008. PEOPLE v.

SIYOH
G.R. No. L-57292 | February 18, 1986 | En Banc | Automatic Review from RTC decision
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee
JULAIDE SIYOH, OMAR-KAYAM KIRAM, NAMLI INDANAN and ANDAW JAMAHALI, defendants-appellants
Abad Santos, J.
Digest by Jadd Dealino

Short Version:

Antonio de Guzman was part of a group of 4 travelling merchants (the others were Anastacio de Guzman,
Danilo Hiolen, and Rodolfo de Castro), selling goods in Basilan. From July 10 to 14, 1979, they would sell their
wares in the area of Pilas Island, returning to it every night to sleep at Kirams house. Kiram and Siyoh would
accompany the group [the case does not explicitly state it, but it can be inferred that Kiram and Siyoh manned
the pumpboats and acted as their guides.] Kiram did not sleep in his own house on July 12 and 13. In the
morning of July 14, the group went to Baluk-Baluk, where they saw Kiram and Siyoh talking with 2 persons
whom the group did not recognize. As they were returning to Pilas Island, Antonio saw another pumpboat
approaching, and Kiram turned off their engine. The persons on the other pumpboat fired 2 shots using
armalites. It turned out that the persons on the other pumpboat were the ones talking with Kiram and Siyoh
earlier. Kiram then threw a rope to the other pumpboat, towing it to Mataja Island, where Kiram divested the
merchants of their money and goods. Kiram and his companions also ordered the merchants to undress.
Kiram put on Antonios pants. As the merchants were naked [birthday suit, as Sir would say], Kiram said It
was good to kill all of you, and then Siyoh and Kiram hacked at Antonios companions (Danilo and Rodolfo,
respectively.) Antonio jumped into the water and swam away. Kirams companions fired at and hit Antonios
back. Antonio passed the night at a mangrove and was picked up by a fishing boat. The next day (July 15,)
Antonio saw Kiram and Siyoh at the wharf, while Antonio was waiting for the dead bodies of his fellows.
Antonio pointed out Kiram and Siyoh to the PC, who managed to arrest them before they could run. Kiram was
wearing Antonios pants. The Basilan CFI convicted the accused of Qualified Piracy with Triple Murder and
Frustrated Murder under The 1974 Anti-Piracy and Highway Robbery Law (PD 532). On automatic review by
the SC, the SC affirmed the decision but modified the penalty imposed and the damages awarded.

Topical Issue(s) + Discussion:

Whether
1) The fact that Anastacios remains were never recovered is a material fact that the Court should take
into account NO. The number of persons killed on the occasion of piracy is immaterial.
A) The law (1974 Anti-Piracy and Highway Robbery Law) considers qualified piracy (i.e., where
there is rape, murder, or homicide committed as a result of or on the occasion of piracy) as a
special complex crime punishable by death regardless of the number of victims.
B) [Not stated in the case] Section 3(a) of the 1974 Anti-Piracy and Highway Robbery Law (PD 532)
is the applicable provision:

Any person who commits piracy x x x as herein defined, shall, upon conviction by
competent court be punished by: x x x reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum
periods x x x. If rape, murder or homicide is committed as a result or on the occasion of
piracy, 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.

Other Issue(s):
1) The records of the case show that Antonio is the more credible witness.
2) The accused-appellants other claims were not convincing enough for the SC:
a) Doing the act at sea would be easier.
b) The record does not support the assertion that Kiram and Siyoh immediately reported the
incident to the PC.
c) Their acts show conspiracy so they are equally liable with the persons whom they claim to be the
perpetrators (Indanan and Jamahali).
1/ 2
 d) The death certificates and Antonios testimony show Kiram and Siyohs role in injuring and killing
Antonios companions.

Dispositive:
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION
1) Reclusion perpetua imposed for lack of necessary votes
2) Each of the appellants shall pay in solidum to the heirs of each of the deceased indemnity in the
amount of P30,000.00. No special pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin Gutierrez, Jr., Dela Fuente, Alampay and Patajo,, JJ., concur.

Aquino, C.J., took no part.

Teehankee, J., for affirmance of death sentence.

Separate Opinion(s):

Cuevas, dissent considering the gravamen of the offense charged the manner by which it was committed, I
vote to affirm the death penalty imposed by the trial court.

2/ 2