CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ PEOPLE V. LOL-LO AND SARAW/ 43 PHIL. 19

CRIMINAL LAW CASE DIGEST

PEOPLE V. LOL-LO AND SARAW,

43 PHIL. 19

 

TOPIC/DOCTRINE

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. Nor does it matter that the crime was committed within the jurisdictional 3-mile limit of a foreign state.

FACTS

A boat, in which there were eleven men, women and children, arrived islands of Buang and Bukid in the Dutch Indies. There the boat was surrounded by six vintas manned by twenty-four Moros all armed The Moros first asked for food, but once on the boat, took for themselves all of the cargo, attacked some of the men, and brutally violated two of the women by methods too horrible to be described. All of the persons on the boat, with the exception of the two young women, were again placed on it and holes were made on it, with the idea that it would submerge, but after eleven days of hardship and privation they were succored. Two of the Moro marauders were Lol-lo and Saraw who later returned to their home in Sulu, Philippines. There they were arrested and were charged in the Court of First Instance of Sulu with the crime of piracy.

 

ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance of Sulu is without jurisdiction on the case.

 

RULING
The court disagreed with Lol-lo and Saraw. It ruled that the CFI of Sulu has Jurisdiction in the case.

 

The court held that 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. Nor does it matter that the crime was committed within the jurisdictional 3-mile limit of a foreign state.

Here, the crime of piracy was accompanied by (1) rape, and (2) the abandonment of persons without means of saving themselves. The court ruled that Lol-lo who raped one of the women was sentenced to death, there being the aggravating circumstance of cruelty, abuse of superior strength, and ignominy, without any mitigating circumstance.

Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ DELOS SANTOS VS. JARRA/ G. R. NO. L-4150/ 10 FEBRUARY 1910/ 15 PHIL. 147