Scribd
Upload
80 views1 page

People Vs Tulin G.R. No. 111709 August 30, 2001

1) In 1991, Emilio Changco led seven armed men, including Cecilio Tulin, in seizing the cargo vessel M/T Tabangao owned by PNOC Shipping in Philippine waters. 2) They directed the vessel to Singapore where the cargo was disposed of before returning to the Philippines in violation of anti-piracy laws. 3) The Court ruled the Philippine courts had jurisdiction over the crime even though the cargo was disposed of outside Philippine waters, as the initial attack and seizure occurred within Philippine territory.

Uploaded by

Michelle Fajardo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
80 views1 page

People Vs Tulin G.R. No. 111709 August 30, 2001

1) In 1991, Emilio Changco led seven armed men, including Cecilio Tulin, in seizing the cargo vessel M/T Tabangao owned by PNOC Shipping in Philippine waters. 2) They directed the vessel to Singapore where the cargo was disposed of before returning to the Philippines in violation of anti-piracy laws. 3) The Court ruled the Philippine courts had jurisdiction over the crime even though the cargo was disposed of outside Philippine waters, as the initial attack and seizure occurred within Philippine territory.

Uploaded by

Michelle Fajardo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

People vs Tulin

G.R. No. 111709


August 30, 2001
Facts:

On March 2, 1991, M/T Tabangao, a cargo vessel owned by the PNOC Shipping
and Transport Corporation, was seized by a group of seven heavily-armed men led by
Emilio Changco, with Cecilio Tulin, Loyola, and Infante. After the seizure of the vessel
and the employment of violence and intimidation to the crew, they directed the vessel to
go to Singapore, were the cargo was disposed of and thereafter returned to the
Philippines on April 10, 1991, in violation of PD no. 532(Piracy in Philippine Waters).

Issue: WON the Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the crime committed.

Held:

The Court ruled that the crime committed can be tried in the Philippine courts. PD
No. 532 provides that the seizure and attack of vessels and its cargo should be committed
within the Philippine Waters, however, the disposition of the vessel and its cargo, which
is still deemed part of the crime need not to happen inside the Philippine waters.
According to the facts of this case, the actual seizure and attack happened within the
Philippine Territory and this is sufficient enough for the court to have jurisdiction over the
said crime, despite the disposal of its cargo on a different territory.

You might also like