei theats to #ill he should she do so.@e uled theein that he fea was not baseless as the #idnappes #new whee she esided and theyhad ealie announced that thei intention in loo#in% fo he cousin was to #ill hi! on si%ht. Thus, weconcluded that fea has been #nown to ende people i!!obile and that appeals to the feas of anindividual, such as by theats to #ill o si!ila theats, ae e"uivalent to the use of actual foce oviolence.(

The pevailin% /uispudence on #idnappin% and ille%al detention is that the cutail!ent of the victi!Oslibety need not involve any physical estaint upon the victi!Os peson. f the acts and actuations ofthe accused can poduce such fea in the !ind of the victi! sufficient to paalye the latte, to the

e3tent that the victi! is co!pelled to li!it his own actions and !ove!ents in accodance with thewishes of the accused, then the victi! is, fo all intents and puposes, detained a%ainst his will.

n the case at ba, the estaint esultin% fo! fea is evident. nspite of thei pleas, the witnesses andthe co!plainants wee not allowed by petitione to %o ho!e.(1This efusal was "uic#ly followed bythe call fo and aival of al!ost a doen ;einfoce!ents,; all a!ed with !ilitay-issue ifles, whopoceeded to encicle the tea!, weapons pointed at the co!plainants and the witnesses.(=ivensuch cicu!stances, we %ive cedence to 5P&* Capo"uianOs state!ent that it was not ;safe; to
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt38


28/853

efuse Mayo Asto%aOs odes.(+t was not /ust the pesence of the a!ed !en, but also the evidenteffect these %un!en had on the actions of the tea! which poves that fea was indeed instilled in the!inds of the tea! !e!bes, to the e3tent that they felt co!pelled to stay in B%y. 4ucob-4ucob. Theintent to pevent the depatue of the co!plainants and witnesses a%ainst thei will is thus clea.

Re%adin% the 'oint Affidavit of esistance e3ecuted by the pivate co!plainants, suffice it to saythat the pinciples %ovenin% the use of such instu!ents in the ad/udication of othe ci!es can beapplied hee. Thus, in People v. Ballabae, it was held that an affidavit of desistance is !eely anadditional %ound to buttess the defenses of the accused, not the sole consideation that can esultin ac"uittal. Thee !ust be othe cicu!stances which, when coupled with the etaction odesistance, ceate doubts as to the tuth of the testi!ony %iven by the witnesses at the tial andaccepted by the /ud%e. 0ee, thee ae no such cicu!stances.:)ndeed, the belated clai!s !ade inthe 'oint Affidavit of esistance, such as the alle%ations that the incident was the esult of a!isundestandin% and that the tea! acceded to Mayo Asto%aOs odes ;out of espect,; ae beliedby petitioneOs own ad!issions to the contay.:*The 'oint Affidavit of esistance of the pivateco!plainants is evidently not a clea epudiation of the !ateial points alle%ed in the info!ation and

poven at the tial, but a !ee e3pession of the lac# of inteest of pivate co!plainants to pusue thecase.1aphi1.n2tThis conclusion is suppoted by one of its latte paa%aphs, which eads

**. That this affidavit was e3ecuted by us if only to pove ou sinceity and i!povin% ENR elationswith the local Chiefs E3ecutive and othe official of aa!, slands so that ENR po%a!s andpo/ect can be effectively i!ple!ented thou%h the suppot of the local officials fo the bette!ent ofthe esidence livin% conditions who ae facin% difficulties and ae !uch dependent on %oven!entsuppot.:

Petitione also assails the wei%ht %iven by the tial cout to the evidence, pointin% out that the5andi%anbayanOs eliance on the testi!ony of 5P&* Capo"uian is !isplaced, fo the eason that

5P&* Capo"uian is not one of the pivate co!plainants in the case.:(

0e also !a#es !uch of thefact that posecution witness 5P&* Capo"uian was alle%edly ;not e3actly pivy to, and#nowled%eable of, what e3actly tanspied between heein accused and the ENR tea! leade M.Elpidio E. 5i!on, fo! thei alle%ed confontation,O until they left Baan%ay 4ucob-4ucob in the ealy!onin% of 5epte!be *++1.;::

t is a ti!e-honoed doctine that the tial coutOs factual findin%s ae conclusive and bindin% uponappellate couts unless so!e facts o cicu!stances of wei%ht and substance have beenoveloo#ed, !isappehended o !isintepeted.:?Nothin% in the case at ba po!pts us to deviatefo! this doctine. ndeed, the fact that 5P&* Capo"uian is not one of the pivate co!plainants isco!pletely ielevant. Neithe penal law no the ules of evidence e"uies da!nin% testi!ony to be

e3clusively supplied by the pivate co!plainants in cases of Abitay etention. 7uthe!oe, MayoAsto%aOs clai! that 5P&* Capo"uian was ;not e3actly pivy; to what tanspied between 5i!on andhi!self is belied by the evidence. 5P&* Capo"uian testified that he acco!panied 5i!on when thelatte went to tal# to petitione.:0e head all of Mayo Asto%aOs theatenin% e!a#s.:10e was with5i!on when they wee encicled by the !en dessed in fati%ues and wieldin% M-* and M-*:ifles.:=n su!, 5P&* Capo"uian witnessed all the cicu!stances which led to the Abitayetention of the tea! at the hands of Mayo Asto%a.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/oct2003/gr_154130_2003.html#fnt48


29/853

Petitione sub!its that it is unclea whethe the tea! was in fact pevented fo! leavin% B%y.4ucob-4ucob o whethe they had si!ply decided to ;while away the ti!e; and ta#e advanta%e of thepupoted hospitality of the accused.:+&n the contay, 5P&( Cinco clealy and cate%oically deniedthat they wee si!ply ;whilin% away the ti!e; between thei dinne with Mayo Asto%a and theidepatue ealy the followin% !onin%.?)5P&* Capo"uian %ave si!ila testi!ony, sayin% that they

did not use the ti!e between thei dinne with Mayo Asto%a and thei

Documents

Criminal Law 2 Cases (Full Text)