Presidential Decree No. 532 ___________________________________________________
1.00 DEFINE PHILIPPINE WATERS
It shall refer to all bodies of water, such as but not limited to, seas, gulfs, bays around, between and connecting each of the Islands of the Philippine Archipelago, irrespective of its depth, breadth, length or dimension, and all other waters belonging to the Philippines by historic or legal title, including territorial sea, the sea-bed, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.
2.00 DEFINE VESSEL
Any vessel or watercraft used for transport of passengers and cargo from one place to another through Philippine Waters.
It shall include all kinds and types of vessels or boats used in fishing.
3.00 DEFINE PHILIPPINE HIGHWAY
It shall refer to any road, street, passage, highway and bridges or other parts thereof, or railway or railroad within the Philippines used by persons, or vehicles, or locomotives or trains for the movement or
circulation of persons or transportation of goods, articles, or property or both.
4.00 WHAT IS THE CRIME OF PIRACY?
Any attack upon or seizure of any vessel, or the taking away of the whole or part thereof or its cargo, equipment, or the personal belongings of its complement or passengers, irrespective of the value thereof, by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things, committed by any person, including a passenger or member of the complement of said vessel, in Philippine waters, shall be considered as piracy. The offenders shall be considered as pirates and punished as hereinafter provided.
4.01 CASE.
There is a piracy, not grave coercion, where, as part of the act of seizing their boat, the occupants of the vessel were compelled to go elsewhere other than their place of destination, such compulsion was obviously part of the act of seizing their boat. The testimony of Eugene, one of the victims, shows that the appellant actually seized the vessel through force and intimidation.
People vs. Emiliano Catantan y Tayong G.R No. 118075, September 5, 1997 Facts: On 27 June 1993, the Pilapil brothers Eugene, 21, and Juan Jr., 18, were fishing in the sea some 3 kilometers away from the shores of Tabogon, Cebu. Suddenly, another boat caught up with them. One of them, later identified as the accused EmilianoCatantan and Jose MacvenUrsalalis “Bimbo”, bearded the pump boat of the Pilapils and levelled his gun at Eugene. With his gun, Catantan struck Eugene on the left cheekbone and ordered him and Juan Jr. to "dapa." Then Catantan told Ursal to follow him to the pumpboat of the Pilapils. There they hogtied Eugene, forced him to lie down at the bottom of the boat, covered him with a tarpaulin up to his neck, stepped on him and ordered Juan Jr. to ferry them to DaanTabogon. and seized their fishing boat, to their damage and prejudice.
Issue: Whether or not the accused is liable for grave coercion and not piracy.
109 Ruling: Presidential Decrees No. 532 section
2 Par. (D), defines Piracy as "any attack upon or seizure of any vessel, or the taking away of the whole or part thereof or its cargo, equipment, or the personal belongings of the complement or passengers, irrespective of the value thereof, by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things, committed by any person, including a passenger or member of the complement of said vessel, in Philippine waters, shall be considered as piracy. The offenders shall be considered as pirates and punished as hereinafter provided." And a vessel is construed in Sec. 2, par. (b), of the same decree as "any vessel or watercraft used for transport of passengers and cargo from one place to another through Philippine waters. It shall include all kinds and types of vessels or boats used in fishing.”
The Grave Coercion as defined in Art.
286 of the Revised Penal Code is committed by "any person who, without authority of law, shall, by means of violence, prevent another from doing something not prohibited by law, or compel him to do something against his will, whether it be right or wrong."
This case falls squarely within the purview of piracy. While it may be true that Eugene and Juan Jr. were compelled to go elsewhere other than their place of destination, such compulsion was obviously part of the act of seizing their boat. The testimony of Eugene, one of the victims, shows that the appellant actually seized the vessel through force and intimidation. The direct testimony of Eugene is significant and enlightening and the fact that the revolver used by the appellant to seize the boat was not produced in evidence cannot exculpate him from the crime. The fact remains, and we state it again, that Catantan and his co-accused Ursal seized through force and intimidation the pump boat of the Pilapils while the latter were fishing in Philippine waters.
4.02 WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES QUALIFY PIRACY?
The law provides a higher penalty if the following circumstances attended the commission of the crime,
a. In Piracy-
1; If physical injuries or other crimes are committed as a result or on the occasion thereof.
2. If rape, murder or homicide is committed as a result or on the occasion of piracy, or when the offenders abandoned the victims without means of saving themselves, or when the seizure is accomplished by firing upon or boarding a vessel.
4.03 BAR Q. [2008] The inter-island vessel M/V Viva Lines I, while cruising off Batanes, was forced to seek shelter at the harbor of Kaoshiung, Taiwan because of a strong typhoon. While anchored in said harbor, Max, Baldo and Bogart arrived in a speedboat, fired a bazooka at the bow of the vessel, boarded it and divested the passengers of their money and jewelry. A passenger of M/V Viva Lines I, Dodong, took advantage of the confusion to settle an old grudge with another passenger, and killed him. After their apprehension, all four were charged with qualified piracy before a Philippine court.
a) Was the charge of qualified piracy against the three persons (Max, Baldo and Bogart) who boarded the inter-island vessel correct? Explain.
Suggested answer: Yes, Max, Baldo and Bogart are guilty of qualified piracy. They seized the vessel by firing and boarding the vessel, and divested the passengers of their money and jewel. Moreover, on the occasion of robbery, the death of one passenger resulted.
b) Was Dodong correctly charged before the Philippine court for qualified piracy? Explain.
Suggested Answer: No, Dodong had no intent to gain which is an essential element of qualified piracy. His intent is merely to settle an old grudge with his victim. Since the crime was not one of the exceptions in the extra-territoriality
110 principle and it was committed
outside the Philippine territory, Philippine courts do not have jurisdiction to try the same.
5.00 WHAT IS THE CRIME OF HIGHWAY ROBBERY/BRIGANDAGE?
The seizure of any person for ransom, extortion or other unlawful purposes, or the taking away of the property of another by means of violence against or intimidation of person or force upon things of other unlawful means, committed by any person on any Philippine Highway(Sec.2).
5.01 BAR Q. [2012] A postal van containing mail matters, including checks and treasury warrants, was hijacked along a national highway by ten (10) men, two (2) of whom were armed. They used force, violence and intimidation against three (3) postal employees who were occupants of the van, resulting in the unlawful taking and asportation of the entire van and its contents.
a. If you were the public prosecutor, would you charge the ten (10) men who hijacked the postal van with violation of Presidential Decree No. 532, otherwise known as the AntiPiracy and Anti -Highway Robbery Law of 1974?
Explain your answer.
Suggested Answer: He is liable under P.D. 532. There was indiscriminate highway robbery in Philippine Highway. It was committed in a national highway used by persons, or vehicles, for the movement or circulation of persons or transportation of goods, articles, or property or both. By means of violence and intimidation against three (3) postal employees who were occupants of the van, they were able to unlawful take the entire van and its contents.
PD 532 does not require that there should be at least four armed persons forming a band of robbers.
Under this law, the number of
perpetrators is not an essential requisite of the crime.
b. If you were the defense counsel, what are the elements of the crime of highway robbery that the prosecution should prove to sustain a conviction?
Suggested Answer: If I were the defense counsel, I will argue that the prosecution should first prove the following:
a. There is taking away of the property of another committed on any Philippine Highway.
b. Employment of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things or other unlawful means.
c. The act must be organized for the purpose of committing robbery indiscriminately.
Acts of robbery should not be committed against a predetermined or particular victim.
5.02 WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES QUALIFY
HIGHWAY ROBBERY OR
BRIGANDAGE?
In Highway Robbery/ Brigandage 1. If physical injuries or other crimes are committed during or on the occasion of the commission of robbery or brigandage.
2. If kidnapping for ransom or extortion, or murder or homicide, or rape is committed as a result or on the occasion thereof.
6.00 IS THE ACT OF AIDING PIRATES OR HIGHWAY ROBBERY/BRIGANDS OR ABETTING PIRACY OR HIGHWAY ROBBERY/BRIGANDAGE PUNISHABLE?
111 Yes. The law provides that any
person who knowingly and in any manner aids or protects pirates or highway robbers/brigands, such as giving them information about the movement of police or other peace officers of the government, or acquires or receives property taken by such pirates or brigands or in any manner derives any benefit therefrom; or any person who directly or indirectly abets the commission of piracy or highway robbery or brigandage, shall be considered as an accomplice of the principal offenders and be punished in accordance with the Rules prescribed by the Revised Penal Code (Sec.4).
6.01 WHAT IS THE PRESUMPTION PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 4?
It shall be presumed that any person who does any of the acts provided in this Section has performed knowingly, unless the contrary is proven.
-oooOOOooo-
CHAPTER XIII. THE ANTI-HIJACKING LAW