1.

The pilots of the Pan Am aircraft were accosted by some armed men and were
told to proceed to the aircraft to fly it to a foreign destination. The armed men walked with the
pilots and went on board the aircraft. But before they could do anything on the aircraft, alert
marshals arrested them. What crime was committed?

The criminal intent definitely is to take control of the aircraft, which is hi-jacking. It is a
question now of whether the anti-hi-jacking law shall govern.

The anti hi-jacking law is applicable in this case. Even if the aircraft is not yet about to
fly, the requirement that it be in flight does not hold true when in comes to aircraft of foreign
registry. Even if the problem does not say that all exterior doors are closed, the crime is hi-
jacking. Since the aircraft is of foreign registry, under the law, simply usurping or seizing control
is enough as long as the aircraft is within Philippine territory, without the requirement that it be
in flight.

Note, however, that there is no hi-jacking in the attempted stage. This is a special law
where the attempted stage is not punishable.

2. A Philippine Air Lines aircraft is bound for Davao. While the pilot and co-pilot are
taking their snacks at the airport lounge, some of the armed men were also there. The pilots
were followed by these men on their way to the aircraft. As soon as the pilots entered the
cockpit, they pulled out their firearms and gave instructions where to fly the aircraft. Does the
anti hi-jacking law apply?

No. The passengers have yet to board the aircraft. If at that time, the offenders are
apprehended, the law will not apply because the aircraft is not yet in flight. Note that the aircraft
is of Philippine registry.

3. While the stewardess of a Philippine Air Lines plane bound for Cebu was waiting
for the passenger manifest, two of its passengers seated near the pilot surreptitiously entered
the pilot cockpit. At gunpoint, they directed the pilot to fly the aircraft to the Middle East.
However, before the pilot could fly the aircraft towards the Middle East, the offenders were
subdued and the aircraft landed. What crime was committed?

The aircraft was not yet in flight. Considering that the stewardess was still waiting for
the passenger manifest, the doors were still open. Hence, the anti hi-jacking law is not
applicable. Instead, the Revised Penal Code shall govern. The crime committed was grave
coercion or grave threat, depending upon whether or not any serious offense violence was
inflicted upon the pilot.

However, if the aircraft were of foreign registry, the act would already be subject to the
anti hi-jacking law because there is no requirement for foreign aircraft to be in flight before such
law would apply. The reason for the distinction is that as long as such aircraft has not returned
to its home base, technically, it is still considered in transit or in flight.

As to numbers 3 and 4 of Republic Act No. 6235, the distinction is whether the aircraft is a
passenger aircraft or a cargo aircraft. In both cases, however, the law applies only to public
utility aircraft in the Philippines. Private aircrafts are not subject to the anti hi-jacking law, in so
far as transporting prohibited substances are concerned.
If the aircraft is a passenger aircraft, the prohibition is absolute. Carrying of any prohibited,
flammable, corrosive, or explosive substance is a crime under Republic Act No. 6235. But if the
aircraft is only a cargo aircraft, the law is violated only when the transporting of the prohibited
substance was not done in accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed by the Air
Transportation Office in the matter of shipment of such things. The Board of Transportation
provides the manner of packing of such kind of articles, the quantity in which they may be
loaded at any time, etc. Otherwise, the anti hi-jacking law does not apply.

However, under Section 7, any physical injury or damage to property which would result from
the carrying or loading of the flammable, corrosive, explosive, or poisonous substance in an
aircraft, the offender shall be prosecuted not only for violation of Republic Act No. 6235, but
also for the crime of physical injuries or damage to property, as the case may be, under the
Revised Penal Code. There will be two prosecutions here. Other than this situation, the crime
of physical injuries will be absorbed. If the explosives were planted in the aircraft to blow up the
aircraft, the circumstance will qualify the penalty and that is not punishable as a separate crime
for murder. The penalty is increased under the anti hi-jacking law.

All other acts outside of the four are merely qualifying circumstances and would bring about
higher penalty. Such acts would not constitute another crime. So the killing or explosion will
only qualify the penalty to a higher one.