People vs. Siyoh 141 SCRA 356 (1986)

8

Qualified Piracy

People vs. Siyoh

141 SCRA 356 (1986)

By: G-one T. Paisones

Facts:

            Julaide Siyoh with his companion all were armed; boarded the pump-boat in which Rodolfo de Castro, Danilo Hiolen, Anastacio de Guzman and Antonio de Guzman were riding.  The take, steal and carry away all their cash money and other valuable properties of the victim. The accused ordered the victims to jump into the water, and then fired their guns at them which cause the death of Rodolfo, Danilo and Anastacio and wounding Antonio.

Issue:

            Whether or not the penalty of the accused (Siyoh and Kiram) is death

Held:

            No.

Ratio:

            For lack of necessary votes the penalty imposed shall be reclusion perpetua.

People Vs. Rodriguez 135 SCRA 485 (1985)

7

Piracy

People Vs. Rodriguez

135 SCRA 485 (1985)
G-one T. Paisones

Facts:

            Jaime Rodriguez and Rico Lopez, assisted by their counsel, pleaded guilty to the charge, were convicted on March 5, 1982 and sentenced each "to suffer the extreme penalty of death."  The accused appellant contended that his plea of guilty should be taking into consideration of lowering the penalty of his crime which is death penalty.

Issue:

            Whether or not the penalty of Death in the crime of Piracy when homicide is committed as a result or on the occasion of piracy can be offset by a mitigating circumstance of the plea of guilty?

Held:

            No.

Ratio:

The penalty imposable upon persons found guilty of the crime of piracy where homicide is committed is mandatory death penalty. Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code states that:

“Rules for the application of indivisible penalties.—In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shag be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.”

People Vs. Lol-lo and Saraw 43 Phil. 19 (1922)

6

Piracy

People Vs. Lol-lo and Saraw

43 Phil. 19 (1922)

Facts:

            Lol-lo and Saraw together with other twenty-two Moros all were armed took all of the cargo on the Dutch boat and attacked some of the men, and brutally violated two of the women.  The pirates also take the two women with them, and repeatedly violating them. The Moro Pirates arrived at Maruro, a Dutch possession.  At Maruro the two women were able to escape.

Issue:

            Whether or not, piracy committed outside in the Philippine territory is within the jurisdiction of the Philippine courts.

Held:

            Yes.

Ratio:

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.

 By: G-one T. Paisones

People vs. Manayao 78 Phil. 721 (1947)

4

Treason and Citizenship

People vs. Manayao

78 Phil. 721 (1947)

Facts:

Pedro Manayao, being a Makapili, considered himself a member of the Japanese armed forces. He contended that he thereby lost his Filipino citizenship under paragraphs 3, 4 and 6 of Sec. 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 63 providing: "... a Filipino may lose his citizenship; by accepting commission in the military, naval or air service of a foreign country….."

Issue:

Whether or not appellant had lost his Philippine citizenship and was therefore not amenable to the Philippine law of treason

Held:

            No.

Ratio:

Constitutional provision covers both time of peace and time of war, but it is brought more immediately and peremptorily into play when the country is involved in war. During such a period of stress, under a constitution enshrining such tenets, the citizen cannot be considered free to cast off his loyalty and obligations toward the Fatherland. And it cannot be supposed, without reflecting on the patriotism and intelligence of the Legislature, that in promulgating Commonwealth Act No. 63, under the aegis of our Constitution, it intended (but did not declare) that the duties of the citizen solemnly proclaimed in the above-quoted constitutional precept could be effectively cast off by him even when his country is at war, by the simple expedient of subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution or laws of a foreign country, and an enemy country at that, or by accepting a commission in the military, naval or air service of such country, or by deserting from the Philippine Army, Navy, or Air Corps.