EN BANC

SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE G.R. No. 178552

ENGAGEMENT NETWORK,
INC., on behalf of the South- Present:
South Network (SSN) for NonState
Armed
Group
CORONA, C.J.,
Engagement,
and
ATTY.
CARPIO,
SOLIMAN M. SANTOS, JR.,
CARPIO MORALES,
Petitioners,
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
- versus BRION,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
ANTI-TERRORISM
DEL CASTILLO,
COUNCIL,
THE
ABAD,
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,
VILLARAMA, JR.,
THE
SECRETARY
OF
PEREZ,
JUSTICE, THE SECRETARY
MENDOZA, and
OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
SERENO, JJ.
THE
SECRETARY
OF
NATIONAL DEFENSE, THE
SECRETARY
OF
THE
INTERIOR AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT,
THE
SECRETARY OF FINANCE,
THE NATIONAL SECURITY
ADVISER, THE CHIEF OF
STAFF OF THE ARMED
FORCES
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES, AND THE Promulgated:
CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL POLICE,
October 5, 2010
Respondents.

x ------------------------------x

G.R. No. 178554

KILUSANG MAYO UNO

(KMU), represented by its
Chairperson Elmer Labog,
NATIONAL FEDERATION
OF
LABOR
UNIONSKILUSANG MAYO UNO
(NAFLU-KMU), represented
by its National President
Joselito V. Ustarez and
Secretary General Antonio C.
Pascual, and CENTER FOR
TRADE
UNION
AND
HUMAN
RIGHTS,
represented by its Executive
Director Daisy Arago,
Petitioners,
- versus HON. EDUARDO ERMITA,
in his capacity as Executive
Secretary,
NORBERTO
GONZALES, in his capacity
as Acting Secretary of National
Defense,
HON.
RAUL
GONZALES, in his capacity
as Secretary of Justice, HON.
RONALDO PUNO, in his
capacity as Secretary of the
Interior
and
Local
Government,
GEN.
HERMOGENES ESPERON,
in his capacity as AFP Chief of
Staff,
and
DIRECTOR
GENERAL
OSCAR
CALDERON, in his capacity
as PNP Chief of Staff,
Respondents.

x -----------------------------------x
BAGONG
ALYANSANG
MAKABAYAN
(BAYAN),
GENERAL
ALLIANCE
BINDING WOMEN FOR
REFORMS,
INTEGRITY,
EQUALITY, LEADERSHIP
AND ACTION (GABRIELA),
KILUSANG MAGBUBUKID
NG
PILIPINAS
(KMP),
MOVEMENT
OF
CONCERNED
CITIZENS
FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES
(MCCCL),
CONFEDERATION
FOR
UNITY,
RECOGNITION
AND ADVANCEMENT OF
GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES (COURAGE),
KALIPUNAN
NG
DAMAYANG MAHIHIRAP
(KADAMAY), SOLIDARITY
OF CAVITE WORKERS,
LEAGUE
OF
FILIPINO
STUDENTS
(LFS),
ANAKBAYAN,
PAMBANSANG LAKAS NG
KILUSANG
MAMAMALAKAYA
(PAMALAKAYA),
ALLIANCE
OF
CONCERNED TEACHERS
(ACT),
MIGRANTE,
HEALTH ALLIANCE FOR
DEMOCRACY
(HEAD),
AGHAM,
TEOFISTO
GUINGONA,
JR.,
DR.

G.R. No. 178581

BIENVENIDO LUMBERA,
RENATO CONSTANTINO,
JR., SISTER MARY JOHN
MANANSAN OSB, DEAN
CONSUELO PAZ, ATTY.
JOSEFINA
LICHAUCO,
COL. GERRY CUNANAN
(ret.), CARLITOS SIGUIONREYNA, DR. CAROLINA
PAGADUAN-ARAULLO,
RENATO REYES, DANILO
RAMOS,
EMERENCIANA
DE LESUS, RITA BAUA,
REY CLARO CASAMBRE,
Petitioners,
- versus GLORIA
MACAPAGALARROYO, in her capacity as
President and Commander-inChief,
EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY
EDUARDO
ERMITA, DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE
SECRETARY
RAUL
GONZALES,
DEPARTMENT
OF
FOREIGN
AFFAIRS
SECRETARY
ALBERTO
ROMULO, DEPARTMENT
OF NATIONAL DEFENSE
ACTING
SECRETARY
NORBERTO
GONZALES,
DEPARTMENT
OF
INTERIOR AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
SECRETARY
RONALDO
PUNO. DEPARTMENT OF

FINANCE
SECRETARY
MARGARITO
TEVES,
NATIONAL
SECURITY
ADVISER
NORBERTO
GONZALES,
THE
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
COORDINATING AGENCY
(NICA), THE NATIONAL
BUREAU
OF
INVESTIGATION
(NBI),
THE
BUREAU
OF
IMMIGRATION,
THE
OFFICE
OF
CIVIL
DEFENSE,
THE
INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
OF THE ARMED FORCES
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES
(ISAFP), THE ANTI-MONEY
LAUNDERING
COUNCIL
(AMLC), THE PHILIPPINE
CENTER
ON
TRANSNATIONAL CRIME,
THE
CHIEF OF THE
PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL
POLICE
GEN.
OSCAR
CALDERON,
THE
PNP,
including its intelligence and
investigative elements, AFP
CHIEF
GEN.
HERMOGENES ESPERON,
Respondents.
x -----------------------------------x
KARAPATAN,
ALLIANCE
FOR THE ADVANCEMENT
OF
PEOPLES
RIGHTS,
represented herein by Dr.
Edelina de la Paz, and
representing the following
organizations:
HUSTISYA,

G.R. No. 178890

represented by Evangeline
Hernandez and also on her
own
behalf;
DESAPARECIDOS,
represented by Mary Guy
Portajada and also on her own
behalf, SAMAHAN NG MGA
EX-DETAINEES LABAN SA
DETENSYON AT PARA SA
AMNESTIYA
(SELDA),
represented
by
Donato
Continente and also on his
own behalf, ECUMENICAL
MOVEMENT FOR JUSTICE
AND
PEACE
(EMJP),
represented by Bishop Elmer
M. Bolocon, UCCP, and
PROMOTION OF CHURCH
PEOPLES
RESPONSE,
represented by Fr. Gilbert
Sabado, OCARM,
Petitioners,
- versus GLORIA
MACAPAGALARROYO, in her capacity as
President and Commander-inChief,
EXECUTIVE
SECRETARTY
EDUARDO
ERMITA, DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE
SECRETARY
RAUL
GONZALEZ,
DEPARTMENT
OF
FOREIGN
AFFAIRS
SECRETARY
ALBERTO
ROMULO, DEPARTMENT
OF NATIONAL DEFENSE

ACTING
SECRETARY
NORBERTO
GONZALES,
DEPARTMENT
OF
INTERIOR AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
SECRETARY
RONALDO
PUNO, DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE
SECRETARY
MARGARITO
TEVES,
NATIONAL
SECURITY
ADVISER
NORBERTO
GONZALES,
THE
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
COORDINATING AGENCY
(NICA), THE NATIONAL
BUREAU
OF
INVESTIGATION
(NBI),
THE
BUREAU
OF
IMMIGRATION,
THE
OFFICE
OF
CIVIL
DEFENSE,
THE
INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
OF THE ARMED FORCES
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES
(ISAFP), THE ANTI-MONEY
LAUNDERING
COUNCIL
(AMLC), THE PHILIPPINE
CENTER
ON
TRANSNATIONAL CRIME,
THE
CHIEF OF THE
PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL
POLICE
GEN.
OSCAR
CALDERON,
THE
PNP,
including its intelligence and
investigative elements, AFP
CHIEF
GEN.
HERMOGENES ESPERON, G.R. No. 179157
Respondents.
x------------------------------------ x

THE INTEGRATED BAR OF

THE PHILIPPINES (IBP),
represented by Atty. Feliciano
M. Bautista, COUNSELS FOR
THE
DEFENSE
OF LIBERTY(CODAL),
SEN. MA. ANA CONSUELO
A.S.
MADRIGAL
and
FORMER
SENATORS
SERGIO OSMEA III and
WIGBERTO E. TAADA,
Petitioners,
- versus EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
EDUARDO ERMITA AND
THE MEMBERS OF THE
ANTI-TERRORISM
COUNCIL (ATC),
Respondents.
x------------------------------------x
BAGONG
ALYANSANG
MAKABAYAN-SOUTHERN
TAGALOG
(BAYAN-ST),
GABRIELA-ST,
KATIPUNAN
NG
MGA
SAMAHYANG
MAGSASAKA-TIMOG
KATAGALUGAN (KASAMATK),
MOVEMENT
OF
CONCERNED
CITIZENS
FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES
(MCCCL),
PEOPLES

G.R. No. 179461

MARTYRS, ANAKBAYANST,
PAMALAKAYA-ST,
CONFEDERATION
FOR
UNITY,
RECOGNITION
AND ADVANCEMENT OF
GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES (COURAGEST),
PAGKAKAISAT
UGNAYAN
NG
MGA
MAGBUBUKID SA LAGUNA
(PUMALAG), SAMAHAN NG
MGA MAMAMAYAN SA
TABING RILES (SMTR-ST),
LEAGUE
OF
FILIPINO
STUDENTS (LFS), BAYAN
MUNA-ST, KONGRESO NG
MGA MAGBUBUKID PARA
SA
REPORMANG
AGRARYO
KOMPRA,
BIGKIS AT LAKAS NG MGA
KATUTUBO SA TIMOG
KATAGALUGAN
(BALATIK), SAMAHAN AT
UGNAYAN
NG
MGA
MAGSASAKANG
KABABAIHAN SA TIMOG
KATAGALUGAN
(SUMAMAKA-TK),
STARTER, LOSOS RURAL
POOR
ORGANIZATION
FOR
PROGRESS
&
EQUALITY,
CHRISTIAN
NIO LAJARA, TEODORO
REYES, FRANCESCA B.
TOLENTINO, JANNETTE E.
BARRIENTOS, OSCAR T.
LAPIDA, JR., DELFIN DE
CLARO,
SALLY
P.
ASTRERA, ARNEL SEGUNE
BELTRAN,

Petitioners,
- versus GLORIA
MACAPAGALARROYO, in her capacity as
President and Commander-inChief,
EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY
EDUARDO
ERMITA, DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE
SECRETARY
RAUL
GONZALEZ,
DEPARTMENT
OF
FOREIGN
AFFAIRS
SECRETARY
ALBERTO
ROMULO, DEPARTMENT
OF NATIONAL DEFENSE
ACTING
SECRETARY
NORBERTO
GONZALES,
DEPARTMENT
OF
INTERIOR AND LOCAL
GOVERNMEN
T
SECRETARY
RONALDO
PUNO, DEPARTMENT OF
FINCANCE
SECRETARY
MARGARITO
TEVES,
NATIONAL
SECURITY
ADVISER
NORBERTO
GONZALES,
THE
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
COORDINATING AGENCY
(NICA), THE NATIONAL
BUREAU
OF
INVESTIGATION
(NBI),
THE
BUREAU
OF
IMMIGRATION,
THE
OFFICE
OF
CIVIL
DEFENSE,
THE

INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
OF THE ARMED FORCES
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES
(ISAFP), THE ANTI-MONEY
LAUNDERING
COUNCIL
(AMLC), THE PHILIPPINE
CENTER
ON
TRANSNATIONAL CRIME,
THE
CHIEF OF THE
PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL
POLICE
GEN.
OSCAR
CALDERON,
THE
PNP,
including its intelligence and
investigative elements, AFP
CHIEF
GEN.
HERMOGENES ESPERON,
Respondents.
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Before the Court are six petitions challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act
No. 9372 (RA 9372), An Act to Secure the State and Protect our People from
Terrorism, otherwise known as the Human Security Act of 2007,[1] signed into law
on March 6, 2007.
Following the effectivity of RA 9372 on July 15, 2007,[2] petitioner Southern
Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc., a non-government organization, and Atty.
Soliman Santos, Jr., a concerned citizen, taxpayer and lawyer, filed a petition for
certiorari and prohibition on July 16, 2007 docketed as G.R. No. 178552. On even
date, petitioners Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU), National Federation of Labor
Unions-Kilusang Mayo Uno (NAFLU-KMU), and Center for Trade Union and
Human Rights (CTUHR), represented by their respective officers [3] who are also
bringing the action in their capacity as citizens, filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition docketed as G.R. No. 178554.

The following day, July 17, 2007, organizations Bagong Alyansang Makabayan
(BAYAN), General Alliance Binding Women for Reforms, Integrity, Equality,
Leadership and Action (GABRIELA), Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP),
Movement of Concerned Citizens for Civil Liberties (MCCCL), Confederation for
Unity, Recognition and Advancement of Government Employees (COURAGE),
Kalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap (KADAMAY), Solidarity of Cavite Workers
(SCW), League of Filipino Students (LFS), Anakbayan, Pambansang Lakas ng
Kilusang Mamamalakaya (PAMALAKAYA), Alliance of Concerned Teachers
(ACT), Migrante, Health Alliance for Democracy (HEAD), and Agham,
represented by their respective officers,[4] and joined by concerned citizens and
taxpayers Teofisto Guingona, Jr., Dr. Bienvenido Lumbera, Renato Constantino,
Jr., Sister Mary John Manansan, OSB, Dean Consuelo Paz, Atty. Josefina
Lichauco, Retired Col. Gerry Cunanan, Carlitos Siguion-Reyna, Dr. Carolina
Pagaduan-Araullo, Renato Reyes, Danilo Ramos, Emerenciana de Jesus, Rita Baua
and Rey Claro Casambre filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition docketed
as G.R. No. 178581.
On August 6, 2007, Karapatan and its alliance member organizations Hustisya,
Desaparecidos, Samahan ng mga Ex-Detainees Laban sa Detensyon at para sa
Amnestiya (SELDA), Ecumenical Movement for Justice and Peace (EMJP), and
Promotion of Church Peoples Response (PCPR), which were represented by their
respective officers[5] who are also bringing action on their own behalf, filed a
petition for certiorari and prohibition docketed as G.R. No. 178890.
On August 29, 2007, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Counsels for the
Defense of Liberty (CODAL),[6] Senator Ma. Ana Consuelo A.S. Madrigal, Sergio
Osmea III, and Wigberto E. Taada filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition
docketed asG.R. No. 179157.
Bagong Alyansang Makabayan-Southern Tagalog (BAYAN-ST), other regional
chapters and organizations mostly based in the Southern Tagalog Region, [7] and
individuals[8] followed suit by filing on September 19, 2007 a petition for certiorari
and prohibition docketed as G.R. No. 179461 that replicates the allegations raised
in the BAYAN petition in G.R. No. 178581.

Impleaded as respondents in the various petitions are the Anti-Terrorism

Council[9] composed of, at the time of the filing of the petitions, Executive
Secretary Eduardo Ermita as Chairperson, Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales as Vice
Chairperson, and Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto Romulo, Acting Defense
Secretary and National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales, Interior and Local
Government Secretary Ronaldo Puno, and Finance Secretary Margarito Teves as
members. All the petitions, except that of the IBP, also impleaded Armed Forces of
the Philippines (AFP) Chief of Staff Gen. Hermogenes Esperon and Philippine
National Police (PNP) Chief Gen. Oscar Calderon.
The Karapatan, BAYAN and BAYAN-ST petitions likewise impleaded President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and the support agencies for the Anti-Terrorism Council
like the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency, National Bureau of
Investigation, Bureau of Immigration, Office of Civil Defense, Intelligence Service
of the AFP, Anti-Money Laundering Center, Philippine Center on Transnational
Crime, and the PNP intelligence and investigative elements.
The petitions fail.
Petitioners
improper

resort

to

certiorari

is

Preliminarily, certiorari does not lie against respondents who do not exercise
judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is
clear:
Section 1. Petition for certiorari.When any tribunal, board or
officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted
without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there
is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified
petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and
praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the
proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such

incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. (Emphasis and

underscoring supplied)

Parenthetically, petitioners do not even allege with any modicum of particularity

how respondents acted without or in excess of their respective jurisdictions, or with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
The impropriety of certiorari as a remedy aside, the petitions fail just the same.
In constitutional litigations, the power of judicial review is limited by four exacting
requisites, viz: (a) there must be an actual case or controversy; (b) petitioners must
possess locus standi; (c) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the
earliest opportunity; and (d) the issue of constitutionality must be the lis mota of
the case.[10]
In the present case, the dismal absence of the first two requisites, which are the
most essential, renders the discussion of the last two superfluous.
Petitioners lack locus standi
Locus standi or legal standing requires a personal stake in the outcome of the
controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the
presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of
difficult constitutional questions.[11]
Anak Mindanao Party-List Group v. The Executive Secretary [12] summarized the
rule on locus standi, thus:
Locus standi or legal standing has been defined as a personal and
substantial interest in a case such that the party has sustained or will
sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being
challenged. The gist of the question on standing is whether a party
alleges such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to
assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of

issues upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult

constitutional questions.
[A] party who assails the constitutionality of a statute must have a direct
and personal interest. It must show not only that the law or any
governmental act is invalid, but also that it sustained or is in immediate
danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its
enforcement, and not merely that it suffers thereby in some indefinite
way. It must show that it has been or is about to be denied some right or
privilege to which it is lawfully entitled or that it is about to be subjected
to some burdens or penalties by reason of the statute or act complained
of.
For a concerned party to be allowed to raise a constitutional question, it
must show that (1) it has personally suffered some actual or
threatened injury as a result of the allegedly illegal conduct of the
government, (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action,
and (3) the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action.
(emphasis and underscoring supplied.)

Petitioner-organizations assert locus standi on the basis of being suspected

communist fronts by the government, especially the military; whereas individual
petitioners invariably invoke the transcendental importance doctrine and their
status as citizens and taxpayers.
While Chavez v. PCGG[13] holds that transcendental public importance dispenses
with the requirement that petitioner has experienced or is in actual danger of
suffering direct and personal injury, cases involving the constitutionality
of penal legislation belong to an altogether different genus of constitutional
litigation. Compelling State and societal interests in the proscription of harmful
conduct, as will later be elucidated, necessitate a closer judicial scrutiny of locus
standi.
Petitioners have not presented any personal stake in the outcome of the
controversy. None of them faces any charge under RA 9372.
KARAPATAN, Hustisya, Desaparecidos, SELDA, EMJP and PCR, petitioners
in G.R. No. 178890, allege that they have been subjected to close security

surveillance by state security forces, their members followed by suspicious persons

and vehicles with dark windshields, and their offices monitored by men with
military build. They likewise claim that they have been branded as enemies of the
[S]tate.[14]
Even conceding such gratuitous allegations, the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) correctly points out that petitioners have yet to show
any connection between the
purported surveillance and the implementation
of RA 9372.
BAYAN, GABRIELA, KMP, MCCCL, COURAGE, KADAMAY, SCW, LFS,
Anakbayan, PAMALAKAYA, ACT, Migrante, HEAD and Agham, petitionerorganizations in G.R. No. 178581, would like the Court to take judicial notice of
respondents alleged action of tagging them as militant organizations fronting for
the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its armed wing, the National
Peoples Army (NPA). The tagging, according to petitioners, is tantamount to the
effects of proscription without following the procedure under the law.[15] The
petition of BAYAN-ST, et al. in G.R. No. 179461 pleads the same allegations.
The Court cannot take judicial notice of the alleged tagging of petitioners.
Generally speaking, matters of judicial notice have three material
requisites: (1) the matter must be one of common and general
knowledge; (2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not
doubtful or uncertain; and (3) it must be known to be within the limits
of the jurisdiction of the court. The principal guide in determining what
facts may be assumed to be judicially known is that of notoriety. Hence,
it can be said that judicial notice is limited to facts evidenced by public
records and facts of general notoriety. Moreover, a judicially noticed fact
must be one not subject to a reasonable dispute in that it is either:
(1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial
court; or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by
resorting to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questionable.
Things of common knowledge, of which courts take judicial matters
coming to the knowledge of men generally in the course of the ordinary
experiences of life, or they may be matters which are generally accepted
by mankind as true and are capable of ready and unquestioned

demonstration. Thus, facts which are universally known, and which may
be found in encyclopedias, dictionaries or other publications, are
judicially noticed, provided, they are of such universal notoriety and so
generally understood that they may be regarded as forming part of the
common knowledge of every person. As the common knowledge of man
ranges far and wide, a wide variety of particular facts have been
judicially noticed as being matters of common knowledge. But a court
cannot take judicial notice of any fact which, in part, is dependent
on the existence or non-existence of a fact of which the court has no
constructive knowledge.[16](emphasis and underscoring supplied.)

No ground was properly established by petitioners for the taking of judicial

notice. Petitioners apprehension is insufficient to substantiate their plea. That no
specific charge or proscription under RA 9372 has been filed against them, three
years after its effectivity, belies any claim of imminence of their perceived threat
emanating from the so-called tagging.
The same is true with petitioners KMU, NAFLU and CTUHR in G.R. No.
178554, who merely harp as well on their supposed link to the CPP and
NPA. They fail to particularize how the implementation of specific provisions of
RA 9372 would result in direct injury to their organization and members.
While in our jurisdiction there is still no judicially declared terrorist organization,
the United States of America[17] (US) and the European Union[18] (EU) have both
classified the CPP, NPA and Abu Sayyaf Group as foreign terrorist
organizations. The Court takes note of the joint statement of Executive Secretary
Eduardo Ermita and Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales that the Arroyo
Administration would adopt the US and EU classification of the CPP and NPA as
terrorist organizations.[19] Such statement notwithstanding, there is yet to be filed
before the courts an application to declare the CPP and NPA organizations as
domestic terrorist or outlawed organizations under RA 9372. Again, RA 9372
has been in effect for three years now. From July 2007 up to the present, petitionerorganizations have conducted their activities fully and freely without any threat of,
much less an actual, prosecution or proscription under RA 9372.

Parenthetically, the Fourteenth Congress, in a resolution initiated by Party-list

Representatives Saturnino Ocampo, Teodoro Casio, Rafael Mariano and
Luzviminda Ilagan,[20] urged the government to resume peace negotiations with the
NDF by removing the impediments thereto, one of which is the adoption of
designation of the CPP and NPA by the US and EU as foreign terrorist
organizations. Considering the policy statement of the Aquino Administration [21] of
resuming peace talks with the NDF, the government is not imminently disposed to
ask for the judicial proscription of the CPP-NPA consortium and its allied
organizations.
More important, there are other parties not before the Court with direct and
specific interests in the questions being raised.[22] Of recent development is the
filing of the first case for proscription under Section 17[23] of RA 9372 by the
Department of Justice before the Basilan Regional Trial Court against the Abu
Sayyaf Group.[24] Petitioner-organizations do not in the least allege any link to
the Abu Sayyaf Group.
Some petitioners attempt, in vain though, to show the imminence of a prosecution
under RA 9372 by alluding to past rebellion charges against them.
In Ladlad v. Velasco,[25] the Court ordered the dismissal of rebellion charges filed in
2006 against then Party-List Representatives Crispin Beltran and Rafael Mariano
of Anakpawis, Liza Maza of GABRIELA, and Joel Virador, Teodoro Casio and
Saturnino Ocampo of Bayan Muna. Also named in the dismissed rebellion charges
were petitioners Rey Claro Casambre, Carolina Pagaduan-Araullo, Renato Reyes,
Rita Baua, Emerencia de Jesus and Danilo Ramos; and accused of being front
organizations for the Communist movement were petitioner-organizations KMU,
BAYAN, GABRIELA, PAMALAKAYA, KMP, KADAMAY, LFS and
COURAGE.[26]
The dismissed rebellion charges, however, do not save the day for petitioners. For
one, those charges were filed in 2006, prior to the enactment of RA 9372, and
dismissed by this Court. For another, rebellion is defined and punished under the
Revised Penal Code.Prosecution for rebellion is not made more imminent by the
enactment of RA 9372, nor does the enactment thereof make it easier to charge a
person with rebellion, its elements not having been altered.

Conversely, previously filed but dismissed rebellion charges bear no relation to

prospective charges under RA 9372. It cannot be overemphasized that three years
after the enactment of RA 9372, none of petitioners has been charged.
Petitioners IBP and CODAL in G.R. No. 179157 base their claim of locus
standi on their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution.The IBP zeroes in on Section
21 of RA 9372 directing it to render assistance to those arrested or detained under
the law.
The mere invocation of the duty to preserve the rule of law does not, however,
suffice to clothe the IBP or any of its members with standing. [27] The IBP failed to
sufficiently demonstrate how its mandate under the assailed statute revolts against
its constitutional rights and duties. Moreover, both the IBP and CODAL have not
pointed to even a single arrest or detention effected under RA 9372.
Former Senator Ma. Ana Consuelo Madrigal, who claims to have been the
subject of political surveillance, also lacks locus standi. Prescinding from the
veracity, let alone legal basis, of the claim of political surveillance, the Court finds
that she has not shown even the slightest threat of being charged under RA
9372. Similarly lacking in locus standi are former Senator Wigberto
Taada and Senator Sergio Osmea III, who cite their being respectively a human
rights advocate and an oppositor to the passage of RA 9372. Outside these
gratuitous statements, no concrete injury to them has been pinpointed.
Petitioners Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network and Atty. Soliman
Santos Jr. in G.R. No. 178552 also conveniently state that the issues they raise are
of transcendental importance, which must be settled early and are of far-reaching
implications,without mention of any specific provision of RA 9372 under which
they have been charged, or may be charged. Mere invocation of human rights
advocacy has nowhere been held sufficient to clothe litigants with locus
standi. Petitioners must show an actual, or immediate danger of sustaining, direct
injury as a result of the laws enforcement . To rule otherwise would be to corrupt
the settled doctrine of locus standi, as every worthy cause is an interest shared by
the general public.

Neither can locus standi be conferred upon individual petitioners

as taxpayers and citizens. A taxpayer suit is proper only when there is an exercise
of the spending or taxing power of Congress,[28] whereas citizen standing must rest
on direct and personal interest in the proceeding.[29]
RA 9372 is a penal statute and does not even provide for any appropriation from
Congress for its implementation, while none of the individual petitioner-citizens
has alleged any direct and personal interest in the implementation of the law.
It bears to stress that generalized interests, albeit accompanied by the assertion of a
public right, do not establish locus standi.Evidence of a direct and personal interest
is key.
Petitioners fail to present an actual case
or controversy
By constitutional fiat, judicial power operates only when there is an actual case or
controversy.
Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and
in such lower courts as may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. [30] (emphasis
and underscoring supplied.)

As early as Angara v. Electoral Commission,[31] the Court ruled that the power of
judicial review is limited to actual cases or controversies to be exercised after full
opportunity of argument by the parties. Any attempt at abstraction could only lead
to dialectics and barren legal questions and to sterile conclusions unrelated to
actualities.
An actual case or controversy means an existing case or controversy that is
appropriate or ripe for determination, not conjectural or anticipatory, lest the
decision of the court would amount to an advisory opinion.[32]

Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines v. COMELEC [33] cannot be

more emphatic:
[C]ourts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions
to satisfy scholarly interest, however intellectually challenging.The
controversy must be justiciabledefinite and concrete, touching on the
legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests. In other
words, the pleadings must show an active antagonistic assertion of
a legal right, on the one hand, and a denial thereof on the other
hand; that is, it must concern a real and not merely a theoretical
question or issue. There ought to be an actual and substantial
controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree conclusive
in nature, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law
would be upon a hypothetical state of facts. (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)

Thus, a petition to declare unconstitutional a law converting

the Municipality of Makati into a Highly Urbanized City was held to be premature
as it was tacked on uncertain, contingent events. [34] Similarly, a petition that fails to
allege that an application for a license to operate a radio or television station has
been denied or granted by the authorities does not present a justiciable controversy,
and merely wheedles the Court to rule on a hypothetical problem.[35]
The Court dismissed the petition in Philippine Press Institute v. Commission on
Elections[36] for failure to cite any specific affirmative action of the Commission on
Elections to implement the assailed resolution. It refused, in Abbas v. Commission
on Elections,[37] to rule on the religious freedom claim of the therein petitioners
based merely on a perceived potential conflict between the provisions of the
Muslim Code and those of the national law, there being no actual controversy
between real litigants.
The list of cases denying claims resting on purely hypothetical or anticipatory
grounds goes on ad infinitum.

The Court is not unaware that a reasonable certainty of the occurrence of

a perceived threat to any constitutional interestsuffices to provide a basis for
mounting a constitutional challenge. This, however, is qualified by the requirement
that there must besufficient facts to enable the Court to intelligently adjudicate the
issues.[38]
Very recently, the US Supreme Court, in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project,
[39]
allowed the pre-enforcement review of a criminal statute, challenged on
vagueness
grounds, since
plaintiffs
faced
a credible
threat
of
prosecution and should not be required to await and undergo a criminal
prosecution as the sole means of seeking relief.[40] The plaintiffs therein filed an
action before a federal court to assail the constitutionality of the material support
statute, 18 U.S.C. 2339B (a) (1),[41] proscribing the provision of material support to
organizations declared by the Secretary of State as foreign terrorist
organizations. They claimed that theyintended to provide support for the
humanitarian and political activities of two such organizations.
Prevailing American jurisprudence allows an adjudication on the merits when an
anticipatory petition clearly shows that the challenged prohibition forbids the
conduct or activity that a petitioner seeks to do, as there would then be a
justiciable controversy.[42]
Unlike the plaintiffs in Holder, however, herein petitioners have failed to show that
the
challenged
provisions
of
RA
9372
forbidconstitutionally
protected conduct or activity that they seek to do. No demonstrable threat has been
established, much less a real and existing one.
Petitioners obscure allegations of sporadic surveillance and supposedly being
tagged as communist fronts in no way approximate a credible threat of
prosecution. From these allegations, the Court is being lured to render an advisory
opinion, which is not its function.[43]
Without any justiciable controversy, the petitions have become pleas for
declaratory relief, over which the Court has no original jurisdiction. Then again,
declaratory actions characterized by double contingency, where both the activity
the petitioners intend to undertake and the anticipated reaction to it of a public
official are merely theorized, lie beyond judicial review for lack of ripeness.[44]

The possibility of abuse in the implementation of RA 9372 does not avail to take
the present petitions out of the realm of the surreal and merely imagined. Such
possibility is not peculiar to RA 9372 since the exercise of any power granted by
law may be abused.[45] Allegations of abuse must be anchored on real events before
courts may step in to settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable.
A facial invalidation of a statute is allowed
only in free speech cases, wherein certain rules
of constitutional litigation are rightly excepted
Petitioners assail for being intrinsically vague and impermissibly broad the
definition of the crime of terrorism[46] under RA 9372 in that terms like widespread
and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace and coerce the government
to give in to an unlawful demand are nebulous, leaving law enforcement agencies
with no standard to measure the prohibited acts.
Respondents, through the OSG, counter that the doctrines of void-for-vagueness
and overbreadth find no application in the present case since these doctrines apply
only to free speech cases; and that RA 9372 regulates conduct, not speech.
For a jurisprudentially guided understanding of these doctrines, it is imperative to
outline the schools of thought on whether the void-for-vagueness and overbreadth
doctrines are equally applicable grounds to assail a penal statute.
Respondents interpret recent jurisprudence as slanting toward the idea of limiting
the application of the two doctrines to free speech cases. They particularly
cite Romualdez v. Hon. Sandiganbayan[47] and Estrada v. Sandiganbayan.[48]
The Court clarifies.
At issue in Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan was whether the word intervene in
Section 5[49] of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act was intrinsically vague and
impermissibly broad. The Court stated that the overbreadth and the vagueness

doctrines have special application only to free-speech cases, and are not
appropriate for testing the validity of penal statutes. [50] It added that, at any rate, the
challenged provision, under which the therein petitioner was charged, is not vague.
[51]

While in the subsequent case of Romualdez v. Commission on Elections,[52] the

Court stated that a facial invalidation of criminal statutes is not appropriate, it
nonetheless proceeded to conduct a vagueness analysis, and concluded that the
therein subject election offense[53] under the Voters Registration Act of 1996, with
which the therein petitioners were charged, is couched in precise language.[54]
The two Romualdez cases rely heavily on the Separate Opinion [55] of Justice
Vicente V. Mendoza in the Estrada case, where the Court found the Anti-Plunder
Law (Republic Act No. 7080) clear and free from ambiguity respecting the
definition of the crime of plunder.
The position taken by Justice Mendoza in Estrada relates these two doctrines to the
concept of a facial invalidation as opposed to an as-applied challenge. He basically
postulated that allegations that a penal statute is vague and overbroad do not justify
a facial review of its validity. The pertinent portion of the Concurring Opinion of
Justice Mendoza, which was quoted at length in the mainEstrada decision, reads:
A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and to one which
is overbroad because of possible "chilling effect" upon protected speech. The
theory is that "[w]hen statutes regulate or proscribe speech and no readily apparent
construction suggests itself as a vehicle for rehabilitating the statutes in a single
prosecution, the transcendent value to all society of constitutionally protected
expression is deemed to justify allowing attacks on overly broad statutes with no
requirement that the person making the attack demonstrate that his own conduct
could not be regulated by a statute drawn with narrow specificity." The possible
harm to society in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is
outweighed by the possibility that the protected speech of others may be deterred
and perceived grievances left to fester because of possible inhibitory effects of
overly broad statutes.
This rationale does not apply to penal statutes. Criminal statutes have
general in terrorem effect resulting from their very existence, and, if facial
challenge is allowed for this reason alone, the State may well be prevented from
enacting laws against socially harmful conduct. In the area of criminal law, the law
cannot take chances as in the area of free speech.

The overbreadth and vagueness doctrines then have special application

only to free speech cases. They are inapt for testing the validity of penal
statutes. As the U.S. Supreme Court put it, in an opinion by Chief Justice
Rehnquist, "we have not recognized an 'overbreadth' doctrine outside the limited
context of the First Amendment." In Broadrick v. Oklahoma, the Court ruled that
"claims of facial overbreadth have been entertained in cases involving statutes
which, by their terms, seek to regulate only spoken words" and, again, that
"overbreadth claims, if entertained at all, have been curtailed when invoked against
ordinary criminal laws that are sought to be applied to protected conduct." For this
reason, it has been held that "a facial challenge to a legislative act is the most
difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no
set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid." As for the
vagueness doctrine, it is said that a litigant may challenge a statute on its face only
if it is vague in all its possible applications. "A plaintiff who engages in some
conduct that is clearly proscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as
applied to the conduct of others."
In sum, the doctrines of strict scrutiny, overbreadth, and vagueness are
analytical tools developed for testing "on their faces" statutes in free speech
cases or, as they are called in American law, First Amendment cases. They cannot
be made to do service when what is involved is a criminal statute. With respect to
such statute, the established rule is that "one to whom application of a statute is
constitutional will not be heard to attack the statute on the ground that impliedly it
might also be taken as applying to other persons or other situations in which its
application might be unconstitutional." As has been pointed out, "vagueness
challenges in the First Amendment context, like overbreadth challenges typically
produce facial invalidation, while statutes found vague as a matter of due process
typicallyare invalidated [only] 'as applied' to a particular
defendant." Consequently, there is no basis for petitioner's claim that this Court
review the Anti-Plunder Law on its face and in its entirety.
Indeed, "on its face" invalidation of statutes results in striking them down
entirely on the ground that they might be applied to parties not before the Court
whose activities are constitutionally protected. It constitutes a departure from the
case and controversy requirement of the Constitution and permits decisions to be
made without concrete factual settings and in sterile abstract contexts. But, as the
U.S. Supreme Court pointed out in Younger v. Harris
[T]he task of analyzing a proposed statute, pinpointing its
deficiencies, and requiring correction of these deficiencies before
the statute is put into effect, is rarely if ever an appropriate task for
the judiciary. The combination of the relative remoteness of the
controversy, the impact on the legislative process of the relief
sought, and above all the speculative and amorphous nature of the
required line-by-line analysis of detailed statutes, . . . ordinarily

results in a kind of case that is wholly unsatisfactory for deciding

constitutional questions, whichever way they might be decided.
For these reasons, "on its face" invalidation of statutes has been described
as "manifestly strong medicine," to be employed "sparingly and only as a last
resort," and is generally disfavored. In determining the constitutionality of a statute,
therefore, its provisions which are alleged to have been violated in a case must be
examined in the light of the conduct with which the defendant is charged.[56]
(Underscoring supplied.)

The confusion apparently stems from the interlocking relation of

the overbreadth and vagueness doctrines
as
grounds
for
a facial orasapplied challenge against a penal statute (under a claim of violation of due process
of law) or a speech regulation (under a claim of abridgement of the freedom of
speech and cognate rights).
To be sure, the doctrine of vagueness and the doctrine of overbreadth do not
operate on the same plane.
A statute or act suffers from the defect of vagueness when it lacks comprehensible
standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning
and differ as to its application. It is repugnant to the Constitution in two respects:
(1) it violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties
targeted by it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid; and (2) it leaves law enforcers
unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing
of the Government muscle.[57] Theoverbreadth doctrine, meanwhile, decrees that a
governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to
state regulations may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily
broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.[58]
As distinguished from the vagueness doctrine, the overbreadth doctrine assumes
that individuals will understand what a statute prohibits and will accordingly
refrain from that behavior, even though some of it is protected.[59]
A facial challenge is likewise different from an as-applied challenge.

Distinguished from an as-applied challenge which considers only extant facts

affecting real litigants, a facial invalidation is an examination of the entire law,
pinpointing its flaws and defects, not only on the basis of its actual operation to the
parties, but also on the assumption or prediction that its very existence may cause
others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or
activities.[60]
Justice Mendoza accurately phrased the subtitle [61] in his concurring opinion that
the vagueness and overbreadth doctrines, as grounds for a facial challenge, are not
applicable to penal laws. A litigant cannot thus successfully mount
a facial challenge against a criminal statute on either vagueness or
overbreadth grounds.
The allowance of a facial challenge in free speech cases is justified by the aim to
avert the chilling effect on protected speech, the exercise of which should not at all
times be abridged.[62] As reflected earlier, this rationale is inapplicable to plain
penal statutes that generally bear an in terrorem effect in deterring socially harmful
conduct. In fact, the legislature may even forbid and penalize acts formerly
considered innocent and lawful, so long as it refrains from diminishing or
dissuading the exercise of constitutionally protected rights.[63]
The Court reiterated that there are critical limitations by which a criminal statute
may be challenged and underscored that an on-its-face invalidation of penal
statutes x x x may not be allowed.[64]
[T]he rule established in our jurisdiction is, only statutes on free speech,
religious freedom, and other fundamental rights may be facially
challenged. Under no case may ordinary penal statutes be subjected to
a facial challenge. The rationale is obvious. If a facial challenge to a
penal statute is permitted, the prosecution of crimes may be hampered. No
prosecution would be possible. A strong criticism against employing a
facial challenge in the case of penal statutes, if the same is allowed, would
effectively go against the grain of the doctrinal requirement of an existing
and concrete controversy before judicial power may be appropriately
exercised. A facial challenge against a penal statute is, at best, amorphous
and speculative. It would, essentially, force the court to consider third
parties who are not before it. As I have said in my opposition to the

allowance of a facial challenge to attack penal statutes, such a test will

impair the States ability to deal with crime. If warranted, there would be
nothing that can hinder an accused from defeating the States power to
prosecute on a mere showing that, as applied to third parties, the penal
statute is vague or overbroad, notwithstanding that the law is clear as
applied to him.[65] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

It is settled, on the other hand, that the application of the overbreadth doctrine is
limited to a facial kind of challenge and, owing to the given rationale of a
facial challenge, applicable only to free speech cases.
By its nature, the overbreadth doctrine has to necessarily apply a facial type of
invalidation in order to plot areas of protected speech, inevitably almost
always under situations not before the court, that are impermissibly swept by the
substantially overbroad regulation. Otherwise stated, a statute cannot be properly
analyzed for being substantially overbroad if the court confines itself only to facts
as applied to the litigants.
The most distinctive feature of the overbreadth technique is that it marks
an exception to some of the usual rules of constitutional
litigation.Ordinarily, a particular litigant claims that a statute is
unconstitutional as applied to him or her; if the litigant prevails, the courts
carve away the unconstitutional aspects of the law by invalidating its
improper applications on a case to case basis. Moreover, challengers to a
law are not permitted to raise the rights of third parties and can only assert
their own interests. In overbreadth analysis, those rules give way;
challenges are permitted to raise the rights of third parties; and the court
invalidates the entire statute "on its face," not merely "as applied for" so
that the overbroad law becomes unenforceable until a properly authorized
court construes it more narrowly. The factor that motivates courts to
depart from the normal adjudicatory rules is the concern with the
"chilling;" deterrent effect of the overbroad statute on third parties not
courageous enough to bring suit. The Court assumes that an overbroad
laws "very existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from
constitutionally protected speech or expression." An overbreadth ruling is
designed to remove that deterrent effect on the speech of those third
parties.[66] (Emphasis in the original omitted; underscoring supplied.)

In restricting the overbreadth doctrine to free speech claims, the Court, in at least
two cases,[67] observed that the US Supreme Court has not recognized an
overbreadth doctrine outside the limited context of the First Amendment, [68] and
that claims of facial overbreadth have been entertained in cases involving statutes
which, by their terms, seek to regulate only spoken words.[69] InVirginia v. Hicks,
[70]
it was held that rarely, if ever, will an overbreadth challenge succeed against a
law or regulation that is not specifically addressed to speech or speech-related
conduct. Attacks on overly broad statutes are justified by the transcendent value to
all society of constitutionally protected expression.[71]
Since a penal statute may only be assailed for
being vague as applied to petitioners, a limited
vagueness analysis of the definition of terrorism in
RA 9372 is legally impermissible absent anactual
or imminent charge against them
While Estrada did not apply the overbreadth doctrine, it did not preclude the
operation of the vagueness test on the Anti-Plunder Law as applied to the therein
petitioner, finding, however, that there was no basis to review the law on its face
and in its entirety.[72] It stressed that statutes found vague as a matter of due
process typically are invalidated only 'as applied' to a particular defendant.[73]
American jurisprudence[74] instructs that vagueness challenges that do not involve
the First Amendment must be examined in light of the specific facts of the case at
hand and not with regard to the statute's facial validity.
For more than 125 years, the US Supreme Court has evaluated defendants claims
that criminal statutes are unconstitutionally vague, developing a doctrine hailed as
among the most important guarantees of liberty under law.[75]
In this jurisdiction, the void-for-vagueness doctrine asserted under the due process
clause has been utilized in examining the constitutionality of criminal statutes. In at
least three cases,[76] the Court brought the doctrine into play in analyzing an
ordinance penalizing the non-payment of municipal tax on fishponds, the crime of
illegal recruitment punishable under Article 132(b) of the Labor Code, and the

vagrancy provision under Article 202 (2) of the Revised Penal Code. Notably, the
petitioners
in
these
three
cases,
similar
to
those
in
the
two Romualdez and Estrada cases, were actually charged with the therein assailed
penal statute, unlike in the present case.
There is no merit in the claim that RA 9372
regulates speech so as to permit a facial
analysis of its validity
From the definition of the crime of terrorism in the earlier cited Section 3 of RA
9372, the following elements may be culled: (1) the offender commits an act
punishable under any of the cited provisions of the Revised Penal Code, or under
any of the enumerated special penal laws; (2) the commission of the predicate
crime sows and creates a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic
among the populace; and (3) the offender is actuated by the desire to coerce the
government to give in to an unlawful demand.
In insisting on a facial challenge on the invocation that the law penalizes speech,
petitioners contend that the element of unlawful demand in the definition of
terrorism[77] must necessarily be transmitted through some form of expression
protected by the free speech clause.
The argument does not persuade. What the law seeks to penalize is conduct, not
speech.
Before a charge for terrorism may be filed under RA 9372, there must first be a
predicate crime actually committed to trigger the operation of the key qualifying
phrases in the other elements of the crime, including the coercion of the
government to accede to an unlawful demand. Given the presence of the first
element, any attempt at singling out or highlighting the communicative component
of the prohibition cannot recategorize the unprotected conduct into a protected
speech.
Petitioners notion on the transmission of message is entirely inaccurate, as it
unduly focuses on just one particle of an element of the crime. Almost every

commission of a crime entails some mincing of words on the part of the offender
like in declaring to launch overt criminal acts against a victim, in haggling on the
amount of ransom or conditions, or in negotiating a deceitful transaction. An
analogy in one U.S. case[78] illustrated that the fact that the prohibition on
discrimination in hiring on the basis of race will require an employer to take down
a sign reading White Applicants Only hardly means that the law should be
analyzed as one regulating speech rather than conduct.
Utterances not elemental but inevitably incidental to the doing of the criminal
conduct alter neither the intent of the law to punish socially harmful conduct nor
the essence of the whole act as conduct and not speech. This holds true a
fortiori in the present case where the expression figures only as an inevitable
incident of making the element of coercion perceptible.
[I]t is true that the agreements and course of conduct here were as in most
instances brought about through speaking or writing. But it has never been
deemed an abridgement of freedom of speech or press to make a course of
conduct illegal merely because the conduct was, in part,
initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language, either spoken,
written, or printed. Such an expansive interpretation of the constitutional
guaranties of speech and press would make it practically impossible ever
to enforce laws against agreements in restraint of trade as well as many
other agreements and conspiracies deemed injurious to society.[79] (italics
and underscoring supplied)

Certain kinds of speech have been treated as unprotected conduct, because they
merely evidence a prohibited conduct.[80] Since speech is not involved here, the
Court cannot heed the call for a facial analysis.
IN FINE, Estrada and the other cited authorities engaged in a vagueness analysis
of the therein subject penal statute as applied to the therein petitioners inasmuch as
they were actually charged with the pertinent crimes challenged on vagueness
grounds. The Court in said cases, however, found no basis to review the assailed
penal statute on its face and in its entirety.
In Holder, on the other hand, the US Supreme Court allowed the pre-enforcement
review of a criminal statute, challenged on vagueness grounds, since the therein

plaintiffs faced a credible threat of prosecution and should not be required to

await and undergo a criminal prosecution as the sole means of seeking relief.
As earlier reflected, petitioners have established neither an actual charge nor a
credible threat of prosecution under RA 9372.Even a limited vagueness analysis
of the assailed definition of terrorism is thus legally impermissible. The Court
reminds litigants that judicial power neither contemplates speculative counseling
on a statutes future effect on hypothetical scenarios nor allows the courts to be used
as an extension of a failed legislative lobbying in Congress.
WHEREFORE, the petitions are DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-69809 October 16, 1986
EDGARDO A. GAANAN, petitioner,
vs.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

This petition for certiorari asks for an interpretation of Republic Act (RA) No. 4200, otherwise known
as the Anti-Wiretapping Act, on the issue of whether or not an extension telephone is among the
prohibited devices in Section 1 of the Act, such that its use to overhear a private conversation would
constitute unlawful interception of communications between the two parties using a telephone line.
The facts presented by the People and narrated in the respondent court's decision are not disputed
by the petitioner.
In the morning of October 22, 1975, complainant Atty. Tito Pintor and his client
Manuel Montebon were in the living room of complainant's residence discussing the
terms for the withdrawal of the complaint for direct assault which they filed with the
Office of the City Fiscal of Cebu against Leonardo Laconico. After they had decided

on the proposed conditions, complainant made a telephone call to Laconico (tsn,

August 26, 1981, pp. 3-5).
That same morning, Laconico telephoned appellant, who is a lawyer, to come to his
office and advise him on the settlement of the direct assault case because his regular
lawyer, Atty. Leon Gonzaga, went on a business trip. According to the request,
appellant went to the office of Laconico where he was briefed about the problem.
(Exhibit 'D', tsn, April 22, 1982, pp. 4-5).
When complainant called up, Laconico requested appellant to secretly listen to the
telephone conversation through a telephone extension so as to hear personally the
proposed conditions for the settlement. Appellant heard complainant enumerate the
following conditions for withdrawal of the complaint for direct assault.
(a) the P5,000.00 was no longer acceptable, and that the figure had been increased
to P8,000.00. A breakdown of the P8,000.00 had been made together with other
demands, to wit: (a) P5,000.00 no longer for the teacher Manuel Montebon, but for
Atty. Pintor himself in persuading his client to withdraw the case for Direct Assault
against Atty. Laconico before the Cebu City Fiscal's Office;
(b) Public apology to be made by Atty. Laconico before the students of Don Bosco
Technical High School;
(c) Pl,000.00 to be given to the Don Bosco Faculty club;
(d) transfer of son of Atty. Laconico to another school or another section of Don
Bosco Technical High School;
(e) Affidavit of desistance by Atty. Laconico on the Maltreatment case earlier filed
against Manuel Montebon at the Cebu City Fiscal's Office, whereas Montebon's
affidavit of desistance on the Direct Assault Case against Atty. Laconico to be filed
later;
(f) Allow Manuel Montebon to continue teaching at the Don Bosco Technical School;
(g) Not to divulge the truth about the settlement of the Direct Assault Case to the
mass media;
(h) P2,000.00 attorney s fees for Atty. Pintor. (tsn, August 26, 1981, pp. 47-48).
Twenty minutes later, complainant called up again to ask Laconico if he was
agreeable to the conditions. Laconico answered 'Yes'. Complainant then told
Laconico to wait for instructions on where to deliver the money. (tsn, March 10, 1983,
pp. 2-12).

Complainant called up again and instructed Laconico to give the money to his wife at
the office of the then Department of Public Highways. Laconico who earlier alerted
his friend Colonel Zulueta of the Criminal Investigation Service of the Philippine
Constabulary, insisted that complainant himself should receive the money. (tsn,
March 10, 1982, pp. 26-33). When he received the money at the Igloo Restaurant,
complainant was arrested by agents of the Philippine Constabulary.
Appellant executed on the following day an affidavit stating that he heard
complainant demand P8,000.00 for the withdrawal of the case for direct assault.
Laconico attached the affidavit of appellant to the complainant for robbery/extortion
which he filed against complainant. Since appellant listened to the telephone
conversation without complainant's consent, complainant charged appellant and
Laconico with violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Act.
After trial on the merits, the lower court, in a decision dated November 22, 1982, found both Gaanan
and Laconico guilty of violating Section 1 of Republic Act No. 4200. The two were each sentenced to
one (1) year imprisonment with costs. Not satisfied with the decision, the petitioner appealed to the
appellate court.
On August 16, 1984, the Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, holding
that the communication between the complainant and accused Laconico was private in nature and,
therefore, covered by Rep. Act No. 4200; that the petitioner overheard such communication without
the knowledge and consent of the complainant; and that the extension telephone which was used by
the petitioner to overhear the telephone conversation between complainant and Laconico is covered
in the term "device' as provided in Rep. Act No. 4200.
In this petition for certiorari, the petitioner assails the decision of the appellate court and raises the
following issues; (a) whether or not the telephone conversation between the complainant and
accused Laconico was private in nature; (b) whether or not an extension telephone is covered by the
term "device or arrangement" under Rep. Act No. 4200; (c) whether or not the petitioner had
authority to listen or overhear said telephone conversation and (d) whether or not Rep. Act No. 4200
is ambiguous and, therefore, should be construed in favor of the petitioner.
Section 1 of Rep. Act No. 4200 provides:
Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties
to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable or by using
any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such
communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone
or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape-recorder, or however otherwise
described:
It shall be unlawful for any person, be he a participant or not in the act or acts
penalized in the next preceeding sentence, to knowingly possess any tape record,
wire record, disc record, or any other such record, or copies thereof, of any
communication or spoken word secured either before or after the effective date of

this Act in the manner prohibited by this law; or to replay the same for any other
person or persons; or to communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in
writing, or to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial, to any other
person: Provided, that the use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence in
any civil, criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned in Section 3 hereof,
shall not be covered by this prohibition.
We rule for the petitioner.
We are confronted in this case with the interpretation of a penal statute and not a rule of evidence.
The issue is not the admissibility of evidence secured over an extension line of a telephone by a
third party. The issue is whether or not the person called over the telephone and his lawyer listening
to the conversation on an extension line should both face prison sentences simply because the
extension was used to enable them to both listen to an alleged attempt at extortion.
There is no question that the telephone conversation between complainant Atty. Pintor and accused
Atty. Laconico was "private" in the sense that the words uttered were made between one person and
another as distinguished from words between a speaker and a public. It is also undisputed that only
one of the parties gave the petitioner the authority to listen to and overhear the caller's message with
the use of an extension telephone line. Obviously, complainant Pintor, a member of the Philippine
bar, would not have discussed the alleged demand for an P8,000.00 consideration in order to have
his client withdraw a direct assault charge against Atty. Laconico filed with the Cebu City Fiscal's
Office if he knew that another lawyer was also listening. We have to consider, however, that
affirmance of the criminal conviction would, in effect, mean that a caller by merely using a telephone
line can force the listener to secrecy no matter how obscene, criminal, or annoying the call may be. It
would be the word of the caller against the listener's.
Because of technical problems caused by the sensitive nature of electronic equipment and the extra
heavy loads which telephone cables are made to carry in certain areas, telephone users often
encounter what are called "crossed lines". An unwary citizzen who happens to pick up his telephone
and who overhears the details of a crime might hesitate to inform police authorities if he knows that
he could be accused under Rep. Act 4200 of using his own telephone to secretly overhear the
private communications of the would be criminals. Surely the law was never intended for such
mischievous results.
The main issue in the resolution of this petition, however, revolves around the meaning of the phrase
"any other device or arrangement." Is an extension of a telephone unit such a device or arrangement
as would subject the user to imprisonment ranging from six months to six years with the accessory
penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification for a public officer or deportation for an alien? Private
secretaries with extension lines to their bosses' telephones are sometimes asked to use answering
or recording devices to record business conversations between a boss and another businessman.
Would transcribing a recorded message for the use of the boss be a proscribed offense? or for that
matter, would a "party line" be a device or arrangement under the law?
The petitioner contends that telephones or extension telephones are not included in the enumeration
of "commonly known" listening or recording devices, nor do they belong to the same class of

enumerated electronic devices contemplated by law. He maintains that in 1964, when Senate Bill
No. 9 (later Rep. Act No. 4200) was being considered in the Senate, telephones and extension
telephones were already widely used instruments, probably the most popularly known
communication device.
Whether or not listening over a telephone party line would be punishable was discussed on the floor
of the Senate. Yet, when the bill was finalized into a statute, no mention was made of telephones in
the enumeration of devices "commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph, detectaphone or
walkie talkie or tape recorder or however otherwise described." The omission was not a mere
oversight. Telephone party lines were intentionally deleted from the provisions of the Act.
The respondent People argue that an extension telephone is embraced and covered by the term
"device" within the context of the aforementioned law because it is not a part or portion of a complete
set of a telephone apparatus. It is a separate device and distinct set of a movable apparatus
consisting of a wire and a set of telephone receiver not forming part of a main telephone set which
can be detached or removed and can be transferred away from one place to another and to be
plugged or attached to a main telephone line to get the desired communication corning from the
other party or end.
The law refers to a "tap" of a wire or cable or the use of a "device or arrangement" for the purpose of
secretly overhearing, intercepting, or recording the communication. There must be either a physical
interruption through a wiretap or the deliberate installation of a device or arrangement in order to
overhear, intercept, or record the spoken words.
An extension telephone cannot be placed in the same category as a dictaphone, dictagraph or the
other devices enumerated in Section 1 of RA No. 4200 as the use thereof cannot be considered as
"tapping" the wire or cable of a telephone line. The telephone extension in this case was not installed
for that purpose. It just happened to be there for ordinary office use. It is a rule in statutory
construction that in order to determine the true intent of the legislature, the particular clauses and
phrases of the statute should not be taken as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and
every part thereof must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts. (see Commissioner of
Customs v. Esso Estandard Eastern, Inc., 66 SCRA 113,120).
In the case of Empire Insurance Com any v. Rufino (90 SCRA 437, 443-444), we ruled:
Likewise, Article 1372 of the Civil Code stipulates that 'however general the terms of
a contract may be, they shall not be understood to comprehend things that are
distinct and cases that are different from those upon which the parties intended to
agree.' Similarly, Article 1374 of the same Code provides that 'the various stipulations
of a contract shall be interpreted together, attributing to the doubtful ones that sense
which may result from all of them taken jointly.
xxx xxx xxx
Consequently, the phrase 'all liabilities or obligations of the decedent' used in
paragraph 5(c) and 7(d) should be then restricted only to those listed in the Inventory

and should not be construed as to comprehend all other obligations of the decedent.
The rule that 'particularization followed by a general expression will ordinarily be
restricted to the former' is based on the fact in human experience that usually the
minds of parties are addressed specially to the particularization, and that the
generalities, though broad enough to comprehend other fields if they stood alone, are
used in contemplation of that upon which the minds of the parties are centered.
(Hoffman v. Eastern Wisconsin R., etc., Co., 134 Wis. 603, 607, 115 NW 383, cited in
Francisco, Revised Rules of Court (Evidence), 1973 ed, pp. 180-181).
Hence, the phrase "device or arrangement" in Section 1 of RA No. 4200, although not exclusive to
that enumerated therein, should be construed to comprehend instruments of the same or similar
nature, that is, instruments the use of which would be tantamount to tapping the main line of a
telephone. It refers to instruments whose installation or presence cannot be presumed by the party
or parties being overheard because, by their very nature, they are not of common usage and their
purpose is precisely for tapping, intercepting or recording a telephone conversation.
An extension telephone is an instrument which is very common especially now when the extended
unit does not have to be connected by wire to the main telephone but can be moved from place ' to
place within a radius of a kilometer or more. A person should safely presume that the party he is
calling at the other end of the line probably has an extension telephone and he runs the risk of a
third party listening as in the case of a party line or a telephone unit which shares its line with
another. As was held in the case of Rathbun v. United States (355, U.S. 107, 2 L Ed 2d 137-138):
Common experience tells us that a call to a particular telephone number may cause
the bell to ring in more than one ordinarily used instrument. Each party to a
telephone conversation takes the risk that the other party may have an extension
telephone and may allow another to overhear the conversation. When such takes
place there has been no violation of any privacy of which the parties may complain.
Consequently, one element of 605, interception, has not occurred.
In the same case, the Court further ruled that the conduct of the party would differ in no way if
instead of repeating the message he held out his hand-set so that another could hear out of it and
that there is no distinction between that sort of action and permitting an outsider to use an extension
telephone for the same purpose.
Furthermore, it is a general rule that penal statutes must be construed strictly in favor of the
accused. Thus, in case of doubt as in the case at bar, on whether or not an extension telephone is
included in the phrase "device or arrangement", the penal statute must be construed as not including
an extension telephone. In the case of People v. Purisima, 86 SCRA 542, 562, we explained the
rationale behind the rule:
American jurisprudence sets down the reason for this rule to be the tenderness of the
law of the rights of individuals; the object is to establish a certain rule by conformity to
which mankind would be safe, and the discretion of the court limited. (United States
v. Harris, 177 US 305, 44 L Ed 780, 20 S Ct 609; Braffith v. Virgin Islands (CA3) 26
F2d 646; Caudill v. State, 224 Ind 531, 69 NE2d; Jennings v. Commonwealth, 109 VA

821,63 SE 1080, all cited in 73 Am Jur 2d 452). The purpose is not to enable a guilty
person to escape punishment through a technicality but to provide a precise
definition of forbidden acts." (State v. Zazzaro, 20 A 2d 737, quoted in Martin's
Handbook on Statutory Construction, Rev. Ed. pp. 183-184).
In the same case of Purisima, we also ruled that on the construction or interpretation of a legislative
measure, the primary rule is to search for and determine the intent and spirit of the law. A perusal of
the Senate Congressional Records will show that not only did our lawmakers not contemplate the
inclusion of an extension telephone as a prohibited device or arrangement" but of greater
importance, they were more concerned with penalizing the act of recording than the act of merely
listening to a telephone conversation.
xxx xxx xxx
Senator Taada. Another possible objection to that is entrapment
which is certainly objectionable. It is made possible by special
amendment which Your Honor may introduce.
Senator Diokno.Your Honor, I would feel that entrapment would be
less possible with the amendment than without it, because with the
amendment the evidence of entrapment would only consist of
government testimony as against the testimony of the defendant.
With this amendment, they would have the right, and the government
officials and the person in fact would have the right to tape record
their conversation.
Senator Taada. In case of entrapment, it would be the government.
Senator Diokno. In the same way, under this provision, neither party
could record and, therefore, the court would be limited to saying:
"Okay, who is more credible, the police officers or the defendant?" In
these cases, as experienced lawyers, we know that the Court go with
the peace offices.
(Congressional Record, Vol. 111, No. 33, p. 628, March 12, 1964).
xxx xxx xxx
Senator Diokno. The point I have in mind is that under these
conditions, with an agent outside listening in, he could falsify the
testimony and there is no way of checking it. But if you allow him to
record or make a recording in any form of what is happening, then
the chances of falsifying the evidence is not very much.
Senator Taada. Your Honor, this bill is not intended to prevent the
presentation of false testimony. If we could devise a way by which we

could prevent the presentation of false testimony, it would be

wonderful. But what this bill intends to prohibit is the use of tape
record and other electronic devices to intercept private conversations
which later on will be used in court.
(Congressional Record, Vol. III, No. 33, March 12, 1964, p. 629).
It can be readily seen that our lawmakers intended to discourage, through punishment, persons such
as government authorities or representatives of organized groups from installing devices in order to
gather evidence for use in court or to intimidate, blackmail or gain some unwarranted advantage
over the telephone users. Consequently, the mere act of listening, in order to be punishable must
strictly be with the use of the enumerated devices in RA No. 4200 or others of similar nature. We are
of the view that an extension telephone is not among such devices or arrangements.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the then Intermediate Appellate Court
dated August 16, 1984 is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The petitioner is hereby ACQUITTED of the
crime of violation of Rep. Act No. 4200, otherwise known as the Anti-Wiretapping Act.
SO ORDERED.
Feria (Chairman), Fernan, Alampay and Paras, JJ., concur.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 93833 September 28, 1995

SOCORRO D. RAMIREZ, petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, and ESTER S. GARCIA, respondents.

KAPUNAN, J.:
A civil case damages was filed by petitioner Socorro D. Ramirez in the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City alleging that the private respondent, Ester S. Garcia, in a confrontation in the latter's
office, allegedly vexed, insulted and humiliated her in a "hostile and furious mood" and in a manner
offensive to petitioner's dignity and personality," contrary to morals, good customs and public
policy." 1

In support of her claim, petitioner produced a verbatim transcript of the event and sought moral
damages, attorney's fees and other expenses of litigation in the amount of P610,000.00, in addition
to costs, interests and other reliefs awardable at the trial court's discretion. The transcript on which
the civil case was based was culled from a tape recording of the confrontation made by
petitioner. 2 The transcript reads as follows:
Plaintiff Soccoro D. Ramirez (Chuchi) Good Afternoon M'am.
Defendant Ester S. Garcia (ESG) Ano ba ang nangyari sa 'yo,
nakalimot ka na kung paano ka napunta rito, porke member ka na,
magsumbong ka kung ano ang gagawin ko sa 'yo.
CHUCHI Kasi, naka duty ako noon.
ESG Tapos iniwan no. (Sic)
CHUCHI Hindi m'am, pero ilan beses na nila akong binalikan,
sabing ganoon
ESG Ito and (sic) masasabi ko sa 'yo, ayaw kung (sic) mag explain
ka, kasi hanggang 10:00 p.m., kinabukasan hindi ka na pumasok.
Ngayon ako ang babalik sa 'yo, nag-aaply ka sa States, nag-aaply ka
sa review mo, kung kakailanganin ang certification mo, kalimutan mo
na kasi hindi ka sa akin makakahingi.
CHUCHI Hindi M'am. Kasi ang ano ko talaga noon i-cocontinue ko
up to 10:00 p.m.
ESG Bastos ka, nakalimutan mo na kung paano ka pumasok dito
sa hotel. Magsumbong ka sa Union kung gusto mo. Nakalimutan mo
na kung paano ka nakapasok dito "Do you think that on your own
makakapasok ka kung hindi ako. Panunumbyoyan na kita
(Sinusumbatan na kita).
CHUCHI Itutuloy ko na M'am sana ang duty ko.
ESG Kaso ilang beses na akong binabalikan doon ng mga no (sic)
ko.
ESG Nakalimutan mo na ba kung paano ka pumasok sa hotel,
kung on your own merit alam ko naman kung gaano ka "ka bobo" mo.
Marami ang nag-aaply alam kong hindi ka papasa.
CHUCHI Kumuha kami ng exam noon.
ESG Oo, pero hindi ka papasa.

CHUCHI Eh, bakit ako ang nakuha ni Dr. Tamayo

ESG Kukunin ka kasi ako.
CHUCHI Eh, di sana
ESG Huwag mong ipagmalaki na may utak ka kasi wala kang
utak. Akala mo ba makukuha ka dito kung hindi ako.
CHUCHI Mag-eexplain ako.
ESG Huwag na, hindi ako mag-papa-explain sa 'yo, makaalala ka
kung paano ka puma-rito. "Putang-ina" sasabi-sabihin mo kamaganak ng nanay at tatay mo ang mga magulang ko.
ESG Wala na akong pakialam, dahil nandito ka sa loob, nasa
labas ka puwede ka ng hindi pumasok, okey yan nasaloob ka umalis
ka doon.
CHUCHI Kasi M'am, binbalikan ako ng mga taga Union.
ESG Nandiyan na rin ako, pero huwag mong kalimutan na hindi ka
makakapasok kung hindi ako. Kung hindi mo kinikilala yan okey lang
sa akin, dahil tapos ka na.
CHUCHI Ina-ano ko m'am na utang na loob.
ESG Huwag na lang, hindi mo utang na loob, kasi kung baga sa
no, nilapastangan mo ako.
CHUCHI Paano kita nilapastanganan?
ESG Mabuti pa lumabas ka na. Hindi na ako makikipagusap sa
'yo. Lumabas ka na. Magsumbong ka. 3
As a result of petitioner's recording of the event and alleging that the said act of secretly taping the
confrontation was illegal, private respondent filed a criminal case before the Regional Trial Court of
Pasay City for violation of Republic Act 4200, entitled "An Act to prohibit and penalize wire tapping
and other related violations of private communication, and other purposes." An information charging
petitioner of violation of the said Act, dated October 6, 1988 is quoted herewith:
INFORMATION
The Undersigned Assistant City Fiscal Accusses Socorro D. Ramirez of Violation of
Republic Act No. 4200, committed as follows:

That on or about the 22nd day of February, 1988, in Pasay City Metro
Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this honorable court,
the above-named accused, Socorro D. Ramirez not being authorized
by Ester S. Garcia to record the latter's conversation with said
accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with
the use of a tape recorder secretly record the said conversation and
thereafter communicate in writing the contents of the said recording
to other person.
Contrary to law.
Pasay City, Metro Manila, September 16, 1988.
MARIANO M.
CUNETA
Asst. City Fiscal
Upon arraignment, in lieu of a plea, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the Information on the ground
that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, particularly a violation of R.A. 4200. In an order
May 3, 1989, the trial court granted the Motion to Quash, agreeing with petitioner that 1) the facts
charged do not constitute an offense under R.A. 4200; and that 2) the violation punished by R.A.
4200 refers to a the taping of a communication by a personother than a participant to the
communication. 4
From the trial court's Order, the private respondent filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with this
Court, which forthwith referred the case to the Court of Appeals in a Resolution (by the First Division)
of June 19, 1989.
On February 9, 1990, respondent Court of Appeals promulgated its assailed Decision declaring the
trial court's order of May 3, 1989 null and void, and holding that:
[T]he allegations sufficiently constitute an offense punishable under Section 1 of R.A.
4200. In thus quashing the information based on the ground that the facts alleged do
not constitute an offense, the respondent judge acted in grave abuse of discretion
correctible by certiorari. 5
Consequently, on February 21, 1990, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which respondent
Court of Appeals denied in its Resolution 6 dated June 19, 1990. Hence, the instant petition.
Petitioner vigorously argues, as her "main and principal issue" 7 that the applicable provision of
Republic Act 4200 does not apply to the taping of a private conversation by one of the parties to the
conversation. She contends that the provision merely refers to the unauthorized taping of a private
conversation by a party other than those involved in the communication. 8 In relation to this, petitioner
avers that the substance or content of the conversation must be alleged in the Information, otherwise the
facts charged would not constitute a violation of R.A. 4200. 9 Finally, petitioner agues that R.A. 4200
penalizes the taping of a "private communication," not a "private conversation" and that consequently, her
act of secretly taping her conversation with private respondent was not illegal under the said act. 10

We disagree.
First, legislative intent is determined principally from the language of a statute. Where the language
of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the law is applied according to its express terms, and
interpretation would be resorted to only where a literal interpretation would be either impossible 11 or
absurb or would lead to an injustice. 12
Section 1 of R.A. 4200 entitled, " An Act to Prohibit and Penalized Wire Tapping and Other Related
Violations of Private Communication and Other Purposes," provides:
Sec. 1. It shall be unlawfull for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to
any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any
other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such
communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone
or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise
described.
The aforestated provision clearly and unequivocally makes it illegal for any person, not authorized by
all the parties to any private communication to secretly record such communication by means of a
tape recorder. The law makes no distinction as to whether the party sought to be penalized by the
statute ought to be a party other than or different from those involved in the private communication.
The statute's intent to penalize all persons unauthorized to make such recording is underscored by
the use of the qualifier "any". Consequently, as respondent Court of Appeals correctly concluded,
"even a (person) privy to a communication who records his private conversation with another without
the knowledge of the latter (will) qualify as a violator" 13 under this provision of R.A. 4200.
A perusal of the Senate Congressional Records, moreover, supports the respondent court's
conclusion that in enacting R.A. 4200 our lawmakers indeed contemplated to make illegal,
unauthorized tape recording of private conversations or communications taken either by the parties
themselves or by third persons. Thus:
xxx xxx xxx
Senator Taada: That qualified only "overhear".
Senator Padilla: So that when it is intercepted or recorded, the element of secrecy
would not appear to be material. Now, suppose, Your Honor, the recording is not
made by all the parties but by some parties and involved not criminal cases that
would be mentioned under section 3 but would cover, for example civil cases or
special proceedings whereby a recording is made not necessarily by all the parties
but perhaps by some in an effort to show the intent of the parties because the
actuation of the parties prior, simultaneous even subsequent to the contract or the
act may be indicative of their intention. Suppose there is such a recording, would you
say, Your Honor, that the intention is to cover it within the purview of this bill or
outside?

Senator Taada: That is covered by the purview of this bill, Your Honor.
Senator Padilla: Even if the record should be used not in the prosecution of offense
but as evidence to be used in Civil Cases or special proceedings?
Senator Taada: That is right. This is a complete ban on tape recorded
conversations taken without the authorization of all the parties.
Senator Padilla: Now, would that be reasonable, your Honor?
Senator Taada: I believe it is reasonable because it is not sporting to record the
observation of one without his knowing it and then using it against him. It is not fair, it
is not sportsmanlike. If the purpose; Your honor, is to record the intention of the
parties. I believe that all the parties should know that the observations are being
recorded.
Senator Padilla: This might reduce the utility of recorders.
Senator Taada: Well no. For example, I was to say that in meetings of the board of
directors where a tape recording is taken, there is no objection to this if all the parties
know. It is but fair that the people whose remarks and observations are being made
should know that the observations are being recorded.
Senator Padilla: Now, I can understand.
Senator Taada: That is why when we take statements of persons, we say: "Please
be informed that whatever you say here may be used against you." That is fairness
and that is what we demand. Now, in spite of that warning, he makes damaging
statements against his own interest, well, he cannot complain any more. But if you
are going to take a recording of the observations and remarks of a person without
him knowing that it is being taped or recorded, without him knowing that what is
being recorded may be used against him, I think it is unfair.
xxx xxx xxx
(Congression Record, Vol. III, No. 31, p. 584, March 12, 1964)
Senator Diokno: Do you understand, Mr. Senator, that under Section 1 of the bill as
now worded, if a party secretly records a public speech, he would be penalized under
Section 1? Because the speech is public, but the recording is done secretly.
Senator Taada: Well, that particular aspect is not contemplated by the bill. It is the
communication between one person and another person not between a speaker
and a public.
xxx xxx xxx

(Congressional Record, Vol. III, No. 33, p. 626, March 12, 1964)
xxx xxx xxx
The unambiguity of the express words of the provision, taken together with the above-quoted
deliberations from the Congressional Record, therefore plainly supports the view held by the
respondent court that the provision seeks to penalize even those privy to the private
communications. Where the law makes no distinctions, one does not distinguish.
Second, the nature of the conversations is immaterial to a violation of the statute. The substance of
the same need not be specifically alleged in the information. What R.A. 4200 penalizes are the acts
of secretly overhearing, intercepting or recording private communications by means of the devices
enumerated therein. The mere allegation that an individual made a secret recording of a private
communication by means of a tape recorder would suffice to constitute an offense under Section 1 of
R.A. 4200. As the Solicitor General pointed out in his COMMENT before the respondent court:
"Nowhere (in the said law) is it required that before one can be regarded as a violator, the nature of
the conversation, as well as its communication to a third person should be professed." 14
Finally, petitioner's contention that the phrase "private communication" in Section 1 of R.A. 4200
does not include "private conversations" narrows the ordinary meaning of the word "communication"
to a point of absurdity. The word communicate comes from the latin word communicare, meaning "to
share or to impart." In its ordinary signification, communication connotes the act of sharing or
imparting signification, communication connotes the act of sharing or imparting, as in
a conversation, 15 or signifies the "process by which meanings or thoughts are shared between
individuals through a common system of symbols (as language signs or gestures)" 16 These definitions
are broad enough to include verbal or non-verbal, written or expressive communications of "meanings or
thoughts" which are likely to include the emotionally-charged exchange, on February 22, 1988, between
petitioner and private respondent, in the privacy of the latter's office. Any doubts about the legislative
body's meaning of the phrase "private communication" are, furthermore, put to rest by the fact that the
terms "conversation" and "communication" were interchangeably used by Senator Taada in his
Explanatory Note to the bill quoted below:
It has been said that innocent people have nothing to fear from
their conversations being overheard. But this statement ignores the usual nature
of conversations as well the undeniable fact that most, if not all, civilized people have
some aspects of their lives they do not wish to expose. Freeconversations are often
characterized by exaggerations, obscenity, agreeable falsehoods, and the
expression of anti-social desires of views not intended to be taken seriously. The
right to the privacy of communication, among others, has expressly been assured by
our Constitution. Needless to state here, the framers of our Constitution must have
recognized the nature of conversations between individuals and the significance of
man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They must have known that
part of the pleasures and satisfactions of life are to be found in the unaudited, and
free exchange of communication between individuals free from every unjustifiable
intrusion by whatever means. 17

In Gaanan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 18 a case which dealt with the issue of telephone
wiretapping, we held that the use of a telephone extension for the purpose of overhearing a private
conversation without authorization did not violate R.A. 4200 because a telephone extension devise was
neither among those "device(s) or arrangement(s)" enumerated therein, 19 following the principle that
"penal statutes must be construed strictly in favor of the accused." 20 The instant case turns on a different
note, because the applicable facts and circumstances pointing to a violation of R.A. 4200 suffer from no
ambiguity, and the statute itself explicitly mentions the unauthorized "recording" of private
communications with the use of tape-recorders as among the acts punishable.
WHEREFORE, because the law, as applied to the case at bench is clear and unambiguous and
leaves us with no discretion, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. The decision appealed from is
AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Padilla, Davide, Jr. and Bellosillo JJ., concur.
Hermosisima, Jr., J., is on leave.

THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 111709. August 30, 2001]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROGER P. TULIN,

VIRGILIO I. LOYOLA, CECILIO O. CHANGCO, ANDRES C.
INFANTE, CHEONG SAN HIONG, and JOHN DOES, accusedappellants.
DECISION
MELO, J.:

This is one of the older cases which unfortunately has remained in docket of the Court for
sometime. It was reassigned, together with other similar cases, to undersigned ponente in
pursuance of A.M. No. 00-9-03-SC dated February 27, 2001.
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 accusedappellant 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 accusedappellant 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.
A series of arrests was thereafter effected as follows:
a. On May 19, 1991, the NBI received verified information that the pirates were present at
U.K. Beach, Balibago, Calatagan, Batangas. After three days of surveillance, accused-appellant
Tulin was arrested and brought to the NBI headquarters in Manila.
b. Accused-appellants Infante, Jr. and Loyola were arrested by chance at Aguinaldo Hi-way
by NBI agents as the latter were pursuing the mastermind, who managed to evade arrest.
c. On May 20, 1991, accused-appellants Hiong and Changco were arrested at the lobby of
Alpha Hotel in Batangas City.
On October 24 1991, an Information charging qualified piracy or violation of Presidential
Decree No. 532 (piracy in Philippine Waters) was filed against accused-appellants, as follows:

The undersigned State Prosecutor accuses ROGER P. TULIN, VIRGILIO I.

LOYOLA, CECILIO O. CHANGCO, ANDRES C. INFANTE, and CHEONG SAN
HIONG, and nine (9) other JOHN DOES of qualified piracy (Violation of P.D. No.
532), committed as follows:
That on or about and during the period from March 2 to April 10, 1991, both dates
inclusive, and for sometime prior and subsequent thereto, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the said accused, then manning a motor launch and armed
with high powered guns, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping
one another, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously fire upon, board
and seize while in the Philippine waters M/T PNOC TABANGCO loaded with
petroleum products, together with the complement and crew members, employing
violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things, then direct the vessel
to proceed to Singapore where the cargoes were unloaded and thereafter returned to
the Philippines on April 10, 1991, in violation of the aforesaid law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
(pp. 119-20, Rollo.)

This was docketed as Criminal Case No. 91-94896 before Branch 49 of the Regional Trial
Court of the National Capital Judicial Region stationed in Manila. Upon arraignment, accusedappellants pleaded not guilty to the charge. Trial thereupon ensued.
Accused-appellants Tulin, Infante, Jr., and Loyola, notwithstanding some inconsistencies in
their testimony as to where they were on March 1, 1991, maintained the defense of denial, and
disputed the charge, as well as the transfer of any cargo from "M/T Tabangao" to the "Navi
Pride." All of them claimed having their own respective sources of livelihood. Their story is to
the effect that on March 2, 1991, while they were conversing by the beach, a red speedboat with
Captain Edilberto Liboon and Second Mate Christian Torralba on board, approached the
seashore. Captain Liboon inquired from the three if they wanted to work in a vessel. They were
told that the work was light and that each worker was to be paid P3,000.00 a month with
additional compensation if they worked beyond that period. They agreed even though they had
no sea-going experience. On board, they cooked, cleaned the vessel, prepared coffee, and ran
errands for the officers. They denied having gone to Singapore, claiming that the vessel only
went to Batangas. Upon arrival thereat in the morning of March 21, 1991, they were paid
P1,000.00 each as salary for nineteen days of work, and were told that the balance would be
remitted to their addresses. There was neither receipt nor contracts of employment signed by the
parties.
Accused-appellant Changco categorically denied the charge, averring that he was at home
sleeping on April 10, 1991. He testified that he is the younger brother of Emilio Changco, Jr.
Accused-appellant Cheong San Hiong, also known as Ramzan Ali, adduced evidence that he
studied in Sydney, Australia, obtaining the "Certificate" as Chief Officer, and later completed the
course as a "Master" of a vessel, working as such for two years on board a vessel. He was
employed at Navi Marine Services, Pte., Ltd. as Port Captain. The company was engaged in the
business of trading petroleum, including shipoil, bunker lube oil, and petroleum to domestic and
international markets. It owned four vessels, one of which was "Navi Pride."
On March 2, 1991, the day before "M/T Tabangao" was seized by Emilio Changco and his
cohorts, Hiong's name was listed in the company's letter to the Mercantile Section of the
Maritime Department of the Singapore government as the radio telephone operator on board the
vessel "Ching Ma."
The company was then dealing for the first time with Paul Gan, a Singaporean broker, who
offered to sell to the former bunker oil for the amount of 300,000.00 Singapore dollars. After the
company paid over one-half of the aforesaid amount to Paul Gan, the latter, together with Joseph
Ng, Operations Superintendent of the firm, proceeded to the high seas on board "Navi Pride" but
failed to locate the contact vessel.

The transaction with Paul Gan finally pushed through on March 27, 1991. Hiong, upon his
return on board the vessel "Ching Ma," was assigned to supervise a ship-to-ship transfer of diesel
oil off the port of Singapore, the contact vessel to be designated by Paul Gan. Hiong was ordered
to ascertain the quantity and quality of the oil and was given the amount of 300,000.00 Singapore
Dollars for the purchase. Hiong, together with Paul Gan, and the surveyor William Yao, on board
"Navi Pride" sailed toward a vessel called "M/T Galilee". Hiong was told that "M/T Galilee"
would be making the transfer. Although no inspection of "Navi Pride" was made by the port
authorities before departure, Navi Marine Services, Pte., Ltd. was able to procure a port
clearance upon submission of General Declaration and crew list. Hiong, Paul Gan, and the
brokers were not in the crew list submitted and did not pass through the immigration. The
General Declaration falsely reflected that the vessel carried 11,900 tons.
On March 28, 1991, "Navi Pride" reached the location of "M/T Galilee". The brokers then
told the Captain of the vessel to ship-side with "M/T Galilee" and then transfer of the oil
transpired. Hiong and the surveyor William Yao met the Captain of "M/T Galilee," called
"Captain Bobby" (who later turned out to be Emilio Changco). Hiong claimed that he did not ask
for the full name of Changco nor did he ask for the latter's personal card.
Upon completion of the transfer, Hiong took the soundings of the tanks in the "Navi Pride"
and took samples of the cargo. The surveyor prepared the survey report which "Captain Bobby"
signed under the name "Roberto Castillo." Hiong then handed the payment to Paul Gan and
William Yao. Upon arrival at Singapore in the morning of March 29, 1991, Hiong reported the
quantity and quality of the cargo to the company.
Thereafter, Hiong was again asked to supervise another transfer of oil purchased by the firm
" from "M/T Galilee" to "Navi Pride." The same procedure as in the first transfer was observed.
This time, Hiong was told that that there were food and drinks, including beer, purchased by the
company for the crew of "M/T Galilee. The transfer took ten hours and was completed on March
30, 1991. Paul Gan was paid in full for the transfer.
On April 29 or 30, 1991, Emilio Changco intimated to Hiong that he had four vessels and
wanted to offer its cargo to cargo operators. Hiong was asked to act as a broker or ship agent for
the sale of the cargo in Singapore. Hiong went to the Philippines to discuss the matter with
Emilio Changco, who laid out the details of the new transfer, this time with "M/T Polaris" as
contact vessel. Hiong was told that the vessel was scheduled to arrive at the port of Batangas that
weekend. After being billeted at Alpha Hotel in Batangas City, where Hiong checked in under
the name "SONNY CSH." A person by the name of "KEVIN OCAMPO," who later turned out to
be Emilio Changco himself, also checked in at Alpha Hotel. From accused-appellant Cecilio
Changco, Hiong found out that the vessel was not arriving. Hiong was thereafter arrested by NBI
agents.

After trial, a 95-page decision was rendered convicting accused-appellants of the crime
charged. The dispositive portion of said decision reads:

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby

rendered by this Court finding the accused Roger Tulin, Virgilio Loyola, Andres
Infante, Jr. and Cecilio Changco guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principals, of the
crime of piracy in Philippine Waters defined in Section 2(d) of Presidential Decree
No. 532 and the accused Cheong San Hiong, as accomplice, to said crime. Under
Section 3(a) of the said law, the penalty for the principals of said crime is mandatory
death. However, considering that, under the 1987 Constitution, the Court cannot
impose the death penalty, the accused Roger Tulin, Virgilio Loyola, Andres Infante, ]
r., and Cecilio Changco are hereby each meted the penalty of RECLUSION
PERPETUA, with all the accessory penalties of the law. The accused Cheong San
Hiong is hereby meted the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, pursuant to Article
52 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5 of PD 532. The accused Roger
Tulin, Virgilio Loyola, Andres Infante, Jr. and Cecilio Changco are hereby ordered to
return to the PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation the "M/T Tabangao" or if the
accused can no longer return the same, the said accused are hereby ordered to remit,
jointly and severally, to said corporation the value thereof in the amount of
P11,240,000.00 Philippine Currency, with interests thereon, at the rate of 6% per
annum from March 2, 1991 until the said amount is paid in full. All the accused
including Cheong San Hiong are hereby ordered to return to the Caltex Philippines,
Inc. the cargo of the "M/T Tabangao", or if the accused can no longer return the said
cargo to said corporation, all the accused are hereby condemned to pay, jointly and
severally, to the Caltex Refinery, Inc., the value of said cargo in the amount of
P40,426,793.87, Philippine Currency plus interests until said amount is paid in full.
After the accused Cheong San Hiong has served his sentence, he shall be deported to
Singapore.
All the accused shall be credited for the full period of their detention at the National
Bureau of Investigation and the City Jail of Manila during the pendency of this case
provided that they agreed in writing to abide by and comply strictly with the rules and
regulations of the City Jail of Manila and the National Bureau of Investigation. With
costs against all the accused.
SO ORDERED.

(pp. 149-150, Rollo.)

The matter was then elevated to this Court. The arguments of accused-appellants may be
summarized as follows:
Roger P. Tulin Virgilio Loyola Andres C. Infante Jr., and Cecilio O. Changco
Accused-appellants Tulin, Loyola, Infante, Jr., and Cecilio Changco assert that the trial court
erred in allowing them to adopt the proceedings taken during the time they were being
represented by Mr. Tomas Posadas, a non-lawyer, thereby depriving them of their constitutional
right to procedural due process.
In this regard, said accused-appellants narrate that Mr. Posadas entered his appearance as
counsel for all of them. However, in the course of the proceedings, or on February 11, 1992, the
trial court discovered that Mr. Posadas was not a member of the Philippine Bar. This was after
Mr. Posadas had presented and examined seven witnesses for the accused.
Further, accused-appellants Tulin, Loyola, Infante, Cecilio, Changco uniformly contend that
during the custodial investigation, they were subjected to physical violence; were forced to sign
statements without being given the opportunity to read the contents of the same; were denied
assistance of counsel, and were not informed of their rights, in violation of their constitutional
rights,
Said accused-appellants also argue that the trial court erred in finding that the prosecution
proved beyond reasonable doubt that they committed the crime of qualified piracy. They allege
that the pirates were outnumbered by the crew who totaled 22 and who were not guarded at all
times. The crew, so these accused-appellants conclude, could have overpowered the alleged
pirates.
Cheong San Hiong
In his brief, Cheong argues that: (1) Republic Act No. 7659 in effect obliterated the crime
committed by him; (2) the trial court erred in declaring that the burden is lodged on him to prove
by clear and convincing evidence that he had no knowledge that Emilio Changco and his cohorts
attacked and seized the "M/T Tabangao" and/or that the cargo of the vessel was stolen or the
subject of theft or robbery or piracy; (3) the trial court erred in finding him guilty as an
accomplice to the crime of qualified piracy under Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 532
(Anti-Piracy and Anti-Robbery Law of 1974); (4) 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; (5) the trial court erred in making factual

conclusions without evidence on record to prove the same and which in fact are contrary to the
evidence adduced during trial; (6) the trial court erred in convicting him as an accomplice under
Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 532 when he was charged as a principal by direct
participation under said decree, thus violating his constitutional right to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him.
Cheong also posits that the evidence against the other accused-appellants do not prove any
participation on his part in the commission of the crime of qualified piracy. He further argues that
he had not in any way participated in the seajacking of "M/T Tabangao" and in committing the
crime of qualified piracy, and that he was not aware that the vessel and its cargo were pirated.
As legal basis for his appeal, he explains that he was charged under the information with
qualified piracy as principal under Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 532 which refers to
Philippine waters. In the case at bar, he argues that he was convicted for acts done outside
Philippine waters or territory. For the State to have criminal jurisdiction, the act must have been
committed within its territory.
We affirm the conviction of all the accused-appellants.
The issues of the instant case may be summarized as follows: (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?
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 nonlawyer. 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). It is true that an accused person shall be entitled to be present and to defend himself in
person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of
judgment (Section 1, Rule 115, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure). This is hinged on the fact

that a layman is not versed on the technicalities of trial. However, it is also provided by law that
"[r]ights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals,
or good customs or prejudicial to a third person with right recognized by law." (Article 6, Civil
Code of the Philippines). Thus, the same section of Rule 115 adds that "[u]pon motion, the
accused may be allowed to defend himself in person when it sufficiently appears to the court that
he can properly protect his rights without the assistance of counsel." By analogy , but without
prejudice to the sanctions imposed by law for the illegal practice of law, it is amply shown that
the rights of accused-appellants were sufficiently and properly protected by the appearance of
Mr. Tomas Posadas. An examination of the record will show that he knew the technical rules of
procedure. Hence, we rule that there was a valid waiver of the right to sufficient representation
during the trial, considering that it was unequivocally, knowingly, and intelligently made and
with the full assistance of a bona fide lawyer, Atty. Abdul Basar. Accordingly, denial of due
process cannot be successfully invoked where a valid waiver of rights has been made (People vs.
Serzo, 274 SCRA 553 [1997]; Sayson vs. People, 166 SCRA 680 [1988]).
However, we must quickly add that 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:

SEC. 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.
Such rights originated from Miranda v. Arizona (384 U. S. 436 [1966]) which gave birth to
the so-called Miranda doctrine which is to the effect that prior to any questioning during
custodial investigation, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any

statement he gives may be used as evidence against him, and that he has the right to the presence
of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these
rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. The Constitution
even adds the more stringent requirement that the waiver must be in writing and made in the
presence of counsel.
Saliently, the absence of counsel during the execution of the so-called confessions of the
accused-appellants make them invalid. In fact, the very basic reading of the Miranda rights was
not even shown in the case at bar. Paragraph [3] of the aforestated Section 12 sets forth the socalled "fruit from the poisonous tree doctrine," a phrase minted by Mr. Justice Felix Frankfurter
in the celebrated case of Nardone vs. United States (308 U.S. 388 [1939]). According to this rule,
once the primary source (the "tree") is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary
or derivative evidence (the "fruit") derived from it is also inadmissible. The rule is based on the
principle that evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be used to gain other evidence
because the originally illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained
(People vs. Alicando, 251 SCRA 293 [1995]). Thus, in this case, the uncounselled extrajudicial
confessions of accused-appellants, without a valid waiver of the right to counsel, are
inadmissible and whatever information is derived therefrom shall be regarded as likewise
inadmissible in evidence against them.
However, regardless of the inadmissibility of the subject confessions, there is sufficient
evidence to convict accused-appellants with moral certainty.We agree with the sound deduction
of the trial court that indeed, Emilio Changco (Exhibits "U" and "UU") and accused-appellants
Tulin, Loyola, .and Infante, Jr. did conspire and confederate to commit the crime charged. In the
words of then trial judge, now Justice Romeo J. Callejo of the Court of Appeals -

...The Prosecution presented to the Court an array of witnesses, officers and members
of the crew of the "M/T Tabangao" no less, who identified and pointed to the said
Accused as among those who attacked and seized, the "M/T Tabangao" on March 2,
1991, at about 6:30 o'clock in the afternoon, off Lubang Island, Mindoro, with its
cargo, and brought the said vessel, with its cargo, and the officers and crew of the
vessel, in the vicinity of Horsebough Lighthouse, about sixty-six nautical miles off the
shoreline of Singapore and sold its cargo to the Accused Cheong San Hiong upon
which the cargo was discharged from the "M/T Tabangao" to the "Navi Pride" for the
price of about $500,000.00 (American Dollars) on March 29, and 30, 1991...
xxx
xxx

xxx
The Master, the officers and members of the crew of the "M/T Tabangao" were on
board the vessel with the Accused and their cohorts from March 2, 1991 up to April
10, 1991 or for more than one (1) month. There can be no scintilla of doubt in the
mind of the Court that the officers and crew of the vessel could and did see and
identify the seajackers and their leader. In fact, immediately after the Accused were
taken into custody by the operatives of the National Bureau of Investigation,
Benjamin Suyo, Norberto Senosa, Christian Torralba and Isaias Wervas executed their
"Joint Affidavit" (Exhibit "B") and pointed to and identified the said Accused as some
of the pirates.
xxx
xxx
xxx
Indeed, when they testified before this Court on their defense, the three (3) Accused
admitted to the Court that they, in fact, boarded the said vessel in the evening of
March 2 1991 and remained on board when the vessel sailed to its, destination, which
turned out to be off the port of Singapore.
(pp. 106-112, Rollo.)
We also agree with the trial court's finding that accused-appellants' defense of denial is not
supported by any hard evidence but their bare testimony.Greater weight is given to the
categorical identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses than to the accused's plain
denial of participation in the commission of the crime (People v. Baccay, 284 SCRA 296
[1998]). Instead, accused-appellants Tulin, Loyola, and Infante, Jr. narrated a patently desperate
tale that they were hired by three complete strangers (allegedly Captain Edilberto Liboon,
Second Mate Christian Torralba, and their companion) while said accused-appellants were
conversing with one another along the seashore at Apkaya, Balibago, Calatagan, Batangas, to
work on board the "M/T Tabangao" which was then anchored off-shore. And readily, said
accused-appellants agreed to work as cooks and handymen for an indefinite period of time
without even saying goodbye to their families, without even knowing their destination or the
details of their voyage, without the personal effects needed for a long voyage at sea. Such
evidence is incredible and clearly not in accord with human experience. As pointed out by the
trial court, it is incredible that Captain Liboon, Second Mate Torralba, and their companion "had

to leave the vessel at 9:30 o'clock in the evening and venture in a completely unfamiliar place
merely to recruit five (5) cooks or handymen (p. 113, Rollo)."
Anent accused-appellant Changco's defense of denial with the alibi that on May 14 and 17,
he was at his place of work and that on April 10, 1991, he was in his house in Bacoor, Cavite,
sleeping, suffice it to state that alibi is fundamentally and inherently a weak defense, much more
so when uncorroborated by other witnesses (People v. Adora, 275 SCRA 441 [1997]) considering
that it is easy to fabricate and concoct, and difficult to disprove. Accused-appellant must adduce
clear and convincing evidence that, at about midnight on April 10, 1991, it was physically
impossible for him to have been in Calatagan, Batangas. Changco not only failed to do this, he
was likewise unable to prove that he was in his place of work on the dates aforestated.
It is doctrinal that the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of a testimony is accorded the
highest respect, for trial courts have an untrammeled opportunity to observe directly the
demeanor of witnesses and, thus, to determine whether a certain witness is telling the truth
(People v. Obello, 284 SCRA 79 [1998]).
We likewise uphold the trial court's finding of conspiracy. A conspiracy exists when two or
more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to
commit it (Article 8, Revised Penal Code). To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every
detail of execution; he need not even take part in every act or need not even know the exact part
to be performed by the others in the execution of the conspiracy. As noted by the trial court, there
are times when conspirators are assigned separate and different tasks which may appear
unrelated to one another, but in fact, constitute a whole and collective effort to achieve a
common criminal design.
We affirm the trial court's finding that Emilio Changco, accused- appellants Tulin, Loyola,
and Infante, Jr. and others, were the ones assigned to attack and seize the "M/T Tabangao" off
Lubang, Mindoro, while accused-appellant Cecilio Changco was to fetch the master and the
members of the crew from the shoreline of Calatagan, Batangas after the transfer, and bring them
to Imus, Cavite, and to provide the crew and the officers of the vessel with money for their fare
and food provisions on their way home. These acts had to be well-coordinated. Accusedappellant Cecilio Changco need not be present at the time of the attack and seizure of "M/T
Tabangao" since he performed his task in view of an objective common to all other accusedappellants.
Of notable importance is the connection of accused-appellants to one another. Accusedappellant Cecilio Changco is the younger brother of Emilio Changco (aka Captain
Bobby/Captain Roberto Castillo/Kevin Ocampo), owner of Phil-Asia Shipping Lines. Cecilio
worked for his brother in said corporation. Their residences are approximately six or seven
kilometers away from each other. Their families are close. Accused-appellant Tulin, on the other

hand, has known Cecilio since their parents were neighbors in Aplaya, Balibago, Calatagan,
Batangas. Accused-appellant Loyola's wife is a relative of the Changco brothers by affinity
.Besides, Loyola and Emilio Changco had both been accused in a seajacking case regarding
"M/T Isla Luzon" and its cargo of steel coils and plates off Cebu and Bohol in 1989. Emilio
Changco (aka Kevin Ocampo) was convicted of the crime while Loyola at that time remained at
large.
As for accused-appellant Hiong, he ratiocinates that he can no longer be convicted of piracy
in Philippine waters as defined and penalized in Sections 2[d] and 3[a], respectively of
Presidential Decree No. 532 because Republic Act No. 7659 (effective January 1, 1994) which
amended Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code, has impliedly superseded Presidential Decree
No. 532. He reasons out that Presidential Decree No. 532 has been rendered "superfluous or
duplicitous" because both Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and Presidential
Decree No. 532 punish piracy committed in Philippine waters. He maintains that in order to
reconcile the two laws, the word "any person" mentioned in Section 1 [d] of Presidential Decree
No. 532 must be omitted such that Presidential Decree No. 532 shall only apply to offenders who
are members of the complement or to passengers of the vessel, whereas Republic Act No. 7659
shall apply to offenders who are neither members of the complement or passengers of the vessel,
hence, excluding him from the coverage of the law.
Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code, used to provide:

Article 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas. -The penalty of reclusion
temporal shall be inflicted upon any person who, on the high seas,shall attack or seize
a vessel or, not being a member of its complement nor a passenger, shall seize the
whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its equipment, or personal belongings of its
complement or passengers.
(Underscoring supplied.)
Article 122, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 January 1, 1994), reads:

Article 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine waters.
-The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be inflicted upon any person who, on the high
seas, or in Philippine waters, shall attack or seize a vessel or, being a member of its
complement nor a passenger, shall seize the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel,
its equipment, or personal belongings of its complement or passengers.
(Underscoring ours)

On the other hand, Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 532 provides:

SEC. 2. Definition of Terms. - The following shall mean and be understood, as

follows:
d. 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 (underscoring supplied).
To summarize, 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 "a passenger or member of the complement of said vessel in
Philippine waters." Hence, passenger or not, a member of the complement 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. There is no contradiction between the two laws. There is likewise
no ambiguity and hence, there is no need to construe or interpret the law. All the presidential
decree did was to widen the coverage of the law, in keeping with the intent to protect the
citizenry 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 all countries." For this reason, piracy under
the Article 122, as amended, and piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532 exist harmoniously 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 in Philippine 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 (People v. Catantan,
278 SCRA 761 [1997]). It is likewise, well-settled that regardless of the law penalizing the same,
piracy is a reprehensible crime against the whole world (People v. Lol-lo, 43 Phil. 19 [1922]).
However, does this constitute a violation of accused-appellant's constitutional right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him on the ground that he was
convicted as an accomplice under Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 532 even though he was
charged as a principal by direct participation under Section 2 of said law?
The trial court found that there was insufficiency of evidence showing:
(a) that accused-appellant Hiong directly participated in the attack and seizure of "M/T
Tabangao" and its cargo; (b) that he induced Emilio Changco and his group in the attack and
seizure of "M/T Tabangao" and its cargo; ( c) and that his act was indispensable in the attack on
and seizure of "M/T Tabangao" and its cargo. Nevertheless, the trial court found that accusedappellant Hiong's participation was indisputably one which aided or abetted Emilio Changco and
his band of pirates in the disposition of the stolen cargo under Section 4 of Presidential Decree
No. 532 which provides:

SEC. 4. Aiding pirates or highway robbers/brigands or abetting piracy or highway

robbery brigandage. -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
officers and be punished in accordance with Rules prescribed by the Revised Penal
Code.
It shall be presumed that any person who does any of the acts provided in this Section
has performed them knowingly, unless the contrary is proven.

The ruling of the trial court is Within well-settle jurisprudence that if there is lack of
complete evidence of conspiracy, the liability is that of an accomplice and not as principal
(People v. Tolentino, 40 SCRA 514 [1971]). Any doubt as to the participation of an individual in
the commission of the crime is always resolved in favor of lesser responsibility (People v.
Corbes, 270 SCRA 465 [1997]; People vs. Elfano, Jr., 125 SCRA 792 [1983]; People v. Pastores,
40 SCRA 498 [1971]).
Emphasis must also be placed on the last paragraph of Section 4 of Presidential Decree No
532 which presumes that any person who does any of the acts provided in said section has
performed them knowingly, unless the contrary is proven. In the case at bar, accused-appellant
Hiong had failed to overcome the legal presumption that he knowingly abetted or aided in the
commission of piracy, received property taken by such pirates and derived benefit therefrom.
The record discloses that accused-appellant Hiong aided the pirates in disposing of the
stolen cargo by personally directing its transfer from "M/T Galilee" to "M/T Navi Pride". He
profited therefrom by buying the hijacked cargo for Navi Marine Services, Pte., Ltd. (tsn, June 3,
1992, pp. 15-23). He even tested the quality and verified the quantity of the petroleum products,
connived with Navi Marine Services personnel in falsifying the General Declarations and Crew
List to ensure that the illegal transfer went through, undetected by Singapore Port Authorities,
and supplied the pirates with food, beer, and other provisions for their maintenance while in port
(tsn, June 3, 1992, pp. 133-134).
We believe that the falsification of the General Declaration (Arrival and Departure) and
Crew List was accomplished and utilized by accused-appellant Hiong and Navi Marine Services
personnel in the execution of their scheme to avert detection by Singapore Port Authorities.
Hence, had accused-appellant Hiong not falsified said entries, the Singapore Port Authorities
could have easily discovered the illegal activities that took place and this would have resulted in
his arrest and prosecution in Singapore. Moreover, the transfer of the stolen cargo from "M/T
Galilee" to "Navi Pride" could not have been effected.
We completely uphold the factual findings of the trial court showing in detail accusedappellant Hiong's role in the disposition of the pirated goods summarized as follows: that on
March 27, 1991, Hiong with Captain Biddy Santos boarded the "Navi Pride," one of the vessels
of the Navi Marine, to rendezvous with the "M/T Galilee"; that the firm submitted the crew list
of the vessel (Exhibit "8-CSH", Record) to the port authorities, excluding the name of Hiong;
that the "General Declaration" (for departure) of the "Navi Pride" for its voyage off port of
Singapore (Exhibits "HH" and "8-A CSH", Record) falsely stated that the vessel was scheduled
to depart at 2200 (10 o'clock in the evening), that there were no passengers on board, and the
purpose of the voyage was for "cargo operation" and that the vessel was to unload and transfer
1,900 tons of cargo; that after the transfer of the fuel from "M/T Galilee" with' Emilio Changco
a. k. a. Captain Bobby a. k. a. Roberto Castillo at the helm, the surveyor prepared the "Quantity

Certificate" (Exhibit "11-C CSH, Record) stating that the cargo transferred to the "Navi Pride"
was 2,406 gross cubic meters; that although Hiong was not the Master of the vessel, he affixed
his signature on the "Certificate" above the word "Master" (Exhibit "11-C-2 CSH", Record); that
he then paid $150,000.00 but did not require any receipt for the amount; that Emilio Changco
also did not issue one; and that in the requisite "General Declaration" upon its arrival at
Singapore on March 29, 1991, at 7 o'clock in the evening, (Exhibits "JJ" and "13-A CSH",
Record), it was made to falsely appear that the "Navi Pride" unloaded 1,700 tons of cargo on the
high seas during said voyage when in fact it acquired from the "M/T Galilee" 2,000 metric tons
of diesel oil. The second transfer transpired with the same irregularities as discussed above. It
was likewise supervised by accused- appellant Cheong from his end while Emilio Changco
supervised the transfer from his end.
Accused-appellant Hiong maintains that he was merely following the orders of his superiors
and that he has no knowledge of the illegality of the source of the cargo.
First and foremost, accused-appellant Hiong cannot deny knowledge of the source and
nature of the cargo since he himself received the same from "M/T Tabangao". Second,
considering that he is a highly educated mariner, he should have avoided any participation in the
cargo transfer given the very suspicious circumstances under which it was acquired. He failed to
show a single piece of deed or bill of sale or even a purchase order or any contract of sale for the
purchase by the firm; he never bothered to ask for and scrutinize the papers and documentation
relative to the "M/T Galilee"; he did not even verify the identity of Captain Robert Castillo
whom he met for the first time nor did he check the source of the cargo; he knew that the transfer
took place 66 nautical miles off Singapore in the dead of the night which a marine vessel of his
firm did not ordinarily do; it was also the first time Navi Marine transacted with Paul Gan
involving a large sum of money without any receipt issued therefor; he was not even aware if
Paul Gan was a Singaporean national and thus safe to deal with. It should also be noted that the
value of the cargo was P40,426,793.87 or roughly more than US$l,000,000.00 (computed at
P30.00 to $1, the exchange rate at that time). Manifestly, the cargo was sold for less than onehalf of its value. Accused-appellant Hiong should have been aware of this irregularity. Nobody in
his right mind would go to far away Singapore, spend much time and money for transportation
-only to sell at the aforestated price if it were legitimate sale involved. This, in addition to the act
of falsifying records, clearly shows that accused-appellant Hiong was well aware that the cargo
that his firm was acquiring was purloined.
Lastly, it cannot be correctly said that accused-appellant was "merely following the orders of
his superiors." An individual is justified in performing an act in obedience to an order issued by a
superior if such order, is for some lawful purpose and that the means used by the subordinate to
carry out said order is lawful (Reyes, Revised Penal Code, Vol. 1, 1981 ed., p. 212). Notably, the
alleged order of Hiong's superior Chua Kim Leng Timothy, is a patent violation not only of
Philippine, but of international law. Such violation was committed on board a Philippine-

operated vessel. Moreover, the means used by Hiong in carrying out said order was equally
unlawful. He misled port and immigration authorities, falsified records, using a mere clerk,
Frankie Loh, to consummate said acts. During the trial, Hiong presented himself, and the trial
court was convinced, that he was an intelligent and articulate Port Captain. These circumstances
show that he must have realized the nature and the implications of the order of Chua Kim Leng
Timothy. Thereafter, he could have refused to follow orders to conclude the deal and to effect the
transfer of the cargo to the Navi Pride. He did not do so, for which reason, he must now suffer
the consequences of his actions.
WHEREFORE, finding the conviction of accused-appellants justified by the evidence on
record, the Court hereby AFFIRMS the judgment of the trial court in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Vitug, Panganiban, Gonzaga-Reyes, and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 118075. September 5, 1997]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EMILIANO

CATANTAN y TAYONG, accused-appellant.
DECISION
BELLOSILLO, J.:

EMILIANO CATANTAN and JOSE MACVEN URSAL alias "Bimbo" were charged
with violation of PD No. 532 otherwise known as theAnti-Piracy and Highway Robbery
Law of 1974 for having on 27 June 1993, while armed with a firearm and a bladed
weapon, acting in conspiracy with one another, by means of violence and intimidation,
wilfully and feloniously attacked, assaulted and inflicted physical injuries on Eugene
Pilapil and Juan Pilapil Jr. who were then fishing in the seawaters of Tabogon, Cebu,
and seized their fishing boat, to their damage and prejudice.
[1]

The Regional Trial Court of Cebu, after trial, found both accused Emiliano Catantan
y Tayong and Jose Macven Ursal alias "Bimbo" guilty of the crime charged and
sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. Of the duo only Emiliano Catantan appealed.
[2]

In his appeal, accused Catantan contends that the trial court erred in convicting him
of piracy as the facts proved only constitute grave coercion defined in Art. 286 of the
Revised Penal Code and not piracy under PD No. 532.

The evidence for the prosecution is that at 3:00 o'clock in the morning of 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 Emiliano Catantan, boarded the
pumpboat of the Pilapils and leveled 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 Daan Tabogon. They left
behind the other pumpboat which the accused had earlier used together with its
passengers one of whom was visibly tied.
[3]

Noting that they were already far out into the sea, Eugene reminded Catantan that
they were now off-course but Catantan told Eugene to keep quiet or he would be
killed. Later, the engine conked out and Juan Jr. was directed to row the boat. Eugene
asked to be set free so he could help but was not allowed; he was threatened with
bodily harm instead.
Meanwhile Juan Jr. managed to fix the engine, but as they went farther out into the
open sea the engine stalled again. This time Eugene was allowed to assist his
brother. Eugene's hands were set free but his legs were tied to the outrigger. At the
point of a tres cantos held by Ursal, Eugene helped row the boat.
[4]

As they passed the shoreline of Nipa, they saw another boat. Catantan asked
whose boat that was and the Pilapils told him that it was operated by a certain Juanito
and that its engine was new. Upon learning this, Catantan ordered the Pilapil brothers to
approach the boat cautioning them however not to move or say anything.
On the pretext that they were buying fish Catantan boarded the "new"
pumpboat. Once aboard he ordered the operator Juanito to take them to Mungaz,
another town of Cebu. When Juanito tried to beg-off by saying that he would still pull up
his net and harvest his catch, Catantan drew his revolver and said, "You choose
between the two, or I will kill you." Juanito, obviously terrified, immediately obeyed and
Ursal hopped in from the other pumpboat and joined Catantan.
[5]

But, as Ursal was transferring to the "new" pumpboat, its outrigger caught the front
part of the pumpboat of the Pilapils so he kicked hard its prow; it broke. The jolt threw
Eugene into the sea and he landed on the water headlong. Juan Jr. then untied his
brother's legs and the two swam together clinging to their boat. Fortunately another
pumpboat passed by and towed them safely ashore.
Section 2, par. (d), of PD No. 532, 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 (underscoring supplied).
On the other hand, 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."
Accused-appellant argues that in order that piracy may be committed it is essential
that there be an attack on or seizure of a vessel. He claims that he and his companion
did not attack or seize the fishing boat of the Pilapil brothers by using force or
intimidation but merely boarded the boat, and it was only when they were already on
board that they used force to compel the Pilapils to take them to some other
place. Appellant also insists that he and Ursal had no intention of permanently taking
possession or depriving complainants of their boat. As a matter of fact, when they saw
another pumpboat they ordered the brothers right away to approach that boat so they
could leave the Pilapils behind in their boat. Accordingly, appellant claims, he simply
committed grave coercion and not piracy.
We do not agree. Under the definition of piracy in PD No. 532 as well as grave
coercion as penalized in Art. 286 of the Revised Penal Code, 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 -

Q: Now, while you and your younger brother were fishing at the seawaters of Tabogon
at that time, was there anything unusual that happened?
A: Yes.
Q: Will you please tell the Court what that was?
A: While we were fishing at Tabogon another pumpboat arrived and the passengers of
that pumpboat boarded our pumpboat.
Q: Now, that pumpboat which you said approached you, how many were riding in that
pumpboat?
A: Four.
Q: When you said the passengers of that pumpboat boarded your pumpboat, how did
they do that?

A: They approached somewhat suddenly and came aboard

the pumpboat (underscoring supplied).
Q: How many suddenly came aboard your pumpboat?
A: Only one.
Q: What did that person do when he came aboard your pumpboat?
A: When he boarded our pumpboat he aimed his revolver at us (underscoring
supplied).
Q: By the way, when he aimed his revolver to you, did he say anything to you?
xxxx

A: He said, "dapa," which means lie down (underscoring supplied).

COURT:
Q: To whom did he aim that revolver?
A: He aimed the revolver on me.
TRIAL PROS. ECHAVEZ:
Q: What else did he do?
A: Then he ordered his companion to come aboard the pumpboat.
Q: What did he do with his revolver?
A: He struck my face with the revolver, hitting the lower portion of my left eye.
Q: Now, after you were struck with the revolver, what did these persons do?
A: We were ordered to take them to a certain place.
Q: To what place did he order you to go?
A: To Daan Tabogon.

[6]

To sustain the defense and convert this case of piracy into one of grave
coercion would be to ignore the fact that a fishing vessel cruising in Philippine waters

was seized by the accused by means of violence against or intimidation of persons. As

Eugene Pilapil testified, the accused suddenly approached them and boarded their
pumpboat and Catantan aimed his revolver at them as he ordered complaining witness
Eugene Pilapil to "dapa" or lie down with face downwards, and then struck his face with
a revolver, hitting the lower portion of his left eye, after which, Catantan told his victims
at gun point to take them to Daan Tabogon.
The incident happened at 3:00 o'clock in the morning. The sudden appearance of
another pumpboat with four passengers, all strangers to them, easily intimidated the
Pilapil brothers that they were impelled to submit in complete surrender to the
marauders. The moment Catantan jumped into the other pumpboat he had full control of
his victims. The sight of a drawn revolver in his hand drove them to submission. Hence
the issuance of PD No. 532 designed to avert situations like the case at bar and
discourage and prevent piracy in Philippine waters. Thus we cite the succeeding
"whereas" clauses of the decree -

Whereas, reports from law-enforcement agencies reveal that lawless elements are still
committing acts of depredations upon the persons and properties of innocent and
defenseless inhabitants who travel from one place to another, thereby disturbing the
peace, order and tranquility of the nation and stunting the economic and social
progress of the people;
Whereas, such acts of depredations constitute either piracy or highway
robbery/brigandage which are among the highest forms of lawlessness condemned by
the penal statutes of all countries; and,
Whereas, it is imperative that said lawless elements be discouraged from perpetrating
such acts of depredations by imposing heavy penalty on the offenders, with the end
in view of eliminating all obstacles to the economic, social, educational and
community progress of the people.
The Pilapil brothers are mere fisherfolk whose only means of livelihood is fishing in
sea waters. They brave the natural elements and contend with the unknown forces of
the sea to bring home a bountiful harvest. It is on these small fishermen that the
townspeople depend for the daily bread. To impede their livelihood would be to deprive
them of their very subsistence, and the likes of the accused within the purview of PD
No. 532 are the obstacle to the "economic, social, educational and community progress
of the people." Had it not been for the chance passing of another pumpboat, the fate of
the Pilapil brothers, left alone helpless in a floundering, meandering outrigger with a
broken prow and a conked-out engine in open sea, could not be ascertained.
While appellant insists that he and Ursal had no intention of depriving the Pilapils
permanently of their boat, proof of which they left behind the brothers with their boat, the
truth is, Catantan and Ursal abandoned the Pilapils only because their pumpboat broke
down and it was necessary to transfer to another pumpboat that would take them back
to their lair. Unfortunately for the pirates their "new" pumpboat ran out of gas so they

were apprehended by the police soon after the Pilapils reported the matter to the local
authorities.
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
pumpboat of the Pilapils while the latter were fishing in Philippine waters.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision appealed from, the
conviction of accused-appellant EMILIANO CATANTAN y TAYONG for the crime of
piracy penalized under PD No. 532 and sentencing him accordingly to reclusion
perpetua, is AFFIRMED. Costs against accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Vitug, Kapunan, and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.

[1]

Rollo, p. 1.

[2]

Decision penned by Judge Renato C. Dacudao, RTC-Br.14, Cebu, 26 May 1994.

[3]

To lie down.

[4]

A 3-bladed knife.

[5]

Rollo, p. 14.

[6]

TSN, 13 January 1994, pp. 5-6.