People vs. Ang Cho Kio
July 29, 1954
Paul, J.
Facts:
 (The case is an appeal by the Attorney-General regarding the
accused’s penalty because in the first case, he was sentenced to
reclusion temporal, while the Attorney-General says that it
should be reclusion perpetua. The Court held that it can’t
because it constitutes double jeopardy. Pero hindi ‘to yung point
eh hehe)
 First case: The above-named accused was a passenger of PAL
plane PI-C-38 enroute to Appari from Laoag. While flying over
Mountain Province and armed with .38 and .45 caliber pistols, the
accused, then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously shot
Eduardo Diego.
 Second case: He also willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and
without authority of law, compelled Pedro Perlas, the pilot of the
plane, against his will and consent, to change the route and take
the accused to Amoy instead. When Pedro refused, he shot the
guy as well
 For the second case, the Attorney-General contends that it
should be the complex crime of grave coercion with murder.
Issue: WoN accused is guilty of the complex crime of grave coercion
with murder
Held: No.
 Court held that the defendant executed two separate events, not
one; therefore, it could not constitute the complex crime of
coercion with murder.
 The defendant could have killed Pedro Perlas without forcing him
to change the direction of the airplane. Coercion was not
essential to commit the murder. (In fact, by killing the pilot, the
defendant was not able to pursue his desire to go to Amoy.)
*note, Art. 123 does not apply because it’s a plane.
But the principle behind is that the Court in this case clarifies that
coercion (seizing of the vessel) by the accused was treated as a
separate crime from murder and thus could not be qualified as a
complex crime (or in our case, qualified piracy)