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 left Matuta, a Dutch possession, for Peta, another Dutch possession.-Boat 1 had one Dutch subject-Boat 2 had 11 men, women and children, likewise from Holland.-After several days, at 7pm, Boat 2 arrived in Buang and Bukid in the Dutch East Indies.-Here, the boat was surrounded by 6 vintas, manned by 24 armed Moros.-The Moros first asked for food, but once in the boat, took all the cargo, attacked some of the men, and brutally violated 2 of the women.-The Moros took the 2 women with them, placed holes in the ship to let it sink, and left the people there.-After 11 days, the Moros arrived at Maruro, a Dutch possession.-The two Moro marauders were identified as Lol-lo, as the one who raped one of the women, and Saraw.-While in Maruro, the two women were able to 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 demurrer was overruled, and Lollo and Saraw were found guilty, and were both sentenced to lifeimprisonment, together with Kinawalang and Maulanis, two other defendants in another case. In addition to imprisonment, they were ordered to return the 39 sacks of copra they robbed, or to indemnify the offended parties924 rupees, and to pay one-half of the costs. Issue: Did the CFI in the Philippines have jurisdiction over Lol-lo and Saraw? YES Rationale -First of all, the facts cant be disputed. All the elements of the crime of piracy were there.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. -

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 jurisdiction of piracy has no territorial limits. The crime is against all mankind, so it is also punished by all.-It doesnt matter that the crime was committed within the jurisdictional 3-mile limit of a foreign state. Those 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 Rationale -Art. 153 of the Penal Code refers to the crime of piracy committed against Spaniards, or subjects of another nation not war with Spain shall be punished with a penalty ranging from cadena temporal to cadena perpetua. If the crime is against non-belligerent subjects of another nation at war with Spain, it shell be punished with the penalty of presidio mayor.-Since Spain already ceded the Philippines to the US, the rule is that the political law of the former sovereignty isnecessarily 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 instructions of President McKniley on May 19, 1989 to General Wesley Merrit, Commanding 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 Penal Code was applicable to the Philippines because of Art. 156 of the Penal Code.-Grotius: Piracy by the law of nations is the same thing as piracy by the civil law. Piracy in the penal 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 Constitution itself defines and punishes piracy that whoever on the high seas, commits the crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations, shall 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, its 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

G.R. No. L-35131 November 29, 1972THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION and DR. LEONCE VERSTUYFT vs. HON. BENJAMIN H. AQUINO, as Presiding Judge of Branch VIII, Court of First Instance of Rizal Facts: The present petition is an original action for certiorari and prohibition to set aside respondent judge's refusal to quash a search warrant issued by him at the instance of respondents Constabulary Offshore Action Center (COSAC) officers for the search and seizure of the personal effects of Verstuyft of the WHO(World Health Organization) notwithstanding his being entitled to diplomatic immunity, as duly recognized by the Executive branch of the government and to prohibit respondent judge from further proceedings in the matter. The Secretary of Foreign Affairs Carlos P. Romulo pleaded to Hon. Aquino that Dr. Verstuyft is entitled to immunity from search in respect for his personal baggage as accorded to members of diplomatic missions pursuant to the Host Agreement and further requested for the suspension of the search warrant. The Solicitor General accordingly joined the petitioner for the quashal of the search warrant but respondent judge nevertheless summarily denied thequash hence, the petition at bar. Issue: Whether or not personal effect of WHO Officer Dr. Verstuyft can be exempted from search andseizure under the diplomatic immunity. Ruling: The executive branch of the Phils has expressly recognized that Verstuyft is entitled to diplomatic immunity, pursuant to the provisions of the Host Agreement. The DFA formally advised respondent judge of the Philippine Government's official position. The Solicitor General, as principal law officer of the government, likewise expressly affirmed said petitioner's right to

diplomatic immunity and asked for the quashal of the search warrant. The unfortunate fact remains that respondent judge chose to rely on the suspicion of respondents COSAC officers "that the other remaining crates unopened contain contraband items "The provisions of Republic Act 75 declares as null and void writs or processes sued out or prosecuted whereby Inter alia the person of an ambassador or public minister is arrested or imprisoned or his goods or chattels are seized or attached and makes it a penal offense for "every person by whom the same is obtained or prosecuted, whether as party or as attorney, and every officer concerned in executing it" to obtain or enforce such writ or process. The Court, therefore, holds the respondent judge acted without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in not ordering the quashal of the search warrant issued by him in disregard of the diplomatic immunity of petitioner Verstuyft. The writs of certiorari and prohibition from the petitioners were granted.