People vs. Lol-lo and Saraw

AI-generated

Updated 21st February 2025

A landmark piracy case in the Philippines where two Moro pirates were convicted for attacking a Dutch vessel, committing robbery, rape, and attempted murder. The Supreme Court upheld jurisdiction over the crime despite it occurring in foreign waters, establishing that piracy is a crime against all nations that can be tried anywhere.

Decided

27th February 1922

Division

En Banc

Ponente

MALCOLM, George Arthur

Case Nature

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga. Horrilleno, J.

Case References

43 Phil. 19

No. 17958

Full text word count

2,339

Full text read time est.

7-9 Mins

Full text sources

E-SCRA

Lawphil

PDF Document

Subjects

Criminal Law II

Case Title

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff and appellee, vs. LOL-LO and SARAW, defendants and appellants.

Dispositive

The vote upon the sentence is unanimous with regard to the propriety of 'the imposition of the death penalty upon the defendant and appellant Lol-lo (the accused who raped one of the women), but is not unanimous with regard to the defendant and appellant Saraw, since one member of the court, Mr. Justice Romualdez, registers his nonconformity. In accordance with the provisions of Act No. 2726, it results, therefore, that the judgment of the trial court as to the defendant and appellant Saraw is affirmed, and is reversed as to the defendant and appellant Lol-lo, who is found guilty of the crime of piracy and is sentenced therefor to be hung until dead, at such time and place as shall be fixed by the judge of first instance of the Twenty-sixth Judicial District. The two appellants together with Kinawalang and Maulanis, defendants in another case, shall indemnify jointly and severally the offended parties in the eQuivalent of 924 rupees, and shall pay a one-half part of the costs of both instances. So ordered.

Concur (8)

ARAULLO, Manuel

AVANCEÑA, Ramón

JOHNS, Charles

JOHNSON, Elias Finley

MALCOLM, George Arthur

OSTRAND, James

ROMUALDEZ, Norberto

VILLAMOR, Ignacio

Primary Holding

The Court held that piracy is a crime against all mankind (hostes humani generis) that can be punished by any country regardless of where it was committed, and that the Spanish Penal Code provisions on piracy remained valid law in the Philippines after the American occupation.

Background

The case arose from a horrific act of piracy in the Dutch East Indies where Moro pirates attacked Dutch subjects, committed robbery, rape, and attempted murder. The perpetrators later returned to the Philippines where they were arrested and tried, raising important questions about jurisdiction and the applicability of Spanish-era piracy laws.

History

June 30, 1920 - Original incident occurred
Case was tried in the Court of First Instance of Sulu
Defendants filed a demurrer challenging jurisdiction
Trial court overruled demurrer and convicted defendants
February 27, 1922 - Supreme Court decision

Facts

1. On June 30, 1920, two boats left Matuta (Dutch possession) for Peta (another Dutch possession). The first boat carried one Dutch subject, while the second carried eleven Dutch subjects including men, women, and children. Near the Islands of Buang and Bukid in the Dutch East Indies, six vintas with twenty-four armed Moros surrounded the second boat. The Moros initially asked for food but proceeded to: (1) Rob all cargo (2) Attack the men (3) Rape two women (4) Make holes in the boat to sink it (5) Abandon the victims (except the two women)
2. The victims survived after eleven days of hardship. The perpetrators, including Lol-lo (who participated in rape) and Saraw, returned to South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, where they were later arrested.

Arguments of the Petitioners

1. The offense was not within the jurisdiction of Philippine courts
2. The facts did not constitute a public offense under Philippine laws
3. The Court of First Instance lacked jurisdiction over the case

Arguments of the Respondents

1. Philippine courts had jurisdiction over piracy as a universal crime
2. The Spanish Penal Code provisions on piracy remained valid
3. The elements of piracy were clearly established

Issues

1. Whether Philippine courts have jurisdiction over piracy committed in foreign waters
2. Whether Spanish Penal Code provisions on piracy remained in force after American occupation
3. Whether the crime committed constituted piracy under Philippine law

Ruling

1. Philippine courts had jurisdiction as piracy is a crime against all nations
2. Spanish Penal Code provisions on piracy remained valid but should be interpreted with "Spain" replaced by "United States" and "Spaniards" replaced by "citizens of the United States and citizens of the Philippine Islands"
3. The crime constituted piracy with multiple aggravating circumstances
4. Lol-lo was sentenced to death, while Saraw's life imprisonment was affirmed

Doctrines

1. Universal Jurisdiction: Piracy is a crime against all mankind that can be tried anywhere
2. Continuation of Municipal Laws: Laws of the prior sovereign continue unless incompatible with the new sovereign's system
3. Territorial Principle: Maritime crimes within territorial waters fall under national jurisdiction

Precedents Cited

1. U.S. vs. Furlong (1820): Established that territorial limits do not restrict jurisdiction over piracy
2. Chicago, Rock Islands, etc., R. Co. vs. McGlinn (1885): Regarding continuation of municipal laws after territory transfer
3. United States vs. Smith (1919): Interpretation of "authority" in the Penal Code

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

1. Articles 153-156 of the Spanish Penal Code
2. U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 10
3. U.S. Criminal Code, Section 290
4. Treaty of Paris
5. Act No. 2726

Primary Holding Background History Facts Arguments of the Petitioners Arguments of the Respondents Issues Ruling Doctrines Key Excerpts Precedents Cited Provisions

Contents