PD No.

532 Anti-Piracy and Highway Robbery Law of 1974

Art. 286 Grave Coercion

SC: The decision of the RTC is AFFIRMED.

PEOPLE VS. CATANTAN

COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE FACTS

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
EMILIANO CATANTAN y TAYONG, accused-appellant.
G.R. No. 118075
September 5, 1997
Ponente: BELLOSILLOa

Nature of Case:
Petition for Review (Appeal)
BRIEF
This is an appeal of the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu
on the conviction of accused Catantan and Ursal of the crime of
Piracy.
FACTS
The Pilapil brothers - Eugene and Juan Jr. were fishing in the sea some 3
kilometers away from the shores of Tabogon, Cebu when accused Emiliano
Catantan and Jose Macven Ursal, boarded the pumpboat of the Pilapils and
Catantan leveled his gun on the Pilapils.
As the pumpboat of the Pilapil breaks donw, Catantan boarded another
pumpboat and ordered the operator Juanito to take them to Mungaz, Cebu.
The new pumpboat ran out of gas and the accused were apprehended by
the police soon after the Pilapils reported the matter to the local
authorities.

ISSUE/S of the CASE

Whether accused-appellant committed grave coercion or Piracy
under PD 532.
ACTIONS of the COURT
RTC:
Appellants were convicted of the crime of Piracy
under PD532.
Sentenced them to reclusion perpetua.

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.
The Court does not agree on the contention of the appellant that the facts
constitute grave coercion defined in Art. 286 of the Revised Penal Code and
not piracy under PD No. 532.
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 Pilapil brothers were
compelled to go elsewhere other than their place of destination, such
compulsion was obviously part of the act of seizing their boat.
Section 2, par. (d), of PD No. 532, defines piracy as "any attack upon or
seizure of any vessel, xxx by means of violence against or intimidation of
persons or force upon things, committed by any person, xxx in Philippine
waters, shall be considered as piracy. The offenders shall be considered as
pirates and punished as hereinafter provided."
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."
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.
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.

SUPREME COURT RULING:

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.