TOPIC: Territoriality and Extra-territoriality
FACTS:
1. On or about June 30, 1920, two boats left Matuta, a Dutch possession.
2. In the second boat were eleven men, women, and children, all subjects of Holland.
3. At about 7 o’clock in the evening, between the Islands of Buang and Bukid in the Dutch East Indies, the said boat was surrounded by six vintas manned by twenty-four Moros, all armed.
4. The Moros first asked for food, but once on the Dutch boat, they took all of the cargo, attacked some of the men, and brutally violated two of the women (rape).
5. Holes were made in the boat in order to submerge it.
6. Two of the Moros were Lol-lo, who also raped one of the women, and Saraw.
7. Lol-lo and Saraw later returned to their home in South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, where they were arrested and charged in the Court of First Instance of Sulu with the crime of piracy.
8. The trial court rendered judgment finding the two defendants guilty and sentencing each of them to life imprisonment.
9. A demurrer was interposed by counsel de officio for the Moros, on the grounds that the offense charged was not within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, nor of any court of the Philippine Islands, and that the facts did not constitute a public offense, under the laws in force in the Philippine Islands.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Philippine Courts has jurisdiction over the crime?
RULING:
YES. Philippines has jurisdiction over piracy. All of the elements of the crime of piracy are present.
Piracy is robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas, without lawful authority and done animo furandi (intention to steal), and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility.
Pirates are in law hostes humani generis (“enemy 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.” (U.S. vs. Furlong [1820], 5 Wheat., 184.)
We hold 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.
The crime falls under the first paragraph of article 153 of the Penal Code in relation to article 154. There are present at least two of the circumstances named in the last cited article as authorizing either cadena perpetua or death. The crime of piracy was accompanied by
(1) an offense against chastity and
(2) the abandonment of persons without apparent means of saving themselves. It is, therefore, only necessary for us to determine as to whether the penalty of cadena perpetua or death should be imposed. In this connection, the trial court, finding present the one aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, and compensating the same by the one mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction provided by article 11, as amended, of the Penal Code, sentenced the accused to life imprisonment. At least three aggravating circumstances, that the wrong done in the commission of the crime was deliberately augmented by causing other wrongs not necessary for its commission, that advantage was taken of superior strength, and that means were employed which added ignominy to the natural effects of the act, must also be taken into consideration in fixing the penalty. Considering, therefore, the number and importance of the qualifying and aggravating circumstances here present, which cannot be offset by the sole mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction, and the horrible nature of the crime committed, it becomes our duty to impose capital punishment.
The vote upon the sentence is unanimous with regard to the propriety of the imposition of the death penalty upon the defendant and appellant Lo-lo (the accused who raped on of the women), but is not unanimous with regard to the court, Mr. Justice Romualdez, registers his nonconformity. In accordance with 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.
Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations
Comments
Post a Comment