People of the Philippine Islands vs.

Lol-lo and Saraw

G.R. No. L-17958 February 27, 1922
Malcolm, J.
Facts:
On or about June 30, 1920, two boats containing Dutch subjects sailed from one Dutch
island to another. After navigating for a number of days, the second boat, while still
on Dutch East Indies territory, was surrounded by 6 Vintas containing 24 armed Moros,
which includes Lol-lo and Saraw. The Moros pretended to ask for food to board the
boat. Once on the boat, they attacked some of the men, violated two of the women,
and took all of the cargo. The Moros took the two women to the island of Maruro and
repeatedly violated them. The two women escaped afterwards. After returning to the
island of Tawi-tawi, both Lol-lo and Saraw were captured and charged with the crime
of piracy.
Issue:
Whether the Philippine Courts have jurisdiction over a crime that happened in the
high seas
Held:
Guilty. Pirates are in law hostis humani generis. Piracy is a crime not against any
particular state but against all mankind. It may be punished in the competent tribunal
of any country where the offender may be found or into which he may be carried. The
jurisdiction of piracy unlike all other crimes has no territorial limits. As it is against all
so may it be punished by all.
Piracy is robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas, without lawful authority
and done animo furandi, and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility.

UP LAW A-2015 DIGEST SYSTEM[Criminal Law II | Prof. Batongbacal]

CRIM II
A-2015 | AY 2011-2012 - II
PiracyPeople v. Lol-lo and SarawFeb. 27, 1922Ponente: MalcolmFacts:
-

On or about June 30, 1920, two boatscarrying Dutch subjects left Matuta for
Peta(both Dutch possessions)

After a number of days of navigation, at7:00pm, Moro pirates attacked the

secondboat.
-

The Moros first asked for food and thentook for themselves all of the cargo,attacked
the men and brutally violated twoof the women.
-

All of the persons, except for two youngwomen, on the Dutch boat were placed onit
and holes were made with the idea that itwould submerge.
-

The Moros then arrived at Maruro, a Dutchpossession, where the women were able
toescape. Two of the marauders were Lol-lo,who raped one of the women, and
Saraw.
-

Lol-lo and Saraw later returned to Tawi-Tawi where they were arrested and
chargedby the CFI with the crime of piracy.
-

A demurrer was filed based on the groundsthat the offense was not within
the jurisdiction of CFI, nor of any court of PI andthat facts did not constitute offense
underthe laws in force in PI.
-

Demurrer overruled. The two weresentenced to life imprisonment, to returnthe

stolen goods or to indemnify theoffended parties, and to pay one-half partof the
costs.
-

The Moros appealed.Issues:

-

W/N the accused can be convicted of piracy, considering that the crime
wascommitted outside Philippine jurisdiction.
-

W/N the Spanish Penal Code provisions maystill be applied considering the fact that
thePhilippines was then already underAmerican rule.Held:
-

Yes, piracy is not a crime against anyparticular state, but against all mankind. Itmay
be punished in the competent tribunalof any country where the offender may
befound or into which he may be carried. The jurisdiction of piracy unlike all other
crimeshas no territorial limits.
-

Yes. Laws subsisting at the time of thetransfer, designed to secure good order
andpeace in the community, which are strictlymunicipal in character, continue until
bydirect action of the new government theyare altered or repealed. Piracy y the law
of nations is the same thing as piracy by thecivil law. The specific provisions of the
PenalCode are similar in tenor to statutoryprovisions elsewhere and to concepts
of public law. It is evident that the provisionsof the Penal Code now in force in
thePhilippines relating to piracy are notinconsistent with the
correspondingprovisions in force in the US.Art. 153 of the Penal Code

The crime of piracycommitted against Spaniards, or the subjects of another nation

not at war with Spain, shall bepunished with a penalty ranging from
cadenatempora
l to
cadena perpetua.
If the crime becommiteed against nonbelligerent subjects of another nation at war
with Spain, it shall bepunished with the penalty of
presidio mayor.
Art. 155 of the Penal Code

With respect to theprovisions of this title, as well as all others of thiscode, when
Spain is mentioned it shall beunderstood as including any part of the
nationalterritory

CRIM II
A-2015 | AY 2011-2012 - II
People vs. RodriguezMarch 20, 1985Facts:
-

On or about 3:15am of Aug. 31, 1981,within the territorial waters of Tawi-Tawi,the

above named Jaime Rodriguez andthree others, being crew members of theM/V
Noria 767, conspiring andconfederating together and mutuallyhelping one another
and armed with bladedweapons and high caliber firearms, withintent to gain and by
means of violence andintimidation upon persons, did then andthere willfully and
unlawfully, take, stealand carry away equipments and otherpersonal belongings of
the crew andpassengers; that by reason of the saidpiracy, accused did then and
there, withintent to kill, and with evidentpremeditation, treacherously
attack,assault, stab and shot the persons.
-

The acts of execution produced the death of several persons, and inflicted
severalphysical injuries of others that could havecaused their death, but did not by
reasonindependent of the will of accused, that is,by timely and able medical
assistancerendered which prevented death.
-

The three pleaded guilty and

sentenced tosuffer the extreme penalty of death.

The case is now on automatic review.Issue: W/N plea of guilty is a

mitigatingcircumstance?Held: No. PD 532, Anti-Piracy Law, amending Art.134 of RPC
provides:
Piracy
- The penalty of RT in its medium and
maximum periods shall be imposedIf rape, murder
or homicide is committed as a result or on theoccasion of piracy, or when the
offendersabandoned the victims without means of savingthemselves, or when the
seizure is accomplished byfiring upon or boarding a vessel, the mandatory
penalty of death shall be imposed.
Clearly the lower court committed no error in notconsidering the guilty plea as a
mitigatingcircumstance.Art. 63 of RPC

Rules for the application of indivisible penalties.

In all cases in which the lawprescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall beapplied
by the courts regardless of any mitigating oraggravating circumstances that may
have attendedthe commission of the deed

UP LAW A-2015 DIGEST SYSTEM[Criminal Law II | Prof. Batongbacal]

CRIM II
A-2015 | AY 2011-2012 - II
People vs. SiyohFeb. 18, 1986Ponente: Abad SantosFacts:
-

Julaide Siyoh, Omarkyam Kiram, NamliIndanan and Andaw Jamahali were accusedof
qualified piracy with triple murder andfrustrated murder.
-

Peoples version:
On July 10, 1979, the victims Antonio deGuzman, Danilo Hiolen, Rodolfo de Castro
andAnastacio de Guzman, who were travelingmerchants, were on their way to Pilas
Island, Basilanto sell the goods they received from Alberto Aurea.They took their
dinner and slept that night in thehouse of accused Kiram at Pilas Island. The next
twodays, the group was accompanied by Kiram andSiyoh in selling their goods. On
the night of July 12,
they again slept at Kirams house, but Kiram was notthere. Kiram claimed he spent
the night at Siyohs
house.
On July 13, De Guzmans group went to
Baluk-Baluk as suggested by Kiram and returned to
Kirams house for the night, but Kiram did not sleep
with them. The following day, July 14, the groupagain went to Baluk-Baluk with
Kiram and Siyoh
using Kirams pump

boat. While they were sellingtheir goods, the group saw Kiram and Siyoh talkingwith
two persons whose faces they could notrecognize. After selling their goods, the
group,together with Kiram and Siyoh, prepared to return toPilas. On their way back,
De Guzman saw anotherpumpboat. Shortly after, Kiram turned off the engineof their
pumpboat and two shots were fired fromthe other pumpboat as it moved towards
them. DeGuzman recognized them to be the same persons hesaw Kiram conversing
with in Baluk-Baluk.De Guzman and his companions weredivested of their money
and their goods by Kiram.Thereafter, the accused ordered the victims toundress.
Siyoh then hacked Hiolen while Kiramhacked De Castro. De Guzman jumped. He
was ableto swim away even though his back was injured.
-

This case is on automatic review.Issue: W/N the accused are guilty beyond
reasonabledoubt.Held: Yes.1.

If accused were culprits, they would have

easily robbed their victims at Kirams
houseor on any occasion that they were travellingtogether.

Robbing the victims at Kirams

house would make Kiram and his familyimmediately suspect and robbing
thembefore all the goods were sold would bepremature.2.

Accused immediately reported incident tothe PC.

The records do not support hisassertion.3.

Wife of the deceased victims stated inaffidavits that De Guzman informed

themshortly after the incident that thecompanions of Siyoh and Kiram killed
theirhusbands.4.

That there is no evidence Anastacio deGuzman was killed together with the
rest because his remains were never recovered.

There is no reason to suppose that he is stillalive or that he died in a manner

differentfrom his companions. The number of persons killed is not material. PD
532considers qualified piracy as a specialcomplex crime punishable by
deathregardless of the number of victims.5.

The death certificates are vague as to thenature of injuries sustained;

were they hacked or gunshot wounds?

The cause isconsistent with testimony of De Guzman.