People vs Lol-lo and Saraw 27 February 1922 | Ponente: Malcolm Overview: Moros surrounded a boat, took its cargo, took two women and left it for it to sink. The marauders, Lol-lo and Saraw, who were in Tawi-Tawi, were arrested for piracy. They questioned the jurisdiction of the Philippines to the case, but the court ruled that piracy is a crime against all mankind, so every court also has jurisdiction to try these cases. In addition, the Spanish Penal Code is still in force in the Philippines. Statement of Facts: On or about 30 June 1920: Two boats boats left left Matuta Matuta,, a Dutch Dutch possessi possession, on, for for Peta, Peta, another another Dutch possession. possession. Boat Boat 1 had had one one Dut Dutch ch subj subjec ectt Boat Boat 2 had had 11 men, men, women women and childr children, en, likewi likewise se from from Hollan Holland. d. After After several several days, at 7pm, 7pm, Boat Boat 2 arrived arrived in Buang and Bukid Bukid in the the Dutch Dutch East East Indies. Indies. Here, Here, the the boat boat was was surrou surrounde nded d by 6 vint vintas, as, mann manned ed by 24 armed armed Moro Moros. s. The Moros Moros first first asked asked for food, food, but but once in the the boat, boat, took all all the cargo, cargo, attac attacked ked some some of the men, men, and brutally violated 2 of the women. The Moros Moros took took the 2 women women with with them, them, placed placed holes holes in the the ship ship to let let it sink, and left left the the people people there. there. After After 11 11 days, days, the the Moro Moros s arrive arrived d at Maruro Maruro,, a Dutc Dutch h posse possessi ssion. on. The two two Moro marauders marauders were were identif identified ied as Lol-lo, Lol-lo, as the the one who who raped raped one of the the women, women, and and Saraw. Saraw. While While in Maruro Maruro,, the the two women women were were able able to escape escape.. One day, Lol-lo and Saraw went home to South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, Sulu. Here, they were arrested and charged with piracy at the CFI. The Moros interposed a demurrer, saying that the charge was not within the jurisdiction of the CFI, nor of any court in the Philippines. They were saying that the facts did not constitute a public offense under Philippine laws. The The demu demurr rrer er was was over overru rule led, d, and and LolLol-lo lo and and Sara Saraw w were were foun found d guil guilty ty,, and and were were both both sent senten ence ced d to life life imprisonme imprisonment, nt, together with Kinawalang Kinawalang and Maulanis, two other defendants defendants in another another case. In addition addition to imprisonment, they were ordered to return the 39 sacks of copra they robbed, or to indemnify the offended parties 924 rupees, and to pay one-half of the costs. Issue: Did the CFI in the Philippines have jurisdiction over Lol-lo and Saraw? YES Saraw? YES Rationale First of all, all, the facts facts can’t can’t be be disputed. disputed. All the the elements elements of the crime of piracy piracy were were there. there. Piracy Piracy is robbery robbery or forcible forcible depredat depredation ion on the high high seas, seas, without without lawful lawful authority authority and and done animo animo furandi, furandi, and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility. The CFI has jurisdiction because pirates are in law hostes humani generis. Piracy is a crime against all mankind, therefore, it can be punished in any competent tribunal of any country where the offender may be found. The jurisdic jurisdiction tion of piracy has no territ territorial orial limits. limits. The crime crime is against against all all mankind, mankind, so it is also also punished punished by all. all. It doesn’t doesn’t matter matter that that the crime crime was was committed committed within within the the jurisdict jurisdictional ional 3-mile 3-mile limit limit of of a foreign foreign state. state. Those Those limits, limits, though neutral to war, are not neutral to crimes. Issue: Are the provisions of the Penal Code dealing with piracy still in force? YES force? YES Rationale Art. 153 153 of the the Penal Code Code refers refers to the the crime crime of piracy piracy “committ “committed ed against against Spaniard Spaniards, s, or subject subjects s of another another nation nation not war with Spain shall be punished with a penalty ranging from cadena temporal to cadena perpetua. If the crime is against nonbelligerent subjects of another nation at war with Spain, it shell be punished with the penalty of presidio mayor.” Since Spain already already ceded ceded the the Philippin Philippines es to the the US, the the rule is that “the politi political cal law of the former former sovereign sovereignty ty is necessarily changed. But corollary to this rule, laws subsisting at the time of transfer, designed to secure good order and peace in the community, which are strictly of a municipal character, continue until by direct action of the new government they are altered or repealed. The instr instruct uction ions s of Presiden Presidentt McKnile McKniley y on May 19, 1989 to Genera Generall Wesley Wesley Merrit, Merrit, Comman Commandin ding g General General of the Army of Occupation in the Philippines, was clear that municipal laws that provide for the punishment of crime, are considered continuing in force so far as they are compatible with the new order of things until superseded. Background on the laws of piracy: The Spanish Spanish Penal Code was was applicab applicable le to the the Philipp Philippines ines because because of Art. Art. 156 156 of the the Penal Penal Code. Code. Grotiu Grotius: s: Piracy Piracy by the the law of nation nations s is the same same thing thing as piracy piracy by the civil civil law. law. Pirac Piracy y in the penal penal code code as similar to the concepts of civil law, especially since the Penal Code found its inspiration from the Novelas, Partidas and Novisima Recopilacion. The US Constitutio Constitution n itself itself defines defines and and punishes punishes piracy piracy – that that whoever whoever on the high seas, seas, commit commits s the crime crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations, shal be imprisoned for life. This definition rests its conception of piracy on the law of nations. This further shows that the Penal Code is not inconsistent with the provisions in force in the US.
-
-
Since by the Treaty of Paris, Spain ceded the Philipines to the US, it’s logical that the construction of the Penal Code be changed simply to substitute “Spain” to “United States”, and “Spaniards” to “citizens of the US and citizens of the Philippines”. Therefore, the Penal Code, specifically Art. 153 and 154 of the Penal Code, were still in force in the Philippines at this time.
Judgment: Piracy was committed with offense against chastity and abandonment of persons without apparent means of saving themselves. There are three aggravating circumstances – the wrong done was deliberately augmented by causing other wrongs not necessary for its commission, advantage was taken of superior strength and ignominy. There is one mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction. But due to the horrible nature of the crime committed, the penalty imposed is the capital punishment. The punishment is unanimous for Lol-lo, who raped on of the women, but no unanimous as to Saraw. So only Lol-lo is sentenced to be hung until dead. As to Kinawalang and Maulanis, they shall indemnify the offended parties with 924 rupees, and half of the costs of both instances.