View full case

PEOPLE v. ROGER P. TULIN

FACTS:

On March 2, 1991, armed pirates led by Emilio Changco boarded the cargo vessel "M/T Tabangao" and took control of the vessel. The pirates ordered the crew to paint over the vessel's name and logo and forced them to sail to Singapore. The pirates sent misleading radio messages to PNOC, making it seem like the ship was undergoing repairs. After losing radio contact, PNOC reported the vessel's disappearance and conducted search and rescue operations.

The ship arrived in the vicinity of Singapore on March 9, 1991 but had to return to the Philippines on March 14, 1991, as the planned rendezvous did not happen. On March 28, 1991, the "M/T Tabangao" sailed to Singapore again and transferred its cargo to another vessel named "Navi Pride." The transfer was completed on March 30, 1991.

The "M/T Tabangao" then returned to the Philippines on April 8, 1991 and remained at sea. On April 10, 1991, the crew members were released in batches and warned not to report the incident to authorities for two days. On April 12, 1991, the crew reported the incident to PNOC office and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).

Accused-appellants Tulin, Infante Jr., and Loyola were arrested on different dates, while appellants Changco and Hiong were arrested together. An information charging them with qualified piracy was filed on October 24, 1991.

The accused appellants denied the charges. Tulin, Infante Jr., and Loyola claimed that they were offered work by Captain Liboon and Second Mate Torralba, and performed various tasks on board the vessel. Changco denied the charge and stated that he was at home sleeping during the alleged incident. Hiong presented evidence of his involvement in a bunker oil transaction and his supervisor role in the transfer of oil from "M/T Galilee" to "Navi Pride."

The accused-appellants and Hiong were convicted of piracy in Philippine Waters. They were found guilty of attacking and seizing the vessel "M/T Tabangao" and stealing its cargo. The trial court sentenced them to reclusion perpetua and ordered them to return the vessel and cargo or pay their respective values. Hiong would be deported to Singapore after serving his sentence.

Cheong Kam Tsin, an accused-appellant, claimed that he did not participate in the seajacking and was not aware of the piracy. He argued against his conviction as the acts were done outside Philippine waters.

The issues in this case include the legal effects of a non-lawyer representing the accused during the trial, the absence of counsel during the custodial investigation, the sufficiency of evidence in proving the crime of qualified piracy, the application of Republic Act No. 7659, and the possibility of convicting Cheong as an accomplice.

Accused-appellants Tulin, Loyola, Changco, and Infante, Jr. executed a manifestation during the trial adopting the evidence adduced when they were represented by a non-lawyer. They were represented by Atty. Abdul Basar during the trial, who confirmed that their rights were sufficiently protected. Thus, there was a valid waiver of the right to sufficient representation.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the representation of accused-appellants during their trial by a non-lawyer deprived them of their constitutional right to procedural due process.

  2. Whether the absence of counsel during the custodial investigation and the submission of extrajudicial confessions, allegedly obtained without proper legal representation, violated the constitutional rights of the accused-appellants.

  3. Whether the trial court erred in finding the prosecution was able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that accused-appellants committed the crime of qualified piracy.

  4. Whether Republic Act No. 7659 obliterated the crime committed by accused-appellant Cheong San Hiong under Presidential Decree No. 532.

  5. Whether accused-appellant Cheong San Hiong can be convicted as an accomplice even though he was charged as a principal and whether the acts allegedly committed by him outside Philippine waters deprived the Philippine courts of jurisdiction.

RULING:

  1. On the representation by a non-lawyer

    The Court found that the accused-appellants, with the full assistance of a bona fide lawyer, knowingly and intelligently waived their right to sufficient representation during the trial. Therefore, there was no denial of procedural due process.

  2. On the absence of counsel during custodial investigation

    The uncounselled extrajudicial confessions of the accused-appellants were deemed invalid and inadmissible. Nevertheless, the Court found sufficient independent evidence to convict the accused-appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.

  3. On proving the crime of qualified piracy

    The Court affirmed the trial court's findings that the prosecution was able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused-appellants committed qualified piracy. The identification of the accused by the crew of the "M/T Tabangao" was compelling, and the defense of denial was found to be unconvincing.

  4. On the effect of Republic Act No. 7659

    The Court ruled that Republic Act No. 7659 did not obliterate the crime of piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532 and that both laws can coexist. Therefore, Cheong San Hiong’s conviction under Presidential Decree No. 532 was upheld.

  5. On convicting Cheong San Hiong as an accomplice

    The Court found sufficient evidence to hold Cheong San Hiong accountable as an accomplice to the crime of piracy. His participation in the disposition of the stolen cargo was integral to the execution of the crime.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Waiver of Rights Rights may be waived, provided the waiver is knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made with the assistance of counsel.

  2. Right to Counsel The right to counsel during a custodial investigation is indispensable and cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

  3. Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine Evidence obtained through unconstitutional means (e.g., without legal representation during custodial interrogation) is inadmissible.

  4. Credibility of Witnesses The identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses is given greater weight than the accused’s denial.

  5. Conspiracy A finding of conspiracy does not require each conspirator to participate in every detail of the execution.

  6. Jurisdiction and Territoriality The law against piracy applies regardless of whether acts subsequent to the initial crime were conducted outside Philippine waters.

  7. Concurrent Jurisdiction of Statutes Presidential Decree No. 532 and Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code (as amended) can coexist without contradiction.

  8. Accessory and Accomplice Liability Lack of full evidence of conspiracy can result in liability as an accomplice, and legal presumptions under the law must be countered with sufficient evidence to be overcome.