The People of The Philippine Islands

vs.
Lol-Lo and Saraw
G.R. No. 17958 February 27, 1922

Facts:

On or about June 30, 1920, two boats left Matuta for Peta, which are both Dutch
possessions. The second boat, carrying eleven men, women, and children, arrived
between the Islands of Buang and Bukid in the Dutch East Indies and was surrounded
by six vintas (a traditional outrigger boat) manned by twenty-four Moros all armed. They
took all of the cargos, 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 Dutch boat, except the two women, were again placed on
it and holes were made in it, with the idea that it would submerge. Taking the two women
with them, and repeatedly violating them, the Moros arrived at Maruro, a Dutch
possession. Two of the Moro marauders were Lol-lo, who also raped one of the women,
and Saraw. At Maruro, the two women were able to escape.

Lol-lo and Saraw later returned to their home in South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, Sulu,
Philippine Islands and were arrested and charged in the Court of First Instance of Sulu
with the crime of piracy. A demurrer (an objection) was interposed by counsel de officio
for the Moros, on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, but it
was overruled. A judgment was rendered finding the two defendants guilty and
sentencing each of them to life imprisonment (cadena perpetua).

On appeal, defendants argued that Philippine courts do not have jurisdiction over
their case since the crime was committed in the high seas.

Issue:
1. Whether or not the Court of First Instance have jurisdiction over Lol-lo and Saraw.
2. Whether or not the provisions of Articles 153 to 156 of the Spanish Penal Code
dealing with the crime of piracy are still in force.

Ruling:

1. Yes, the Court of First Instance have jurisdiction over the case.

Pirates are in law hostes humanigeneris (enemies of mankind). 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. Nor does it matter
that the crime was committed within the jurisdictional 3-mile limit of a foreign state,
"for those limits, though neutral to war, are not neutral to crimes."
2. Yes, the Spanish Penal Code provisions on piracy are still in force.

By virtue of the Treaty of Paris (1898), there is a change in the sovereign

power in the Philippines from Spain to the United States. While political laws are
necessarily changed with the change in the sovereign, municipal laws remain in
force as long as they are consistent with the U.S. Constitution, the laws of the
U.S., or the characteristics and institutions of the government. As a corollary to
the main rules, 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.
Hence, the present court held those provisions of the Penal Code dealing with the
crime of piracy, notably articles 153 and 154, to be still in force in the Philippines.

Finally, 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.