People Vs Tulin

People vs.
Tulin
G.R. No. 111709
Facts:
In the evening of March 2, 1991, "M/T Tabangao," a cargo vessel owned by the PNOC
Shipping and Transport Corporation, loaded with 2,000 barrels of kerosene, 2,600 barrels
of regular gasoline, and 40,000 barrels of diesel oil, with a total value of P40,426,793,87,
was sailing off the coast of Mindoro near Silonay Island.
The vessel, manned by 21 crew members, including Captain Edilberto Libo-on, Second
Mate Christian Torralba, and Operator Isaias Ervas, was suddenly boarded, with the use
of an aluminum ladder, by seven fully armed pirates led by Emilio Changco, older
brother of accused-appellant Cecilio Changco. The pirates, including accused-appellants
Tulin, Loyola, and Infante, Jr. were armed with M-16 rifles, .45 and .38 caliber handguns,
and bolos. They detained the crew and took complete control of the vessel. Thereafter,
accused-appellant Loyola ordered three crew members to paint over, using black paint,
the name "M/T Tabangao" on the front and rear portions of the vessel, as well as the
PNOC logo on the chimney of the vessel. The vessel was then painted with the name
"Galilee," with registry at San Lorenzo, Honduras. The crew was forced to sail to
Singapore, all the while sending misleading radio messages to PNOC that the ship was
undergoing repairs.
PNOC, after losing radio contact with the vessel, reported the disappearance of the vessel
to the Philippine Coast Guard and secured the assistance of the Philippine Air Force and
the Philippine Navy. However, search and rescue operations yielded negative results. On
March 9, 1991, the ship arrived in the vicinity of Singapore and cruised around the area
presumably to await another vessel which, however, failed to arrive. The pirates were
thus forced to return to the Philippines on March 14, 1991, arriving at Calatagan,
Batangas on March 20, 1991 where it remained at sea.
On March 28, 1991, the "M/T Tabangao" again sailed to and anchored about 10 to 18
nautical miles from Singapore's shoreline where another vessel called "Navi Pride"
anchored beside it. Emilio Changco ordered the crew of "M/T Tabangao" to transfer the
vessel's cargo to the hold of "Navi Pride". Accused-appellant Cheong San Hiong
supervised the crew of "Navi Pride" in receiving the cargo. The transfer, after an
interruption, with both vessels leaving the area, was completed on March 30, 1991.
On March 30, 1991, "M/T Tabangao" returned to the same area and completed the
transfer of cargo to "Navi Pride."
On April 8, 1991, "M/T Tabangao" arrived at Calatagan, Batangas, but the vessel
remained at sea. On April 10, 1991, the members of the crew were released in three
batches with the stern warning not to report the incident to government authorities for a
period of two days or until April 12, 1991, otherwise they would be killed. The first batch
was fetched from the shoreline by a newly painted passenger jeep driven by accused-
appellant Cecilio Changco, brother of Emilio Changco, who brought them to Imus,
Cavite and gave P20,000.00 to Captain Libo-on for fare of the crew in proceeding to their
respective homes. The second batch was fetched by accused-appellant Changco at
midnight of April 10, 1991 and were brought to different places in Metro Manila.
On April 12, 1991, the Chief Engineer, accompanied by the members of the crew, called
the PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation office to report the incident. The crew
members were brought to the Coast Guard Office for investigation. The incident was also
reported to the National Bureau of Investigation where the officers and members of the
crew executed sworn statements regarding the incident.
An Information charging qualified piracy or violation of Presidential Decree No. 532

(Piracy in Philippine Waters) was filed against ROGER P. TULIN, VIRGILIO I.
LOYOLA, CECILIO O. CHANGCO, ANDRES C. INFANTE, and CHEONG SAN
HIONG, and nine (9) other JOHN DOES.
A decision was rendered by the lower court convicting accused-appellants of the crime
charged, hence, this appeal.
Issue/s:
(1) What are the legal effects and implications of the fact that a non-lawyer
represented accused-appellants during the trial?;
(2) What are the legal effects and implications of the absence of counsel during the
custodial investigation?;
(3) Did the trial court err in finding that the prosecution was able to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that accused-appellants committed the crime of qualified
piracy?;
(4) Did Republic Act No. 7659 obliterate the crime committed by accused-appellant
Cheong?; and
(5) Can accused-appellant Cheong be convicted as accomplice when he was not

charged as such and when the acts allegedly committed by him were done or
executed outside Philippine waters and territory?
Ruling:
On the first issue, the record reveals that a manifestation (Exhibit "20", Record) was
executed by accused-appellants Tulin, Loyola, Changco, and Infante, Jr. on February 11,
1991, stating that they were adopting the evidence adduced when they were represented
by a non-lawyer. Such waiver of the right to sufficient representation during the trial as
covered by the due process clause shall only be valid if made with the full assistance of a
bona fide lawyer. During the trial, accused-appellants, as represented by Atty. Abdul
Basar, made a categorical manifestation that said accused-appellants were apprised of the
nature and legal consequences of the subject manifestation, and that they voluntarily and
intelligently executed the same. They also affirmed the truthfulness of its contents when
asked in open court (tsn, February 11, 1992, pp. 7-59).
The right to counsel during custodial investigation may not be waived except in writing
and in the presence of counsel.
Section 12, Article III of the Constitution reads:
SECTION 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an
offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person
cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights
cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which
vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof

shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this
section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or
similar practices, and their families.

People Vs Tulin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Tulin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Tulin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs.

An Information charging qualified piracy or violation of Presidential Decree No. 532

(5) Can accused-appellant Cheong be convicted as accomplice when he was not

Section 12, Article III of the Constitution reads:

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof

You might also like