ANTI-PIRACY AND ANTI-HIGHWAY ROBBERY LAW OF 1974

It shall refer to all bodies of water, such as but not limited to seas, gulfs, bays around, between and connecting each of the Islands of the Philippine Archipelago, irrespective of its depth, breadth, length or dimension, and all other waters belonging to the Philippines by historic or legal title, including territorial sea, the sea-bed, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction

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.

It shall refer to any road, street, passage, highway, and bridges or other parts thereof, or railway or railroad within the Philippines used by persons, or vehicles, or trains for the movement or circulation of persons or transportation of goods, articles, or property or both

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 the Philippine waters, shall be considered as piracy. The offenders shall be considered as pirates and punished as hereinafter provided.

The seizure of any person for ransom, extortion or other unlawful purposes, or the taking away of the property of another by means of violence against or intimidation of person or intimidation of persons or force upon things or other unlawful means, committed by any person on any Philippine Highway.

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 offenders and be punished in accordance with the 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

• Piracy under Art. 122 as amended, and piracy under PD 532 exist harmoniously as separate laws.
• Trial Court was correct in finding Cheong San Hiong guilty as an accomplice to the crime committed which falls under Sec. 4 of PD 532, aiding or abetting pirates.

Preambular Clauses

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 distributing 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;

Sec. 5 Repealing Clause

Pertinent portions of Act No. 3815, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code; and all laws, decress, or orders or instructions, or parts thereof, insofar as they are inconsistent with this Decree are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

Sec. 4 Aiding pirates or highway robbers/brigands or abetting piracy or highway robbery/brigandage

Sec. 3 Penalties

Any person who commits piracy or highway robbery/brigandage as herein defined, shall upon conviction by competent court be punished by:

a. Piracy

b. Highway Robbery/ Brigandage

The penalty of reclusion temporal in its minimum period shall be imposed. If physical injuries or other crimes are committed during or on occasion of the commission of robbery or brigandage, the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed. If kidnapping for ransom or extortion, or murder or homicide, or rape is committed as a result or on the occasion thereof, the penalty of death shall be imposed.

The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed. If physical injuries or other crimes are committed as a result or on the occasion thereof, the reclusion perpetua shall be imposed. If rape, murder, homicide is committed as a result or on the occasion, or when the offenders abandoned the victims without means of saving themselves, or when the seizure is accomplished by firing upon or boarding a vessel, the mandatory penalty of death shall be imposed.

ANTI-PIRACY AND ANTI-HIGHWAY ROBBERY LAW OF 1974

SEC. 2 DEFINITION OF TERMS

The following shall mean and be understood as follows:

a. Philippine Waters

CASES

b. Vessel

e. Highway Robbery/ Brigandage

ELEMENTS OF PIRACY

1. That the offender be any person

2. That the offender committed any of the following

a. attack upon or seizure of any vessel;

b. take away of the whole or part of the vessel or its cargo, equipment, or the personal belongings of its complement or passengers, by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things

3. That the offense is committed in Philippine waters.

PEOPLE v PUNO

PEOPLE v PULUSAN

PEOPLE v TULIN

Facts

Held

Facts

Held

Facts

Held

ELEMENTS OF HIGHWAY ROBBERY

• Mrs. Socorro owns a bakeshop in Araneta Ave, Q.C. She has a driver of her own, just as her husband does.
• One day, her husband's driver (appellant) substituted for her personal driver. Appellant told her that her own driver has an emergency.
• While on their way home, co-appellant boarded their car and threatened Mrs. Socorro. Appellants demanded P100k from her

• SC denied the theory of the Trial Court that the crime committed is highway robbery contemplated in and punished by P.D. 532
• P.D. 532 punishes as a high-way robbery or brigandage only acts of robber perpetrated by outlaws indiscriminately against any person or persons on Philippine highway as defined therein, and not acts of robbery committed against only a predetermined or particular victim, is evident from the preambular clauses of the decree.

• P.D. 532 introduced amendments to Art. 306 and 307 of the RPC by: (1) increasing the penalties; (2) limiting the applicability to the offenses stated therein when committed on the highways and without prejudice to the liability for such acts if committed; (3) the decree does not require that there be at least four armed persons forming a band of robbers; and (4) the presumption in the Code that said accused are brigands if they use unlicensed firearms no longer obtains under the decree.

• SC affirms trial court's decision that the crime committed by appellant was Piracy as defined in PD 532 .
• There was indeed conspiracy between the appellants because the acts committed necessary to produce the crime were well-coordinated.

• A jeepney driver was plying his route from Balagtas, Bulacan to Malolos Bulacan with passengers on board, consisting of 1 female and 5 males.
• Upon reaching Malolos, a group of 4 male passengers (appellants) boarded the jeep and declared a hold-up.
• Appellants then took the valuable of the passengers.
• Thereafter, one of the appellant took over the wheels from the driver and drove towards Pampanga.

• The crime charged in the information was "highway/robbery attended with multiple homicide with multiple rape." under P.D. 532
• However, as manifested in its preamble, the object of the decree is to deter and punish lawless elements who commit acts of depredation upon persons and properties of innocent and defenseless inhabitant who travel from one place to another thereby disturbing the peace and tranquility of the nation and stunting the economic and social progress of the people.

• A cargo vessel loaded with barrels of kerosene, gasoline and diesel oil were suddenly boarded by seven armed pirates.
• Pirates detained the crew members and took complete control of the vessel
• The vessel was forced to sail to Singapore wherein the barrels were transferred to another vessel supervised by Cheong San Hiong, while anchored 10 to 18 nautical miles from Singapore shoreline.
• Trial court rendered judgement finding the accused Tulin and company to be guilty of Piracy under PD 532 while the accused Cheong San Hiong as an accomplice to the crime.

1. That the offender may be any person

2. That the offender committed any of the following:

(a) seizure of any person for ransom, extortion, or other unlawful purposes; or

(b) taking away of the property of another by means of violence against, or intimidation of person or force upon things or other unlawful means

3. That the offense is committed on any Philippine highway

4. That the manner of committing the offense was done indiscriminately

• The essence of brigandage under the code as a crime of depredation wherein the unlawful acts are directed not only against specific, intended, or preconceived victims, but against any and all prospective victims anywhere on the highway and whosoever they may potentially be, is the same as the concept of brigandage which is maintained in P.D. 532.
• Court also said that it would be absurd to adopt a literal interpretation that any unlawful taking of property committed on our highways would be covered thereby.

• It is no doubt that the coincidental fact that the robbery in the present case was committed inside a car which, in the natural course of things, was casually operating on a highway, is not within the situation envisaged by Sec. 2(e) of the decree in its definition of terms.
• Court held that the offense committed by appellants is simply robbery defined in Art. 293 and punished under Par. 5 of Art. 294 of RPC with prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period.

• RA 7659 neither superseded nor amended the provisions of Piracy under PD 532.

• Mrs. Socorro complied, issuing them 3 checks in denomination of two P30k and one P40k.
• Instead of bringing Mrs. Socorro to her home, appellant drove the car towards Pampanga. While on their way to Pampanga, Mrs. Socorro jumped out of the car and sustained injury because of that.
• Appellants were arrested the day after the incident while they were trying to encash the checks received.

While, PD 532 covers any person including "a passenger or member of the complement of the vessel in Philippine waters." Hence, passenger or not, member of the complement or not, any person is covered by law.

Art. 122, before amendment, punishes Piracy committed only on the high seas by any person not a member of its complement nor a passenger thereof. Upon its amendment, the coverage of the pertinent provision was widened to include offenses committed in "Philippine Waters".

• Chiong San Hiong claims that he can no longer be convicted of piracy in Philippine waters as defined and penalized under PD 532 because RA 7659 which amended Art. 122 of the RPC impliedly superseded PD 532.

• He later stopped in San Simon Pampanga and parked the jeep near a "talahiban"
• One of the appellants dragged the only female passengers on board to the "talahiban" and succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her.
• Subsequently, the other appellants took turns in raping her.
• After that, appellants killed four of the passengers and dispersed to different direction from where they were parked
• Those who were left to survive were the driver, female passenger, and one male passenger.

• A conviction for highway robbery requires proof that the accused were organized for the purpose of committing robbery indiscriminately
• There is no such proof in this case. Neither is there proof that the four men previously attempted to commit similar robberies indiscriminately.
• The trial court thus correctly found the appellants to be guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide under Art. 294 (1) of the RPC and the act rape committed can only considered as an aggravating circumstance.

d. Piracy

c. Philippine Highway

P.D. No. 532

SEC. 1 TITLE

This Decree shall be known as the "Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974."