FACTS:
1. In the evening of March 2, 1991, "M/T Tabangao," a cargo vessel owned by the PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation, loaded with barrels of kerosene, regular gasoline, and diesel oil, was boarded by 7 fully armed pirates. The pirates including the accused Roger P. Tulin, Virgilio Loyola, and Andres Infante Jr. detained the crew and completely took over the vessel.
2. The vessel was directed to proceed to Singapore where the cargoes were unloaded transferred and sold under the direct supervision of accused Cheong San Hiong.
3. Thereafter, the captive vessel returned to the Philippines.
4. A series of arrests was thereafter effected and all the accused were charged with qualified piracy or violation of PresidentialDecree No. 532 (Piracy in Philippine Waters).
5. They were subsequently convicted of the crime charged. Hence, this appeal.Meanwhile accused Cheong argues that the trial court erred in convicting and punishing him as an accomplice when the acts allegedly committed by him were done or executed outside of Philippine waters and territory, stripping the Philippine courts of jurisdiction to hold him for trial, to convict, and sentence.
ISSUE:
WON the Philippines is without jurisdiction to try a crime committed outside the Philippine waters and territory?
RULING:
We affirm the conviction of all the accused-appellants.
Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code, before its amendment, provided that piracy must be committed on the high seas by any person not a member of its complement nor a passenger thereof.
Upon its amendment by Republic Act No. 7659, the coverage of the pertinent provision was widened to include offenses committed "in Philippine waters."
On the other hand, under Presidential Decree No. 532 (issued in 1974), the coverage of the law on piracy embraces any person including "apassenger or member of the complement of said vessel in Philippine waters."
Hence, passenger or not, a member of thecomplement or not, any person is covered by the law.
Republic Act No. 7659 neither superseded nor amended the provisions on piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532.
Thereis no contradiction between the two laws.
There is likewise no ambiguity and hence, there is no need to construe or interpretthe law.
All the presidential decree did was to widen the coverage of the law, in keeping with the intent to protect thecitizenry as well as neighboring states from crimes against the law of nations.
As expressed in one of the "whereas" clauses of Presidential Decree No. 532, piracy is "among the highest forms of lawlessness condemned by the penal statutes of allcountries." For this reason, piracy under the Article 122, as amended, and piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532 existharmoniously as separate laws.
As regards the contention that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of accused-appellant Hiong since the crime was committed outside Philippine waters, suffice it to state that unquestionably,
the attack on and seizure of "M/T Tabangao" (renamed "M/T Galilee" by the pirates) and its cargo were committed inPhilippine waters,
although the captive vessel was later brought by the pirates to Singapore where its cargo was off-loaded, transferred, and sold. And such transfer was done under accused-appellant Hiong's direct supervision.
Although Presidential Decree No. 532 requires that the attack and seizure of the vessel and its cargo be committed In Philippine waters, the disposition by the pirates of the vessel and its cargo is still deemed part of the act of piracy, hence, the same need not be committed in Philippine waters.
Moreover, piracy falls under Title One of Book Two of the Revised Penal Code. As such, it is an exception to the rule on territoriality in criminal law.
The same principle applies even if Hiong, in the instant case, were charged, not with a violation of qualified piracy under the penal code but under a special law, Presidential Decree No. 532 which penalizes piracy in Philippine waters. Verily, Presidential Decree No. 532 should be applied with more force here since its purpose is precisely to discourage and prevent piracy in Philippine waters.
English Rule, French Rule, Sec. 2, Art. 27 of UNCLOS)
SUBSECTION B. RULES APPLICABLE TO MERCHANT SHIPS AND GOVERNMENT SHIPS OPERATED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES Article 27 Criminal jurisdiction on board a foreign ship
1. The criminal jurisdiction of the coastal State should not be exercised on board a foreign ship passing through the territorial sea to arrest any person or to conduct any investigation in connection with any crime committed on board the ship during its passage, save only in the following cases: (a) if the consequences of the crime extend to the coastal State; 34 (b) if the crime is of a kind to disturb the peace of the country or the good order of the territorial sea; (c) if the assistance of the local authorities has been requested by the master of the ship or by a diplomatic agent or consular officer of the flag State; or (d) if such measures are necessary for the suppression of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. 2. The above provisions do not affect the right of the coastal State to take any steps authorized by its laws for the purpose of an arrest or investigation on board a foreign ship passing through the territorial sea after leaving internal waters. 3. In the cases provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2, the coastal State shall, if the master so requests, notify a diplomatic agent or consular officer of the flag State before taking any steps, and shall facilitate contact between such agent or officer and the ship's crew. In cases of emergency this notification may be communicated while the measures are being taken. 4. In considering whether or in what manner an arrest should be made, the local authorities shall have due regard to the interests of navigation. 5. Except as provided in Part XII or with respect to violations of laws and regulations adopted in accordance with Part V, the coastal State may not take any steps on board a foreign ship passing through the territorial sea to arrest any person or to conduct any investigation in connection with any crime committed before the ship entered the territorial sea, if the ship, proceeding from a foreign port, is only passing through the territorial sea without entering
Section 26. Extradition. - The DOJ, in consultation with DFA, shall endeavor to include offenses of trafficking in persons among extraditable offenses.
XPANDED ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ACT OF 2012 (R.A. NO. 9208, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 10364)
Application of — Based on Sec. 3(a) of R.A. No. 9208, the elements of trafficking in persons are: (1) the act of recruitment, transportation, transfer or harbouring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge, within or across national borders; (2) the means used which include threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another; and (3) the purpose of trafficking is exploitation which includes at a minimum exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs. (People vs. Aguirre, G.R. No. 219952, Nov. 20, 2017)
— The presence of the trafficker’s clients is not an element of the crime of recruitment or transportation of victims under Secs. 3(a) and 4(a) of R.A. No. 9208; the law does not require that the victims be transported to or be found in a brothel or a prostitution den for such crime of recruitment or transportation to be committed; the act of sexual intercourse need not have been consummated for recruitment to be said to have taken place; it is sufficient that the accused has lured, enticed or engaged its victims or transported them for the established purpose of exploitation, which includes prostitution, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, and the removal or sale of organs. (People vs. Aguirre, G.R. No. 219952, Nov. 20, 2017)
— The recruitment and transportation punished under Sec. 3(a) of R.A. No. 9208 may be with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge. (People vs. Aguirre, G.R. No. 219952, Nov. 20, 2017)
SEC. 29. Detention Without Judicial Warrant of Arrest. – The provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code to the contrary notwithstanding, any law enforcement agent or military personnel, who, having been duly authorized in writing by the ATC has taken custody of a person suspected of committing any of the acts defined and penalized under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of this Act, shall, without incurring any criminal liability for delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities, deliver said suspected person to the proper judicial authority within a period of fourteen (14) calendar days counted from the moment the said suspected person has been apprehended or arrested, detained, and taken into custody by the law enforcement agent or military personnel. The period of detention may be extended to a maximum period of ten (10) calendar days if it is established that (1) further detention of the person/s is necessary to preserve evidence related to terrorism or complete the investigation; (2) further detention of the person/s is necessary to prevent the commission of another terrorism; and (3) the investigation is being conducted properly and without delay.
Immediately after taking custody of a person suspected of committing terrorism or any member of a group of persons, organization or association proscribed under Section 26 hereof, the law enforcement agent or military personnel shall notify in writing the judge of the court nearest the place of apprehension or arrest of the following facts: (a) the time, date, and manner of arrest; (b) the location or locations of the detained suspect/s and (c) the physical and mental condition of the detained suspect/s. The law enforcement agent or military personnel shall likewise furnish the ATC and the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) of the written notice given to the judge.
The head of the detaining facility shall ensure that the detained suspect is informed of his/her rights as a detainee and shall ensure access to the detainee by his/her counsel or agencies and entities authorized by law to exercise visitorial powers over detention facilities.
The penalty of imprisonment of ten (10) years shall be imposed upon the police or law enforcement agent or military personnel who fails to notify any judge as provided in the preceding paragraph.
Section 21. Jurisdiction. — The Regional Trial Court shall have jurisdiction over any violation of the provisions of this Act. including any violation committed by a Filipino national regardless of the place of commission. Jurisdiction shall lie if any of the elements was committed within the Philippines or committed with the use of any computer system wholly or partly situated in the country, or when by such commission any damage is caused to a natural or juridical person who, at the time the offense was committed, was in the Philippines.
There shall be designated special cybercrime courts manned by specially trained judges to handle cybercrime cases.
Comments
Post a Comment