Primary Holding

The Supreme Court held that the acts of the accused constituted piracy under PD No. 532 and not merely grave coercion under Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code, as the seizure of the vessel through force and intimidation was established.

Background

On June 27, 1993, at around 3:00 AM, the Pilapil brothers were fishing in the seawaters of Tabogon, Cebu, when the accused and his companions approached their boat, boarded it using force and intimidation, and compelled them to ferry them to different locations. The accused later abandoned the victims after transferring to another vessel.

Facts

• 1. On June 27, 1993, at 3:00 AM, Eugene Pilapil (21) and Juan Pilapil Jr. (18) were fishing 3 kilometers from Tabogon, Cebu.
• 2. Another boat with four passengers approached them.
• 3. Emiliano Catantan boarded the Pilapils' boat and pointed a gun at Eugene.
• 4. Catantan struck Eugene's left cheekbone with the gun and ordered both brothers to "dapa" (lie down).
• 5. The accused hogtied Eugene, covered him with tarpaulin, and ordered Juan Jr. to ferry them to Daan Tabogon.
• 6. When they encountered engine trouble, Eugene was partially freed to help but remained tied to the outrigger.
• 7. Upon seeing another boat operated by Juanito, they transferred to it after threatening its operator.
• 8. During the transfer, the Pilapils' boat was damaged, causing Eugene to fall into the water.
• 9. The brothers were eventually rescued by a passing boat.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. The acts did not constitute piracy as there was no attack or seizure of the vessel.
• 2. They merely boarded the boat and used force after boarding.
• 3. There was no intention to permanently deprive the victims of their boat.
• 4. The acts only constituted grave coercion under Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. The prosecution argued that the elements of piracy under PD No. 532 were present
• 2. There was an attack upon and seizure of the vessel
• 3. Force and intimidation were used
• 4. The incident occurred in Philippine waters
• 5. The victims were deprived of their vessel's control

Issues

• 1. Whether the acts constitute piracy under PD No. 532 or grave coercion under Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code
• 2. Whether the absence of intent to permanently deprive the victims of their boat negates the crime of piracy

Ruling

• 1. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for piracy
• 2. The sudden boarding of the vessel while armed constituted an attack.
• 3. The use of force and intimidation was evident from the start.
• 4. The temporary nature of the deprivation does not negate piracy.
• 5. The act falls squarely within the definition of piracy under PD No. 532.

Doctrines

• 1. Definition of Piracy under PD No. 532 - Any attack upon or seizure of any vessel in Philippine waters through violence or intimidation constitutes piracy.
• 2. Vessel Definition - Includes all kinds and types of vessels or boats used in fishing.
• 3. Intent to Permanently Deprive - Not an essential element of piracy under PD No. 532.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. PD No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and Highway Robbery Law of 1974)
• 2. Article 286, Revised Penal Code - Grave Coercion