The Supreme Court (SC) has upheld the conviction of a pilot for simple theft after he flew his former employer’s aircraft without permission to pressure the company into addressing his demands.

Pilot Roberto Ramirez was sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of six to 18 years.

In a 3 March 2026 decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the SC Second Division also urged Congress to pass a law specifically addressing aircraft theft.

The Court noted that the theft of an aircraft could have far more serious consequences than ordinary theft, including threats to public safety and national security.

According to the SC, the unauthorized use of an aircraft may result not only in safety hazards but also in national security concerns and potential violations of international airspace regulations.

However, the Court pointed out that no Philippine law specifically penalizes aircraft theft. It is not covered by Republic Act No. 10883, or the Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016, because the law’s definition of a motor vehicle does not include aircraft.

“Until further specific legislation governing aviation vehicles is enacted by the legislature, the theft of an airplane, despite its higher worth and risk than the theft of an automobile, will merely be classified as simple theft or qualified theft if aggravating circumstances exist, and will be prosecuted accordingly,” the Court said.

The SC added that such classification does not adequately address the unique challenges and hazards associated with stealing an aircraft.

It urged lawmakers to address the legal gap to ensure that aircraft theft is properly deterred and punished.

Ramirez was initially charged with theft and grave threats for allegedly flying a Turbo Thrush Commander aircraft owned by Dole Philippines Inc./Airwolf Aviation Corporation (AWAC) without permission and threatening to crash it into company facilities unless he received P2 million.

After flying the aircraft, Ramirez landed it and was subsequently arrested.

He denied demanding P2 million and maintained that he had no intention of stealing the plane.

The incident occurred after he was dismissed from Airwolf Aviation in March 2001, a decision he contested.

The Regional Trial Court in Panabo City, Davao del Norte, dismissed the grave threats charge but found Ramirez guilty of simple theft. The court ruled that there was “intent to gain” because he took control of the aircraft and compelled Airwolf Aviation to listen to his demands and raise P200,000.

The Court of Appeals later affirmed the conviction.

Before the Supreme Court, Ramirez argued that he did not unlawfully take the aircraft because he had been allowed to enter the company compound on the day of the incident.

He also claimed there was no criminal intent because he returned the aircraft undamaged and did not intend to assume ownership of it.

Ramirez further cited alleged discrepancies in the aircraft’s identity and valuation in the information filed against him.

The SC rejected these arguments, ruling that taking the aircraft without Airwolf Aviation’s consent satisfied the element of intent to gain required to establish theft.

The Court said Ramirez used the aircraft to draw attention to his demands, which constituted a form of gain.

“Petitioner took and flew the aircraft without the consent of the owner, Airwolf Aviation Corporation. The taking was with the intent to gain, as petitioner flew the aircraft so that his demands would be heard. Finally, the petitioner neither employed violence nor intimidation against a person or thing to take the aircraft,” the Court said.