VOL.

135, MARCH 20, 1985

485

People vs. Rodriguez

No. L-60100. March 20, 1985.*

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JAIME RODRIGUEZ alias

JIMMY alias WILFRED DE LARA y MEDRANO and RICO LOPEZ, accused-appellants.
No. L-60768. March 20, 1985.*

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DAVIO DE REYES alias DARIO

DECE RAYMUNDO y ELAUSA, accused-appellant.
No. L-61069. March 20, 1985.*

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PETER PONCE y

BULAYBULAY alias PETER POWE, accused-appellant.
Criminal Law; Penalties; Penalty for piracy where homicide was also committed is
death, regardless of plea of guilty.—Clearly, the

_______________

* EN BANC.

486

486

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Rodriguez

penalty imposable upon persons found guilty of the crime of piracy where rape, murder
or homicide is committed is mandatory death penalty. Thus, the lower court committed
no error in not considering the plea of the three (3) defendants as a mitigating
circumstance.

Same; Evidence; Extra-judicial statements not objected to and whose truth is admitted
are admissible in evidence.—With respect to the other assigned errors, We also find
them to be devoid of merit Appellant Peter Ponce gave a statement (Exhibits “C" to “C-
11") to the Malaysian authorities and another statement (Exhibits “I" to “I15") before the
National Bureau of Investigation of Manila. When said statement (Exhibits “C" to “C-11")
was offered in evidence by the prosecution, the same was not objected to by the
defense, aside from the fact that Peter Ponce, on cross examination, admitted the
truthfulness of said declarations.

Same; Same; Appellant Ponce was duly advised of his constitutional rights.—Thus, it is
clear that Peter Ponce was fully advised of his constitutional right to remain silent and
his right to counsel.

Same; Same; Interlocking confessions give no room for doubt of appellant’s

conspiracy.—Considering the written statements of all the appellants, (Exhibits “E", “F",
“G", “H", “J" and “K"), interlocking as they are with each other as each admits his
participation and those of the other co-accused, there is no room for doubt that
conspiracy existed among them. The conduct of appellant Peter Ponce before, during
and after the commission of the crime is a circumstance showing the presence of
conspiracy in the commission of the crime. As a consequence, every one is responsible
for the crime committed.

TEEHANKEE, J., concurring:

Criminal Law; Constitutional Law; I take exception to the majority statement that Ponce
was fully advised of his constitutional rights, Waiver must he with assistance of
counsel.—I take exception, however, to the statement therein that accused Peter Ponce
“was fully advised of his constitutional right to remain silent and his right to counsel.”
The monosyllabic answers of “Yes” and “No” have been stricken down by the Court as
utterly unacceptable as a voluntary and intelligent waiver of the constitutional right to
silence and to counsel in People vs. Caguioa (95 SCRA 2), in line with my separate
concurring and dissenting opinion in the recent case of People vs.

487

VOL. 135, MARCH 20, 1985

487

People vs. Rodriguez

Itlanas (G.R. No. 80118, prom. February 28, 1985). As therein stated, I subscribe to the
Court’s requirement in Morales, Jr. vs. Ponce Enrile (121 SCRA 538) that “the right to
counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the
assistance of counsel” in order to assure that it is knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently
given.

APPEAL from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Sulu and Tawi-Tawi

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

Appellants Jaime Rodriguez alias Jimmy alias Wilfred de Lara y Medrano, Rico Lopez,
Davio Reyes alias Dario Dece Raymundo y Elausa and Peter Ponce y Bulaybulay alias
Peter Powe were charged of the crime of piracy in an information filed before the then
Court of First Instance of Sulu and TawiTawi, which reads:

“That on or about 3:15 in the morning of August 31, 1981, at the vicinity of Muligin
Island and within the territorial waters of the Municipality of Cagayan de Tawi-Tawi,
Province of Tawi-Tawi, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused Wilfred de Lara y Medrano, alias Jaime Rodriguez (Jimmy); Dario Dece
Raymundo y Elausa; Rico Lopez y Fernandez and Peter Ponce y Bulaybulay alias
Peter Powe, being crew members of the M/V Noria 767, a barter trade vessel of
Philippine registry, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one
another and armed with bladed weapons and high caliber firearms, to wit: three (3)
daggers, two (2) M-14, one (1) garand and one (1) Browning Automatic Rifle, with intent
of gain and by means of violence and intimidation upon persons, did then and there
willfully and unlawfully, and feloniously take, steal and carry away against the consent of
the owners thereof, the equipments and other personal properties belong ing to the
crew members and passengers of the said M/V Noria 767, consisting of cash money
amounting to Three Million Five Hundred Seventeen Thousand Three Hundred Pesos
(P3,517,300.00), personal belongings of passengers and crew amounting to One
Hundred Thirty Thousand Pesos (P130,000.00), the vessel’s compass, navigational
charts and instruments amounting to Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) to the
damage and prejudice of the aforementioned

488

488

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Rodriguez

owners in the total amount of THREE MILLION SIX HUNDRED EIGHTY SEVEN
THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED PESOS (P3,687,300.00) Philippine Currency; that by
reason of and on the occasion of the said piracy and for the purpose of enabling the
abovenamed accused to take, steal and carry away the properties abovementioned, the
herein accused in pursuance to their conspiracy, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously with intent to kill and with evident premeditation, treacherously attack,
assault, stab, shot and, taking advantage of superior strength, use personal violence
upon the persons of Abdusador Sumihag, Vicente America, Perhan Tan, Marcos Que,
Ismael Turabin, Mabar Abdurahman, Wadi Aduk, Rasdi Alfad, Kasmir Tan, Peter Paul
Chiong, Juaini Husini, Ismael Ombra, Sabturani Ulag, Mutalib Sarahadil, Bajubar Adam,
Quillermo Wee, Reuben Segovia Ho, Michael Lao, Yusop Abubakar, Hahji Hussin
Kulavan, Amjad Quezon, Rebuan Majid, Edgar Tan, Abdurasul Alialam, Federico
Canizares, Omar Tahil, Gilbert Que, Arajul Salialam, Masihul Bandahala, Asola
Mohammaddin, Batoto Sulpicio, Sakirani Bassal, Ibrahim Jamil, Saupi Malang and
Gulam Sahiddan, thereby inflicting upon them multiple gunshot wounds which caused
their instantaneous death and likewise causing physical injuries upon the persons of
Inggal Issao, Abduhasan Indasan, Hadji Yusop H. Alfad and Hadji Mahalail Alfad, thus
performing all acts of execution which could have produced the death of said persons,
but nevertheless did not produce it by reason or cause independent of the will of said
accused, that is, by the timely and able medical assistance rendered to said victims
which prevented death.

“CONTRARY TO LAW, with the aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident

premeditation, night time and the use of superior strength.” (pp. 97–98, Rollo of L-
61069)

Upon arraignment on February 25, 1982, Jaime Rodriguez and Rico Lopez, assisted by
their counsel, pleaded guilty to the charge, were convicted on March 5, 1982 and
sentenced each “to suffer the extreme penalty of death.”

Dario Dece Raymundo, upon arraignment, interposed a plea of not guilty. However, he
withdrew his plea and substituted it with that of guilty. On March 10,1982 he was
convicted of the crime charged and sentenced “to suffer the extreme penalty of

Peter Ponce y Bulaybulay entered the plea of not guilty.

489

VOL. 135. MARCH 20, 1985

489

People vs. Rodriguez

After trial, he was found guilty and was also sentenced “to suffer the extreme penalty of
death.''

No pronouncement was made with respect to the civil liabilities of the four defendants
because “there was a separate civil action for breach of contract and damages filed with
the same trial court in Civil Case No. N-85 against the several defendants, including the
four accused aforementioned.” (p. 26, L-61069)

The case of the four convicted defendants is now before Us on automatic review.

Evidence shows that on August 29, 1981, at about 7:30 in the evening, the vessel M/V
Noria 767, owned and registered in the name of Hadji Noria Indasan, left Jolo wharf for
Cagayan de Tawi-Tawi It arrived at the port of Cagayan de Tawi-Tawi the following day,
August 30, 1981, at around 2:00 in the afternoon. In the evening of the same date, the
vessel left for Labuan. On board the vessel were several traders and crew members.
Two or three hours after its departure, while sailing about 25 miles from Cagayan de
Tawi-Tawi, a commotion occurred in one of the cabins of the vessel.

Three witnesses testified on what they saw and heard.

Mr. Clyde Que, a passenger, heard noises inside a cabin and, after awhile, he heard
shots being fired. He rushed to the motor launch to hide and on his way through the
engine room, he saw appellant Peter Ponce. Then appellants Jaime Rodriguez, Dario
Dece and Rico Lopez, all armed with rifles, started firing towards Que’s companions
after which they brought Que to the pilot’s house to handle the steering wheel. He was
substituted by Usman, another passenger, while Que and the other crew members were
ordered to throw overboard sacks of copra and the dead bodies of Peter Chiong,
Michael Lao, Casmin Tan and Vicente America. At the time, appellant Peter Ponce,
armed with a M-14 rifle, stood guard.

Hadji Mahalail Alfad, another passenger, heard commotions from the motor launch,
followed by gunfire. He hid by laying down among the sacks of copra. He saw
appellants Peter Ponce, Jaime Rodriguez, Rico Lopez and Dario Dece coming down
the stairs as they were firing shots until Fred

490

490

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Rodriguez

Canizares and Guilbert Que were hit, their bodies falling upon him. When he tried to
move, he realized that he was also hit on the right side of his stomach. Thereafter, he
pretended to be dead till daytime.

Emil Macasaet, Jr., the skipper of the vessel heard the commotion from one of the
cabins. He ordered his men to open the door but it could not be opened. After awhile,
the door opened and he saw a gun pointed at them. Whereupon, he hid behind the
bags of copra until appellant Jaime Rodriguez came and fired at him. Luckily, he was
not hit. He and some of his men crawled and they took cover in the bodega of copra.
While in hiding there were gunfires coming from Dario Dece and Peter Ponce. About
four (4) hours later, his Chief Mate Usman persuaded him to come out otherwise
something worse would happen. He saw Jaime Rodriguez who ordered him to direct his
men to throw the copras as well as the dead bodies overboard.

About ten o’clock in the morning of the same day, the vessel reached an island where
the four appellants were able to secure pumpboats, Macasaet was ordered to load in
one of the pumpboats nine (9) attache cases which were full of money, Rico Lopez and
Jaime Rodriguez boarded one pumpboat, while Peter Ponce and Dario Dece boarded
another, bringing with them: dressed chicken, softdrinks, durian, boxes of ammunitions,
gallons of water and some meat, as well as rifles.

Municipal Health Officer Leopoldo Lao went aboard the vessel M/V Noria when it
arrived at Cagayan de Tawi-Tawi on September 2, 1981 and saw at the wharf ten dead
bodies, all victims of the sea-jacking, namely: Gulam Sahiddan, Arajul Naran Salialam,
Mallang Saupi, Guilbert Que, Frederico Canizares, Masihul Bandahala, Ribowan Majid,
Edgar Tan, Omar Sabdani Tahir and Abdurasul Salialam.

In their brief, appellants Jaime Rodriguez, Rico Lopez and Dario Dece claim that the
trial court erred (1) in imposing the death penalty to the accused-appellants Jaime
Rodriguez alias Wilfred de Lara, Rico Lopez y Fernandez and Davio de Reyes, alias
Dario Dece Raymundo y Elausa despite their plea of guilty; (2) in giving weight to the
alleged sworn statements of Peter Ponce y Bulaybulay, identified as Exhibits “C" to
“C10“and Exhibits “1 to I-5", as evidence against Peter Ponce y

491

VOL. 135, MARCH 20, 1985

491

People vs. Rodriguez

Bulaybulay; (3) in holding that accused-appellant Peter Ponce y Bulaybulay is guilty of

the crime of piracy; (4) in holding that the defense of Peter Ponce y Bulaybulay was
merely a denial; and, (5) in holding that Peter Ponce y Bulaybulay entrusted the
P1,700.00 which was his personal money to Atty. Efren Capulong of the National
Bureau of Investigation,

There is no merit in this appeal of the three named defendants, namely: Jaime
Rodriguez and Rico Lopez in G.R. No. L60100, and Dario Dece in G.R. No. L-60768.

Anent the first assigned error, suffice it to say that Presidential Decree No. 532,
otherwise known as the AntiPiracy Law, amending Article 134 of the Revised Penal
Code and which took effect on August 8, 1974, provides:

“SEC. 3. Penalties.—Any person who commits piracy or highway robbery/brigandage as

herein defined, shall, upon conviction by competent court be punished by:

“a) Piracy.—The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods shall
be imposed. If physical injuries or other crimes are committed as a result or on the
occasion thereof, the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed. 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, the mandatory penalty of death shall
be imposed.” (Italics supplied)

Clearly, the penalty imposable upon persons found guilty of the crime of piracy where
rape, murder or homicide is committed is mandatory death penalty. Thus, the lower
court committed no error in not considering the plea of the three (3) defendants as a
mitigating circumstance. Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code states that:

“ART. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties.—In all cases in which the law
prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any
mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the
deed.”

492

492

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Rodriguez

With respect to the other assigned errors. We also find them to be devoid of merit.
Appellants Peter Ponce gave a statement (Exhibits “C" to “C-11") to the Malaysian
authorities and another statement (Exhibits “I" to “I-15") before the National Bureau of
Investigation of Manila. When said statement (Exhibits “C" to “C-11") was offered in
evidence by the prosecution, the same was not objected to by the defense, aside from
the fact that Peter Ponce, on cross examination, admitted the truthfulness of said
declarations, thus:

“Q

And the investigation was reduced into writing is that correct?

Yes, sir.

And you were investigated by the police authority of Kudat and Kota Kinabalo, is that
right?

Yes, sir. Only in Kudat.

Q

And that statement you gave to the authority at Kudat, you have signed that statement,
is that correct?

Yes, sir.

And what you stated is all the truth before the authority in Kudat?

Yes, sir.” (pp. 33–34, tsn, May 28,1982)

Relative to the appeal of appellant Peter Ponce (G.R. No. L61069), which We likewise
declare to be without merit, evidence shows that his participation in the commission of
the offense was positively testified to by the master of the vessel, Emil Macasaet, Jr.,
and a passenger, Hadji Mahalail Alfad. Another witness, passenger Clyde Que also
pointed to have seen him (Peter Ponce) armed with an M-14 rifle.

Considering the testimonies of Clyde Que and Emil Macasaet, Jr. who actually saw
appellant Peter Ponce firing his weapon indiscriminately at the passengers and crew
members in wanton disregard of human lives and the fact that af ter the looting and
killing, appellant Peter Ponce, still armed, joined Dario Dece in one pumpboat, there can
be no question that he was in conspiracy with the three other defendants. After his
arrest, Ponce gave a statement to the authorities stating therein his participation as well
as those of his companions (Exhibits"I' to “I-1").

493

VOL. 135, MARCH 20, 1985

493

People vs. Rodriguez

The four (4) appellants were arrested and detained by the Malaysian authorities. On
January 8, 1982, the National Bureau of Investigation authorities fetched and brought
them to Manila where they executed their respective statements after Rico Lopez and
Peter Ponce delivered to the NBI, P3,700.00 and P1,700.00, respectively, aside from
the P527,595.00 and one Rolex watch which the Malaysian authorities also turned over
to the Acting In-Charge of the NBI in Jolo.
The statement of Ponce (Exhibit “I”) contains the questions and answers pertinent to
Section 20 of the 1973 Constitution, to wit:

“1. QUESTION: Mr. Peter Ponce, we are informing you that you are under investigation
here in connection with the robbery committed on the M/V Noria last August 31, 1981,
where you are an Assistant Engineer. You have a right to remain silent and to refuse to
answer any of our questions here. You have the right to be represented by counsel of
your choice in this investigation. Should you decide to be represented by a lawyer but
cannot afford one we will provide a lawyer for you free. Should you decide to give a
sworn statement, the same shall be voluntary and free from force or intimidationor
promise of reward or leniency and anything that you saw here maybe used for or
against you in any court in the Philippines.Now do you understand all these rights of
yours?

ANSWER: Yes, sir.

“2. Q: Do you need the services of a lawyer?

A: No, sir.

“3.Q: Are you willing to affix your signature hereinbelow to signify that you so
understand all your rights as above stated and that you do not need the services of a
lawyer?

A: Yes, sir.” (p. 116, Rollo)

Thus, it is clear that Peter Ponce was fully advised of his constitutional right to remain
silent and his right to counsel.

Considering the written statements of all the appellants, (Exhibits “E”, “F”, “G”, “H”, “J”
and “K”), interlocking as they are with each other as each admits his participation and
those of the other co-accused, there is no room for doubt that conspiracy existed among
them. The conduct of appellant

494

494

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Rodriguez

Peter Ponce before, during and after the commission of the crime is a circumstance
showing the presence of conspiracy in the commission of the crime. As a consequence,
every one is responsible for the crime committed.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, Aquino, Conception, Jr., Abad Santos, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin,

Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., De la Fuente, Cuevas and Alampay, JJ., concur.

Fernando, C.J., no part.

Teehankee, J., files a brief concurrence.

TEEHANKEE, J.:

I concur with the judgment of conviction, there being sufficientdirect evidence and
positive identification by eyewitnesses.

I take exception, however, to the statement therein that accusedPeter Ponce “was fully
advised of his constitutional right to remain silent and his right to counsel.” The
monosyllabic answers of “Yes” and “No” have been stricken down by the Court as
utterly unacceptable as a voluntary and intelligent waiver of the constitutional right to
silence and to counsel in People vs. Caguioa (95 SCRA 2), in line with my separate
concurring and dissenting opinion in the recent case of People vs. Itlanas (G.R. No.
60118, prom. February 28, 1985). As therein stated, I subscribe to the Court’s
requirementin Morales, Jr. vs. Ponce Enrile (121 SCRA 538) that “the right to counsel
may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of
counsel” in order to assure that it is knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently given.

Decision affirmed.

Note.—Justice Malcolm says that “piracy is robbery or forcibledepredation on the high

seas, without lawful authority and done animo furandi, and in the spirit and intention of

495

VOL. 135, MARCH 25, 1985

495

Rañon vs. Court of Appeals

universal hostility. Pirates are in law hostes hermani generis. Piracy is a crime not
against any particular state but against all mankind. lt may be punished in the
competent tribunal of any country where the of fender may be found or into which he
may be carried. The jurisdiction of piracy unlike other crimes has no territorial limits. As
it is against all, so it may be punished by all Nor does it matter that the crime was
committed within the jurisdictional three-male limit of a foreign State, ‘for those limits,
though neutral to war, are not neutral to crime.’ " (Aquino, Revised Penal Code, Vol. II,
1976 Edition, p. 814.) People vs. Rodriguez, 135 SCRA 485, No. L-60100, No. L-60768,
No. L-61069 March 20, 1985