Anda di halaman 1dari 5

CASE DIGEST: People v. Lol-lo, 43 Phil.

19
Title: People v. Lol-lo, 43 Phil. 19
Subject Matter: Applications of the provisions of Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code

Facts:
On June 30, 1920, sixer vintas intercepted two Dutch boats which were on its way in the midst of the islands of Buang and Bukid in the
Dutch East Indies. The six vintas were manned by 24 armed Moros. The said Dutch boats were carrying men, women and children. At first,
the Moros asked for food. But when they got on the Dutch boats, they asked for themselves all the vessels cargo, attacked nearly all of the
men and brutally violated two of the women by methods too tremendous to be described. All of the persons on the Dutch boat, except the
two young women, were again placed on it and holes were made in it, the idea that it would submerge. The Moros finally 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. They were arrested there and were charged in the Court of
First Instance of Sulu with the crime of piracy.

Issue:
Whether or not Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the crime of piracy alleged in this case.

Held:
Yes, the Philippine courts have jurisdiction on the case. Piracy is a villainy not against any particular state but against all mankind. It should
be tried and punished in the sufficient 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.
People v. Lol-lo & Saraw, 43 Phil. 19
G.R. No. 17958 February 27, 1922.
MALCOLM, J.
FACTS:
2 boats of Dutch possession left matuta. In 1 of the boats was 1 individual, a Dutch subject, and in the other boat 11 men, women, and children,
subjects of Holland. The 2nd boat arrived between the Islands of Buang and Bukid in the Dutch East Indies. There the boat was surrounded by 6
vintas manned by 24 Moros all armed. The Moros first asked for food, but once on the Dutch boat, too for themselves all of the cargo, attacked
some of the men, and brutally violated 2 of the women. All of the persons on the Dutch boat, except the 2 young women, were again placed on it
and holes were made in it, the idea that it would submerge. The Moros finally arrived at Maruro, a Dutch possession. 2 of the Moro marauder were
Lol-lo, who also raped one of the women, and Saraw. At Maruro the 2 women were able to escape.
Lol-lo and Saraw later returned to their home in South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, Sulu, Philippine Islands. There they were arrested and were charged in
the Court of First Instance of Sulu with the crime of 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, and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility.
Pirates are in law hostes humani generis.
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."
ISSUE: W/N the provisions of the Penal Code dealing with the crime of piracy are still in force.
HELD: In accordance with provisions of Act No. 2726, the defendant and appellant Lol-lo, who is found guilty of the crime of piracy and is sentenced
therefor to be hung until dead.
YES.
Penal code dealing with the crime of piracy, notably articles 153 and 154, to be still in force in the Philippines.
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.
At least 3 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.
People vs catantan

Facts : At 3:00 oclock in the morning of 27 June 1993, the Pilapil brothers Eugene, 21, and
Juan, Jr., 18, were fishing in the sea around 3 kilometers away from the shores of Tabogon, Cebu. Suddenly, another boat caught up with
them. They were later identified as the accused Emiliano Catantan and Jose Ursal alias Bimbo. They boarded the pumpboat of the
Pilapils and pointed his gun at Eugene. With his gun, Catantan struck Eugene on the left cheekbone and ordered him and Juan, Jr. to
dapa. They hogtied Eugene and covered him up with tarpaulin, stepped on him and ordered Juan to ferry them to Daan Tabogon using
their pumpboat. However, as they went farther out into the open sea the engine stopped running. And as they passed the shoreline of Nipa,
they saw another boat. This was operated by Juanito and its engine was new. Catantan ordered the Pilapil brothers to approach the boat
cautioning them not to say anything.

On a pretext that they were buying fish Catantan boarded Juanitos pumpboat. And ordered him to take them to Mungaz. Juanito tried to
beg-off by saying that he would still pull up his net and harvest his catch, but Catalan threatened to kill him. As Ursal was transferring to the
Juanitos pumpboat, the Pilapil brothers got the chance to escape.
The Regional Trial Court of Cebu, found both accused Emiliano Catantan y Tayong and Jose Macven Ursal alias Bimbo guilty of violating
of PD No. 532 otherwise
known as the Anti-Piracy and Highway Robbery Law of 1974. They were charged and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Of the duo only
Emiliano Catantan appealed.
He contends that the trial court erred in convicting him of piracy as the facts proved only constitute grave coercion defined in Art. 286 of the
Revised Penal Code and not piracy under PD No. 532.
Issue: Whether or not Emiliano Catalan violated PD No. 532 or Anti-Piracy and Highway Robbery Law
Held: The court held that there was no reversible error in the decision appealed. They convicted EMILIANO CATANTAN y TAYONG for the
crime of piracy penalized under PD No. 532 and sentenced him accordingly to reclusion perpetua. The costs against accused-appellant.
There was piracy, not grave coercion, where, as part of the act of seizing their boat, the occupants of the vessel were forced to go
elsewhere other than their place of destination. Grave coercion as penalized in Art. 286 of the Revised Penal Code, this case falls squarely
within the concept of piracy. While it may be true that Eugene and Juan, Jr. were compelled to go elsewhere other than their place of
destination, such compulsion was part of the act of seizing their boat.
Pilapil brothers are mere fisherfolk whose only means of livelihood is fishing in sea waters. To impede the livelihood of small
fishermen would be to deprive them of their very survival, and the likes of the accused within the purview of P.D. No. 532 are the obstacle to
the economic, social, educational and community progress of the people.

[G.R. No. 118075. September 5, 1997]


PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EMILIANO CATANTAN y
TAYONG, accused-appellant.
Facts:
The Pilapil brothers Eugene and Juan Jr. were fishing in the sea some 3 kilometers away from the shores of Tabogon, Cebu.
Emiliano Catantan, boarded the pumpboat of the Pilapils and leveled his gun and struck Eugene with it. They left behind
the other pumpboat which the accused had earlier used together. Due to their operating pumpboat breaking down,
Catantan boarded another pumpboat and ordered the operator Juanito to take them to Mungaz, Cebu. When Juanito tried
to beg-off by saying that he would still pull up his net and harvest his catch, Catantan drew his revolver and said, "You
choose between the two, or I will kill you."Juanito, terrified, immediately obeyed and Ursal hopped in from the other
pumpboat and joined Catantan.
The Regional Trial Court of Cebu, after trial, found both accused Emiliano Catantan y Tayong and Jose Macven Ursal alias
"Bimbo" guilty of the crime charged and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. Of the duo only Emiliano Catantan
appealed.
In his appeal, accused Catantan contends that the trial court erred in convicting him of piracy as the facts proved only
constitute grave coercion defined in Art. 286 of the Revised Penal Code and not piracy under PD No. 532.
Accused-appellant argues that in order that piracy may be committed it is essential that there be an attack on or seizure of
a vessel. He claims that he and his companion did not attack or seize the fishing boat of the Pilapil brothers by using force
or intimidation but merely boarded the boat, and it was only when they were already on board that they used force to
compel the Pilapils to take them to some other place. Appellant also insists that he and Ursal had no intention of
permanently taking possession or depriving complainants of their boat. As a matter of fact, when they saw another
pumpboat they ordered the brothers right away to approach that boat so they could leave the Pilapils behind in their boat.
Accordingly, appellant claims, he
simply committed grave coercion and not piracy.
Issue: Whether accused-appellant committed grave coercion or Piracy under PD 532
Held:
The Court affirmed the sentence of reclusion perpetua upon EMILIANO CATANTAN being guilty for the crime of piracy
penalized under PD No. 532.
The Court does not agree with appellants abovementioned contentions. Under the definition of piracy in PD No. 532 as
well as grave coercion as penalized in Art. 286 of the Revised Penal Code, this case falls squarely within the purview of
piracy. While it may be true that Eugene andJuan Jr. were compelled to go elsewhere other than their place of destination,
such compulsion was obviously part of the act of seizing their boat.
Section 2, par. (d), of PD No. 532, defines piracy as "any attack upon or seizure of any vessel, xxx by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons or force upon things, committed by any person, xxx in Philippine waters, shall be
considered as piracy. The offenders shall be considered as pirates and punished as hereinafter provided."

On the other hand, grave coercion as defined in Art. 286 of the Revised Penal Code is committedby "any person who,
without authority of law, shall, by means of violence, prevent another from doing something not prohibited by law, or
compel him to do something against his will, whether it be right or wrong."
The testimony of Eugene, one of the victims, shows that the appellant actually seized the vessel through force and
intimidation.
To sustain the defense and convert this case of piracy into one of grave coercion would be to ignore the fact that a fishing
vessel cruising in Philippine waters was seized by the accused by means of violence against or intimidation of persons
The fact that the revolver used by the appellant to seize the boat was not produced in evidence cannot exculpate him from
the crime. The fact remains, and we state it again, that Catantan and his co-accused Ursal seized through force and
intimidation the pumpboat of the Pilapils while the latter were fishing in Philippine waters
G.R. No. 111709

August 30, 2001

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,


vs.
ROGER P. TULIN, VIRGILIO I. LOYOLA, CECILIO O. CHANGCO, ANDRES C. INFANTE, CHEONG SAN HIONG, and
JOHN DOES, accused-appellants.
In the evening of March 2, 1991,; a cargo vessel owned by the PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation,
loaded with barrels of kerosene, regular gasoline, and diesel oil, was boarded by 7 fully armed pirates. The pirates including
the accused Roger P. Tulin, Virgilio Loyola, and Andres Infante Jr. detained the crew and completely took over the vessel.
The vessel was directed to proceed to Singapore where the cargoes were unloaded transferred and sold under the direct
supervision of accused Cheong San Hiong. Thereafter, the captive vessel returned to the Philippines.
A series of arrests was thereafter effected and all the accused were charged with qualified piracy or violation of Presidential
Decree No. 532 (Piracy in Philippine Waters). They were subsequently convicted of the crime charged. Hence, this appeal.
Meanwhile accused Cheong argues that the trial court erred in convicting and punishing him as an accomplice when the
acts allegedly committed by him were done or executed outside of Philippine waters and territory, stripping the Philippine
courts of jurisdiction to hold him for trial, to convict, and sentence.
ISSUE:
WON the Philippines is without jurisdiction to try a crime committed outside the Philippine waters and territory?
RULING:
We affirm the conviction of all the accused-appellants.
Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code, before its amendment, provided that piracy must be committed on the high seas by
any person not a member of its complement nor a passenger thereof. Upon its amendment by Republic Act No. 7659, the
coverage of the pertinent provision was widened to include offenses committed "in Philippine waters." On the other hand,
under Presidential Decree No. 532 (issued in 1974), the coverage of the law on piracy embraces any person including "a
passenger or member of the complement of said vessel in Philippine waters." Hence, passenger or not, a member of the
complement or not, any person is covered by the law.
Republic Act No. 7659 neither superseded nor amended the provisions on piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532. There
is no contradiction between the two laws. There is likewise no ambiguity and hence, there is no need to construe or interpret
the law. All the presidential decree did was to widen the coverage of the law, in keeping with the intent to protect the

citizenry as well as neighboring states from crimes against the law of nations. As expressed in one of the "whereas" clauses
of Presidential Decree No. 532, piracy is "among the highest forms of lawlessness condemned by the penal statutes of all
countries." For this reason, piracy under the Article 122, as amended, and piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532 exist
harmoniously as separate laws.
As regards the contention that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of accused-appellant
Hiong since the crime was committed outside Philippine waters, suffice it to state that unquestionably, the attack
on and seizure of "M/T Tabangao" (renamed "M/T Galilee" by the pirates) and its cargo were committed in
Philippine waters, although the captive vessel was later brought by the pirates to Singapore where its cargo was
off-loaded, transferred, and sold. And such transfer was done under accused-appellant Hiong's direct supervision.
Although Presidential Decree No. 532 requires that the attack and seizure of the vessel and its cargo be committed
in Philippine waters, the disposition by the pirates of the vessel and its cargo is still deemed part of the act of
piracy, hence, the same need not be committed in Philippine waters.
Moreover, piracy falls under Title One of Book Two of the Revised Penal Code. As such, it is an exception to the
rule on territoriality in criminal law. The same principle applies even if Hiong, in the instant case, were charged, not
with a violation of qualified piracy under the penal code but under a special law, Presidential Decree No. 532 which
penalizes piracy in Philippine waters. Verily, Presidential Decree No. 532 should be applied with more force here
since its purpose is precisely to discourage and prevent piracy in Philippine waters (People v. Catantan, 278 SCRA
761 [1997]). It is likewise, well-settled that regardless of the law penalizing the same, piracy is a reprehensible crime
against the whole world (People v. Lol-lo, 43 Phil. 19 [1922]).

(not sure) G.R. No. 163267 Case Digest


G.R. No. 163267, May 5, 2010
Teofilo Evangelista, petitioner
vs People of the Philippines, respondent
Ponente: Del Castillo

Facts:
There was an information saying that on January 30, 1996 at NAIA the accused feloniously have in
possession of the firearms without the corresponding permit or license from competent authority.
RTC's ruling: Evangelista guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of the illegal possession of
firearms and ammunitions.
Petitioner filed a motion for new trial which the RTC granted. RTC then found the petitioner liable
still for the offense charged but modified the penalty of imprisonment.
CA's ruling: CA affirmed the findings of the trial court in its decision. It ruled that the
stipulations during the trial are binding on petitioner.
Hence, this petition.
Issue: Whether CA gravely erred in not acquitting Evangelista from the charge of the illegal possession
of firearms.
Held:
Appeal is devoid of merit.

Contrary to the arguments put forward by petitioner, we entertain no doubt that the crime of illegal
possession of firearms and ammunition for which he was charged was committed in the Philippines. The
accomplishment by petitioner of the Customs Declaration Form upon his arrival at the NAIA is very clear
evidence that he was already in possession of the subject firearms in the Philippines.
In contrast, petitioner failed to establish by sufficient and competent evidence that the present
charge happened in Dubai. It may be well to recall that while in Dubai, petitioner, even in a situation
between life and death, firmly denied possession and ownership of the firearms. Furthermore, there is
no record of any criminal case having been filed against petitioner in Dubai in connection with the
discovered firearms. Since there is no pending criminal case when he left Dubai, it stands to reason
that there was no crime committed in Dubai. The age-old but familiar rule that he who alleges must
prove his allegation applies.
Petition denied.