CRIMINAL LAW 1 Atty. Isagani G. Calderon GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
Scope and Methodology: This course covering a Part of Book One of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), specially the preliminary Title and Title One (Articles 1-20). Daily Graded recitations, lectures, field observations and other written requirements may be prescribed in the course of the semester. Recitation is called and graded daily: absence when called for recitation merits an automatic grade of 5.0 that session.
Grading: Passing grade for the grade is 75%. The final grade will be based on the following component items and their respective weights:
Graded Recitation: 40% Midterm Examination:30%
Final examination: 30%. Short quizzes and other requirements may be given in lieu of or in
addition to daily graded recitation; these will be considered as part of recitation.
Course Material: Primary course materials are the Revised Penal Code and Special Penal Law indicated in the outline. Secondary materials are commentaries and reviewers (no particular author is required).
“Hate Evil. Love Good. Get justice” Amos 5:24
COURSE OUTLINE
I. CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION A. DEFINITION
Criminal law is that branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature,
and provides for their punishment. (12 Cyc. 129) B. STATE AUTHORITY TO PUNISH CRIMES
1.
SOURCES OF STATE AUTHORITYa. Constitution
i. Section 5, Article II, 1987 Constitution
The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of
democracy.
ii.Section 1, Article VI, 1987 Constitution
The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum.
b. Revised Penal Code (RPC)
The Revised Penal Code criminalizes a whole class of acts that are generally accepted as criminal, such as the taking of a life whether through murder or homicide, rape, robbery and theft, and treason.The Code also penalizes other acts which are considered criminal in the Philippines, such as adultery, concubinage, and abortion. The Code expressly defines the elements that each crime comprises, and the existence of all these elements have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt in order to secure conviction.
c. Special Criminal Laws
Apart from the crimes penalized in the Revised Penal Code, several other pieces of criminal legislation have been passed, penalizing acts such as illegal possession and trafficking
of dangerous drugs, money laundering, and illegal possession of firearms. These laws are called ―Special Penal Laws‖ and they form part of Philippine Criminal Laws. There are certain
differences between crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code and Special Penal Laws. Violations of the crimes listed in the Revised Penal Code are referred to as mala in se, which literally means, that the act is inherently evil or bad or wrongful in itself. On the other hand, violations of Special Penal Laws are generally referred to as malum prohibitum or an act that is wrong because it is prohibited. Thus, no criminal intent is needed in order to find a person liable for crimes punished under Special Penal Laws. As long as the act is committed, then it is
punishable as a crime under law.
Note, however, that not all violations of Special Penal Laws are mala prohibita. While intentional felonies are always mala in se, it does not follow that prohibited acts done in violation of special laws are always mala prohibita.There are some important distinctions between crimes punishable under the Revised Penal Code and Special Penal Laws. One of them is that in crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, the moral trait of the offender is considered. This is why liability would only arise when there is criminal intent or negligence in the commission of the punishable act. In crimes punished under Special Penal Laws, the moral trait of the offender is not
considered; it is enough that the prohibited act was voluntarily done. d. Penal Provisions in Other Laws
e. Local Ordinances
Local ordinance is a law usually found in a municipal code. f. Jurisprudence
The science of the law. By science here, is understood that connexion of truths which is founded on principles either evident in connexion of truths which is founded on principles either evident in themselves, or capable of demonstration; a collection of truths of the same themselves, or capable of demonstration; a collection of truths of the same kind, arranged in methodical order. In a more confined sense, jurisprudence kind, arranged in methodical order. In a more confined sense, jurisprudence is the practical science of giving a wise interpretation to the laws, and is the practical science of giving a wise interpretation to the laws, and making a just application of them to all cases as they arise. In this sense, making a just application of them to all cases as they arise. In this sense, it is the habit of judging the same questions in the same manner, and by it is the habit of judging the same questions in the same manner, and by this course of judgments forming precedents.
2.
LIMITATION TO STATE AUTHORITYa) DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION
The right of the People to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable search and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall be issued except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complaint and the witnesses he may produce and particularly describing the place to be search and the person or things to be seized‖ (Sec. 2, Article III)
Section 1, Article III- No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
PEOPLE v CARLOS 78 Phil. 535 FACTS:
Carlos, a Japanese spy, pointed with the Japanese Military Police the houses of Martin and Ladislao Mateo and Fermin Javier, consequently, houses were broken then the Mateo brothers and Javier were seized, arrested and torutured in Fort Santiago from which they were released after 6 days. Given reasons was that the Mateos refused to tell the whereabouts of their 2uerrilla brother, Marcelino and Javier himself a 2uerrilla according to the accused
CONTENTION OF THE STATE:
Appellant was guilty of treason by the People‘s Court. The court created under the stress of emergency and necessity, and of special restricted jurisdiction, is not an arbitrary and it has no intentional discrimination. The People‘s court, contrary to the contention of the accused, does not work to deprive the right of individuals to equal protection to law. Contention of the accused:
People‘s Court deprives person similarly situated of the equal protection of the law; People‘s court deny preliminary investigation; accused has limited right to appeal; lack of uniformity in ruling as special granting of release on bail.
HELD:
Judgment affirmed. The People‘s Court does not deprive the appellant of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Constitution.
b) FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
SECTION 4, Article III, 1987 Constitution
No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression or of the press or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
BARNES v GLEN THEATRE 501 U.S. 560 FACTS:
Two Indiana establishments wished to provide totally nude dancing as entertainment and individual dancers employed at those establishments wished to provide the same asserting that the laws prohibition against total nudity in public places violates the First Amendment.
CRIME COMMITTED: Public Indecency CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:
Dance is a form of expression protected by the First Amendment. Indiana‘s ban on nude dancing in not content – neutral and is not date, time, and place or manner restriction. Neither the statute is justified as a regulation of alcoholic beverages.
HELD:
The Court held that the nude dancing involved here was not expressive conduct. The Court of Appeals reversed the ruling that the non-obscene nude dancing performed for entertainment is protected expression and that the statute, requiring the respondents to wear panties and G-strings was an improper infringement of that activity because its purpose was to prevent the message of eroticism and sexuality conveyed by the dancers. On Certiorari, US Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
c) FREEDOM OF RELIGION
SECTION 5, Article III, 1987 Constitution
No Law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil and political rights.
EMPLOYMENT DIVISION,DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCE v SMITH, 494 U.S 872 FACTS:
Two drug rehabilitation counselors, both members of the Native American Church were fired from their jobs because they had ingested peyote, a hallucinogenic drug for sacramental purposes. They applied for unemployment to the Employment Division of Oregon‘s Department of HR. Applications were denied.
Contention of the State:
The Free exercise of religion clause does not preclude Oregon from denying unemployment benefits to persons dismissed from their jobs because they used the drug whether or not such used was religiously inspected.
The sacramental use of small quantities of Peyote in Native American Church is comparable to the sacramental use of small quantities of alcohol
HELD:
The free exercise clause can ban the use of Peyote or can deny unemployment benefits for dismissal based on the use of the substance.
ESTRADA v ESCRITOR 492 SCRA 1 FACTS:
Alejandro Estrada filed a complaint against Escritor for living with a man who is not his husband and having borne a child within their live-in arrangement. Estrada wanted her to be removed from her job as a court interpreter.
WHAT CRIME: Disgraceful and Immoral conduct CONTENTION OF THE STATE:
Escritor should not be allowed to remain working in the Court for it may appear that the court tolerates her disgraceful and immoral conduct.
CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:
Escritor admitted that she has been living with a man who is not her husband even if her real husband is still alive but living with another woman. Her live-in arrangement with the man is in conformity with their religious beliefs as members of the Jehova‘s Witnesses and Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society. The said arrangement even had the approval of their Congregation. They already executed a Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness after ten years of living together, which is permitted by their Congregation.
HELD:
The court was not able to rule over the case accurately so they remanded the complaint to the Office of Court Administrator and order the Solicitor General to intervene in the case. After mediation in the case, its decision was, Escritor cannot be penalized for engaging into a conjugal arrangement because she has a fundamental right to freedom of religion.
d) SECTION 14 (1), Article III, 1987 Constitution
No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. e) SECTION 14 (2), Article III, 1987 Constitution
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is provided, as shall enjoy the rights to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face and to have a compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf, however, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure appears unjustifiable.
f) SECTION 18 (1), Article III, 1987 Constitution
No person shall be detained solely by reasons of his political beliefs and aspirations. g) SECTION 18 (2), Article III, 1987 Constitution
No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
h) NO EXCESSIVE FINES NOR CRUEL, DEGRADING OR INHUMAN PUNISHMENT
SECTION 19 (1), Article III, 1987 Constitution
Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
PEOPLE v DELA CRUZ 92 Phil. 906 FACTS:
Having retailed a can of milk at ten centavos more than the ceiling price, Pablo Dela Cruz was sentenced, after trial, in the Court of First Instance in Manila, t imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of five thousand plus costs. He was also barred from engaging in wholesale and retail business for five years.
WHAT CRIME: Overpricing CONTENTION OF THE STATE:
Many of us do not regard such punishment unusual and cruel, remembering that National Policy against profiteering in the matter of foodstuffs affecting people‘s health, the need of stopping speculations in such essential and of safeguarding public welfare in times of food scarcity or similar stress.
CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:
The Trial Judge erred: (a) in not holding that the charge was fabricated; (b) in imposing a punishment wholly disproportionate to the offense and therefore unconstitutional and in not invalidating R.A No. 509 in so far as it prescribed excessive penalties.
HELD:
The court decided to reduce the penalty to the imprisonment of six months and a fine of two thousand pesos.
PEOPLE v ECHEGARAY 267 SCRA 682 FACTS:
Sometime in April 1994, the accused raped his 10 year old daughter. During that time, R.A. No. 7659, commonly known as the death penalty law was already in effect. WHAT CRIME: Rape
CONTENTION OF THE STATE:
Punishment are cruel only when they involve torture and lingering death but the punishment of death is not cruel within the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.
CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:
Death penalty is cruel, excessive, or unusual punishment in violation of the constitutional prescription against cruel and unusual punishment.
HELD:
The Motion for Reconsideration and Supplementation Motion for Reconsideration were denied for lack of merit.
NO EXCESSIVE FINES NOR CRUEL, DEGRADING OR INHUMAN PUNISHMENT FRED HARDEN v DIRECTOR OF PRISONER 81 Phil. 741 FACTS:
The petitioner was imprisoned for more than six months for contempt by reason of non-compliance to court orders issued regarding the administration of conjugal partnership. Harden was restrained by the Court Order from transferring the properties and money in litigation to other countries since they are necessary during the proceeding. Still harden transferred money and properties to the banks in foreign countries and so Mrs. Harden moved for the court to direct Mr. Harden to return the subjects in litigations since these are necessary during the proceedings. Fred Harden‘s failure to comply with the court orders to return the properties prompted the contempt charge and the imprisonment for an indefinite time.
CRIME COMMITTED: Contempt of Court CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:
The Court has no jurisdiction over the case since the properties involved are in foreign countries and outside the Philippine Territory, thus, habeas corpus can be a ground for relief. The penalty of imprisonment for an indefinite period of time for a mere contempt
of court is cruel, unjust and excessive since it can lead to reclusion perpetua, the usual charge for which is six months imprisonment.
CONTENTION OF THE STATE:
The punishment for incarceration for an indefinite period is neither cruel nor excessive since it does not involve torture or a lingering death. The accused can avoid imprisonment if he will only obey the court order, an act he is still capable of performing. The indefinite period is only a remedial measure by the court to coerce him to comply. HELD:
Rule 64, Sec. 7, Imprisonment until order obeyed. When the contempt consists in the omission to do an act which is yet in the power of the accused to perform, he may be imprisoned by order of a Supreme Court until he performs it.
i) SECTION 19 (2), Article III, 1987 Constitution
The employment of physical, psychological or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.
J) SECTION 20, Article III, 1987 Constitution No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of poll tax
k) BILL OF ATTAINDER
Is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. Its essence is the substitution of a legislative act for a judicial determination of guilt.
SECTION 22, Article III, 1987 Constitution
No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.
PEOPLE v FERRER 48 SCRA 382 FACTS:On March 5, 1970, Feliciano Co was accused feloniously for becoming an officer and ranking leader of the Communist Party of the Philippines, an outlawed and illegal group to overthrow the Government of the Philippines. On May 25, Milo tayag and his company were charged of the same.
What Crime:Violation of Sec. 4 of the Anti-Subversion Act.
Contention of the State:In many occasions in Tarlac, the accused persons were seen conducting meetings and delivered speeches enticing people to subversion which is an overt act an obvious subversion against the State.
Contention of the Accused:On July 21, 1970, the accused moved to quash, impugning the validity of the statute on the grounds that (1) it is a bill of attainder; (2) it is vague; (3) in embraces more than one subject not expressed in the title thereof and (4) it denies him the equal protection of law.
Held:Resolving the constitutional issue, the trial court, it its resolution of September 15, 1970, declared that it is a bill of attainder, however, upon the elevation of the solicitor general, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the anti-subversions Act.
EX POST FACTO LAW
An ex post facto law has been defined as one:
a) Which make an action done before the passing of the law which was innocent when done criminal, and punishes such action;
b) Which aggravates the crime or make it greater than what is committed;
c) Which changes the punishment and inflicts greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when it was committed;
d) Which alters the legal rules of evidence and receive less or different than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict he offender.
SECTION 22, Article III, 1987 Constitution No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.
FACTS:On May 6, 1921, it was noted that a complaint was presented in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila, charging the defendants with the violation of the Usury Law (Act No 2655). The case was brought on for trail and the judge found out that the defendants were guilty.
Contention of the Accused:The contract upon which the alleged usurious interest collected was executed before Act No. 2655 was adopted; that at the time said contract was made (December 30, 1015), there was not Usury Law in the Philippines, that the said act did not become effective until the first day of May 1916; or four months and a half after the contract in question was executed, that the said law could have retroactive effect; the said law impairs the obligation of the contract and the opinion of the lower court should be revoke. Complaint should be dismissed and should be discharged from the custody of the law.
Contention of the State:The lower court stated that at the time of the execution and delivery of said contract, there was no law in force in the Philippine Island punishing usury but, in as much as the defendants had collected a usurious rate of interest after the adoption of the usury law in the Philippines, they were guilty of violation of the said law and should be punished in accordance with its provisions.
Held:The acts complained of by the defendant did not constitute a crime at the time they were committed, therefore, sentence of the lower court should be revoked; that the complaint be dismissed and the defendants be discharge from the custody of the law.
RULE 115, RULES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE RIGHTS OF ACCUSED
SECTION 1. Rights of accused at the trial.—In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the following rights:
(a) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt. (b) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
(c) To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of the judgment. The accused may, however, waive his presence at the trial pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his tail, unless his presence is specifically ordered by the court for purposes of identification. The absence of the accused without justifiable cause at the trial of which he had notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be present thereat. When an accused under custody escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be present on allsubsequent trial dates until custody over him is regained. Upon motion, the accused may be allowed to defend himself in person when it sufficiently appears to the court that he can properly protect his rights without the assistance of counsel.
(d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-examination on matters covered by direct examination. His silence shall not in any manner prejudice him.
(e) To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself.
(f) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial. Either party may utilize as part of its evidence the testimony of a witness who is deceased, out of or can not with due diligence be found in the Philippines, unavailable, or otherwise unable to testify, given in another case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter, the adverse party having the opportunity to cross-examine him.
(g) To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf.
(h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial.
(i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law. (1a)
ARTICLE 2, CIVIL CODE Laws must be passed after fifteen days following their completion either in the official Gazette or any newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided.
PESIGAN v ANGELES 129 SCRA 174 FACTS:Anselmo and Mardcelo Pesigan transported twenty six carabaos in the evening of April 2, 1982. These carabaos will be transported to Batangas.
Contention of the State:The Pesigans violated executive order 625 which provides that henceforth, no carabao, regardless of age, sex, physical condition or purpose shall be transported from one place to another.
Contention of the Accused:The Pesigans contented that the carabaos confiscated which allegedly values to P70, 000 plus P 92, 000 as moral damages shall be recovered.
Held:Executive Order No. 625 should not be enforced against the accused because it is a penal regulation published 2 months after the commission of the crime.
TANADA v TUVERA 136 SCRA 27 FACTS: Tanada and company seeks a Writ of Mandamus compelling respondents public officials to cause the publication in the official Gazzette of various Presidential Decrees, letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations and administrative orders invoking the people‘s right to be informed on matters of public concern as well as the principle that laws, to be valid mush be published in the official Gazzette.
Crime Committed:Violation on the right of the people to be informed.
Contention of the Accused:Petitioners have no legal personality to seek for the Writ and the publication is not a sine qua non requirement for the effectivity of laws where the law provides for their own effectivity dates.
Contention of the State:Since the subject of the petition concerns a public and its object is to compel the performance of a public duty, they need not to show any specific interest for the petition to be given due course and that the right sight in is a public right.
Held:The court ordered the respondents to publish in the official Gazzette all unpublished presidential decrees, issuances which are of general applications, and unless so published, they shall have no binding force and effect.
Article V, VISITING FORCES AGREEMENT (VFA) Article V
Criminal Jurisdiction
1. Subject to the provisions of this article:
(a) Philippine authorities shall have jurisdiction over United States personnel with respect to offenses committed within the Philippines and punishable under the law of the Philippines. (b) United States military authorities shall have the right to exercise within the Philippines all criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction conferred on them by the military law of the United States over United States personnel in the Philippines.
2. (a) Philippine authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over United States personnel with respect to offenses, including offenses relating to the security of the Philippines, punishable under the laws of the Philippines, but not under the laws of the United States.
(b) United States authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over United States personnel with respect to offenses, including offenses relating to the security of the United States, punishable under the laws of the United States, but not under the laws of the Philippines.
(c) For the purposes of this paragraph and paragraph 3 of this article, an offense relating to security means:
(1) Treason;
(2) Sabotage, espionage or violation of any law relating to national defense.
3. In cases where the right to exercise jurisdiction is concurrent, the following rules shall apply: (a) Philippine authorities shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over all offenses committed by United States personnel, except in cases provided for in paragraphs l (b), 2 (b), and 3 (b) of this Article.
(b) United States military authorities shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over United States personnel subject to the military law of the United States in relation to:
(1) Offenses solely against the property or security of the United States or offenses solely against the property or person of United States personnel; and
(2) Offenses arising out of any act or omission done in performance of official duty.
(c) The authorities of either government may request the authorities of the other government to waive their primary right to exercise jurisdiction in a particular case.
(d) Recognizing the responsibility of the United States military authorities to maintain good order and discipline among their forces, Philippine authorities will, upon request by the United States, waive their primary right to exercise jurisdiction except in cases of particular importance to the Philippines. If the Government of the Philippines determines that the case is of particular importance, it shall communicate such determination to the United States authorities within twenty (20) days after the Philippine authorities receive the United States request.
(e) When the United States military commander determines that an offense charged by authorities of the Philippines against United States personnel arises out of an act or omission done in the performance of official duty, the commander will issue a certificate setting forth such determination. This certificate will be transmitted to the appropriate authorities of the Philippines and will constitute sufficient proof of performance of official duty for the purposes of paragraph 3(b)(2) of this article. In those cases where the Government of the Philippines believes the circumstances of the case require a review of the duty certificate, United States military authorities and Philippine authorities shall consult immediately. Philippine authorities at the highest levels may also present any information bearing on its validity. United States military authorities shall take full account of the Philippine position. Where appropriate, United States military authorities will take disciplinary or other action against offenders in official duty cases, and notify the Government of the Philippines of the actions taken.
(f) If the government having the primary right does not exercise jurisdiction, it shall notify the authorities of the other government as soon as possible.
(g) The authorities of the Philippines and the United States shall notify each other of the
disposition of all cases in which both the authorities of the Philippines and the United States have the right to exercise jurisdiction.
4. Within the scope of their legal competence, the authorities of the Philippines and the United States shall assist each other in the arrest of United States personnel in the Philippines and in handing them over to authorities who are to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with the
provisions of this article.
5. United States military authorities shall promptly notify Philippine authorities of the arrest or detention of United States personnel who are subject to Philippine primary or exclusive
jurisdiction. Philippine authorities shall
promptly notify United States military authorities of the arrest or detention of any United States personnel.
...Article V, Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) 6. The custody of any United States personnel over whom the Philippines is to exercise
jurisdiction shall immediately reside with United States military authorities, if they so request, from the commission of the offense until completion of all judicial proceedings. United States military authorities shall, upon formal notification by the Philippine authorities and without delay, make such personnel available to those authorities in time for any investigative or judicial proceedings relating to the offense with which the person has been charged. In
extraordinary cases, the Philippine Government shall present its position to the United States Government regarding custody, which the United States Government shall take into full account. In the event Philippine judicial proceedings are not completed within one year, the United States shall be relieved of any obligations under this paragraph. The one year period will not include the time necessary to appeal. Also, the one year period will not include any time during which
scheduled trial procedures are delayed because United States authorities, after timely notification by Philippine authorities to arrange for the presence of the accused, fail to do so.
7. Within the scope of their legal authority, United States and Philippine authorities shall assist each other in the carrying out of all necessary investigations into offenses and shall cooperate in providing for the attendance of witnesses and in the collection and production of evidence, including seizure and, in proper cases, the delivery of objects connected with an offense.
8. When United States personnel have been tried in accordance with the provisions of this article and have been acquitted or have been convicted and are serving, or have served their sentence, or have had their sentence remitted or suspended, or have been pardoned, they may not be tried again for the same offense in the Philippines.
Nothing in this paragraph, however, shall prevent United States military authorities from trying United States personnel for any violation of rules of discipline arising from the act or omission which constituted an offense for which they were tried by Philippine authorities.
9. When United States personnel are detained, taken into custody, or prosecuted by Philippine authorities, they shall be accorded all procedural safeguards established by the law of the Philippines. At the minimum, United States personnel shall be entitled:
(a) To a prompt and speedy trial;
(b) To be informed in advance of trial of the specific charge or charges made against them and to have reasonable time to prepare a defense;
(c) To be confronted with witnesses against them and to cross examine such witnesses;
(d) To present evidence in their defense and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses;
(e) To have free and assisted legal representation of their own choice on the same basis as nationals of the Philippines;
(f) To have the services of a competent interpreter;
(g) to communicate promptly with and to be visited regularly by United States authorities, and to have such authorities present at all judicial proceedings. These proceedings shall be public unless the court, in accordance with Philippine law, excludes persons who have no role in the proceedings.
10. The confinement or detention by Philippine authorities of United States personnel shall be carried out in facilities agreed on by appropriate Philippine and United States authorities. United States personnel serving sentences in the Philippines shall have the right to visits and material assistance.
11. United States personnel shall be subject to trial only in Philippine courts of ordinary jurisdiction, and shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of Philippine military or religious courts.
C. PURPOSES OF CRIMINAL LAW Identify Wrongful Behavior
Prescribe Punishment
DE JOYA V. JAIL WARDEN OF BATANGAS CITY, 417 SCRA 636 FACTS:The accused, knowing that she does not have funds in or credit with the Solid Bank still issue a check to Flow Catapang De Tenorio in the amount of P150,000, however, the check was dishonored by the bank for ground account closed. Despite of the honor and demand made by the bank or the direct payment to Flor Catapang De Tenorio, the acused failed to do so. Tenorio filed a case against De Joya. De Joya was found guilty of the violation of BP Bilang 22; she was sentence with imprisonment of 1 year and indemnity for the offended party. After 5 years, De Joya was arrested and detained.
Contention of the Petitioner:De Joya posits that SC Administrative Circular No 12-2000 deleted the penalty of imprisonment for violation of BP Bilang 22 and allows only the imposition of fine. The petitioner argued that her detention was illegal and she must be released from the Batangas City Jail.
Contention of the People:A motion filed by the petitioner should be denied based on three grounds: (1) the decision of convicting the petitioner of violation of BP Bilang 22 is final and executor; (2) SC Circular should be applied respectively; (3) SC Circular does not amend BP Bilang 22 but encourages trial court judges to have uniform imposition of fine.
Held:The petitioner‘s motion / petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
a. Retribution
The penalty is commensurate with the gravity of the offense. b. Prevention
The State must punish the criminal to prevent or suppress the danger arising from the criminal acts of the offender.
i. Deterrence
Deter the accused from doing the same wrongful act.
General
Specific ii. Incapacitation
Impedes some right vested in the accused because of his wrongful act. iii.Rehabilitation
Restore the victim to his former capacity or dignity.
D.CONSTRUCTION / INTERPRETATION OF CRIMINAL STATUTES
LIBERALITY IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSSED PEOPLE v GATCHALIAN 104 PHIL 664 PEOPLE v SULTAN 331 SCRA 216 FACTS:Complaining witness Juditha Bautistaa was on her way home when a certain Fernando Sultan pointed an ice pick on her, announcing it was hold-up. The accused grabbed Bautista on his house and get all her jewelries of the latter and a sum of P 130.00. After taking the valuable, Sultan raped Bautista two times using intimidation.
Crime Committed: Special Complex Crime of Robbery and Rape
Contention of the People: All elements of the crime of robbery as stated by Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code were present. Likewise, on the crime of rape, the used of intimidation was sufficient to make the complainant submit herself to him against her will for fear of life and personal safety.
Contention of the Accused:For the crime of robbery, the testimony of the complaint should not be given weight and credence as no evidence was presented in the court to prove her claim. As to the rape, the requisite for or intimidation was not proven beyond reasonable doubt because consent to the sexual intercourse was given.
HELD:Fernando Sultan was found guilty of the special complex of crime of robbery with rape, however, the additional rape committed was not considered aggravating circumstance because there is no law passed providing that the additional rape/s may be considered aggravating.
RETROACTIVE APPLICATION IF FAVORABLE TO THE ACCUSSED PEOPLE v VALDEZ 304 SCRA 611
FACTS: Rolando Valdez was convicted for the complex crime of multiple murders with double frustrated murder and illegal possession of firearms which is punishable by death penalty and the prison terms of reclusion perpetua, respectively. The crime was committed even before the enactment of Section 8294 which provides that the use of unlicensed firearm in the commission of homicide or murder should be taken as aggravating circumstances and not as a separate crime.
Crime committed:Multiple murder with double frustrated murder and illegal possessions of firearms.
Contention of the State: The use of unlicensed firearms cannot be considered as special aggravating circumstances. It will only raise the penalty from four reclusion perpetua to four fold death. Since the law aggravates the crime, it shall not be applied to the accused.
Contention of the Accused:Republic Act 8294 should be applied prospectively; however, since the law is favorable to the accused, then the same shall have a retroactive application.
RULING:The court modified the penalty from death to four sentence3s of reclusion perpetua for the crime of multiple murder and reclusion temporal for double frustrated murder.
GO v DIMAGUIBA 460 SCRA 451 FACTS:Dimagiba was guilty of bouncing checks for thirteen counts and three months of imprisonment for each and indemnify P 1, 295, 000 with legal interest per annum from 1996 after the checks were dishonored by reason of ―account closed‖.
Crime committed:Violation of Bouncing Law (Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22)
Contention of the People:The Regional Trial Court invoked Vaca v. COA and Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 which allegedly required the imposition of fine only instead of imprisonment for BP Bilang 22 violations, if the accused was not recidivist or habitual delinquent. Contention of the Accused:The Petition of habeas corpus was anchored on the Ruling of Vaca and SCAC No. 12-2000, which allegedly prescribed the imposition of a fine, not imprisonment, for conviction under BP Bilang 22. Respondent sought the retroactive effect of those rulings, thereby effectively challenging the penalty imposed on him for being excessive.
RULING:Let this be remanded to MTCC of BC for the re-arrest of the respondent and the completion of his sentence.
EQUIPOSE DOCTRINE The rule which states that when the evidence of the prosecution and the defense are so evenly balanced the appreciation of such evidence calls for tilting of the scales in favor of the accused. Thus, the evidence for the prosecution must be heavier to overcome the presumption of innocence of the accused. The constitutional basis of the rule is Bill of Rights which finds expressions in Sec. 1, par. (a), Rule 115 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended
Bill of Rights, Sec. 1, par. (a)
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
Rule 115, 1985 Rules Criminal Procedure as amended RULE 115 - RIGHTS OF ACCUSED
Section 1. Rights of accused at trial. – In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the following rights:
(a) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt. (b) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
(c) To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of the judgment. The accused may, however, waive his presence at the trial pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his bail, unless his presence is specifically ordered by the court for purposes of identification. The absence of the accused without justifiable cause at the trial of which he had notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be present thereat. When an accused under custody escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be present on all subsequent trial dates until custody over him is regained. Upon motion, the accused may be allowed to defend himself in person when it
sufficiently appears to the court that he can properly protect his rights without the assistance of counsel.
(d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-examination on matters covered by direct examination. His silence shall not in any manner prejudice him.
(e) To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself.
(f) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial. Either party may utilize as part of its evidence the testimony of a witness who is deceased, out of or can not with due diligence be found in the Philippines, unavailable, or otherwise unable to testify, given in another case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter, the adverse party having the opportunity to cross-examine him.
(g) To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf.
(h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial.
(i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law.
PEOLE v DINDO 349 SCRA 492 FACTS:Crestita Lao, with daughter, Nympha, and 2 Taiwanese nationals, Hwang Yu Chin-in and Chin Fu Hwang, boarded the tricycle being driven by Sukarno Dindo. Before they could proceed, 3 men boarded the same. After a few turns, Dindo stopped in front of the cemetery and the 3 men alighted. The man wearing a black jacket drew his gun and pointed it at Nympha and Chin Fu Hwang. Soon afterward, Nypmpha heard a gunshot; she looked behind her and saw the 3 men running away towards the cemetery. Nympha alighted from the tricycle and saw her mother lying on the ground with a gunshot on the upper left eyebrow.
Dindo denied the charge against him.
HELD: In the absence of any evidence that Sukarno Dindo conspired with the assailants, conspiracy cannot be attributed against him for, in criminal cases, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish its case with that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind, with evidence which stands or falls on its merits, and which cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. Unless it discharges the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the latter need not even offer evidence in his behalf. Thus, when the guilt of the accused has not been proven with moral certainty, such as the case at bar, it is the policy of long standing that the presumption of
innocence of the accused must be favored and his exoneration be granted as a matter of right. Sukarno Dindo is hereby ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt.
PEOLE v SAYANA 405 SCRA 243 FACTS:Albert Sayana forced himself upon the daughter of his common-law wife, Cheska
Angelika de Dios, 11. Cheska recounted that appellant undressed her, laid on top of her, and made an up and down movement while he kissed her neck. She felt pain in her private part. Fear prevented Cheska from telling her mother about the incident as she had often witnessed how appellant would beat her mother.According to Cheska, appellant again violated her in the evening of October 4, 1998.
HELD:We reverse the decision of the trial court.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had sexual contact with the alleged victim. This, the prosecution failed to do in this case. While the complainant testified that appellant forced her into sexual intercourse on two occasions, the physical evidence clouds her testimony. The report of Dr. Annabel Soliman, Medico-Legal Officer of the NBI shows that there were no signs of injury in complainant‘s genitalia. In a later examinationconducted by Dr. Manuel Aves a healed superficial hymenal laceration at 12:00 position was found. Dr. Aves explained that the location of the laceration excludes sexual intercourse as possible cause. We have held in several cases that the lone uncorroborated testimony of the complainant is sufficient to warrant a conviction, provided that such is credible, natural, convincing and
consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. However, we have also held that the testimony of the complainant should not be received with precipitate credulity but with utmost caution
Albert Sayana is ACQUITTED.
VOID FOR VAGUENESS OR BREADTH DOCTRINE OF PRO REO Whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of two interpretations – one lenient to the offender and one strict to the offender – that interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the offender will be adopted.
This is in consonance with the fundamental rule that all doubts shall be construed in favor of the accused and consistent with presumption of innocence of the accused. This is peculiar only to criminal law.
STATE v METZGER 211 NEB. 593 Metzger lived in a garden-level apartment. A large window in the apartment faces a parking lot which is situated on the north side of the apartment building. Another resident while parking his car in a space directly in front of Metzger's apartment window, observed Metzger standing naked with his arms at his sides in his apartment window for a period of 5 seconds. The resident called the police and two officers arrived, testified that they observed Metzger standing in front of the window eating a bowl of cereal. They testified that Metzger was standing within a foot of the window and his nude body.
The basic issue presented to us by this appeal is whether the ordinance, as drafted, is so vague as to be unconstitutional.
We believe that it is. The ordinance in question makes it unlawful for anyone to commit any "indecent, immodest or filthy act." We know of no way in which the standards required of a criminal act can be met in those broad, general terms. There may be those few who believe persons of opposite sex holding hands in public are immodest, and certainly more who might believe that kissing in public is immodest. Such acts cannot constitute a crime. Certainly one could find many who would conclude that today's swimming attire found on many beaches or beside many pools is immodest. Yet, the fact that it is immodest does not thereby make it illegal, absent some requirement related to the health, safety, or welfare of the community. The dividing line between what is lawful and what is unlawful in terms of "indecent," "immodest," or "filthy" is simply too broad to satisfy the constitutional requirements of due process. Both lawful and unlawful acts can be embraced within such broad definitions. That cannot be permitted. One is
not able to determine in advance what is lawful and what is unlawful.
We therefore believe that § 9.52.100 of the Lincoln Municipal Code must be declared invalid. Reversed and dismissed.
ESTRADA v SANDIGANBAYAN 369 SCRA 394 WON Plunder Law is unconstitutional for being vague
No. As long as the law affords some comprehensible guide or rule that would inform those who are subject to it what conduct would render them liable to its penalties, its validity will be sustained. The amended information itself closely tracks the language of law, indicating w/ reasonable certainty the various elements of the offense w/c the petitioner is alleged to have committed.
We discern nothing in the foregoing that is vague or ambiguous that will confuse petitioner in his defense.
Petitioner however bewails the failure of the law to provide for the statutory definition of the terms ―combination‖ and ―series‖ in the key phrase ―a combination or series of overt or criminal acts. These omissions, according to the petitioner, render the Plunder Law unconstitutional for being impermissibly vague and overbroad and deny him the right to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him, hence violative of his fundamental right to due process.
A statute is not rendered uncertain and void merely because general terms are used herein, or because of the employment of terms without defining them.
A statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence most necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in its application. In such instance, the statute is repugnant to the Constitution in two (2) respects – it violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of what conduct to avoid; and, it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle.
A facial challenge is allowed to be made to vague statute and to one which is overbroad because of possible ―chilling effect‖ upon protected speech. The possible harm to society in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that the protected speech of other may be deterred and perceived grievances left to fester because of possible inhibitory effects of overly broad statutes. But in criminal law, the law cannot take chances as in the area of free speech.
HELD:PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Court holds that RA 7080 otherwise known as the Plunder Law, as amended by RA 7659, is CONSTITUTIONAL. Consequently, the petition to declare the law unconstitutional is DISMISSED for lack of merit
II. BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW A.GENERALITY OF CRIMINAL LAW
Section 11, Article VI, 1987 Constitution A senator or member of House of Representatives shall in all offenses punishable by not more than six years of imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the congress or in any committee thereof.
Article 14, New Civil code of the Philippines ―Penal Laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who or sojourn in Philippine territory subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations‖.
Republic Act 7005 An act strengthening civilian supremacy over military by returning to the civil courts the jurisdiction over certain offenses involving members of the Armed forces of the Philippines, other persons subject to military law, and the members of the Philippine National Office, repealing for the purpose of certain presidential decrees.
Article V, VFA Article V
Criminal Jurisdiction
(a) Philippine authorities shall have jurisdiction over United States personnel with respect to offenses committed within the Philippines and punishable under the law of the
Philippines.
(b) United States military authorities shall have the right to exercise within the Philippines all criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction conferred on them by the military law of the United States over United States personnel in the Philippines.
2. (a) Philippine authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over United States personnel with respect to offenses, including offenses relating to the security of the Philippines, punishable under the laws of the Philippines, but not under the laws of the United States.
(b) United States authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over United States personnel with respect to offenses, including offenses relating to the security of the United States, punishable under the laws of the United States, but not under the laws of the Philippines.
(c) For the purposes of this paragraph and paragraph 3 of this article, an offense relating to security means:
(1) treason;
(2) sabotage, espionage or violation of any law relating to national defense.
3. In cases where the right to exercise jurisdiction is concurrent, the following rules shall apply:
(a) Philippine authorities shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over all offenses committed by United States personnel, except in cases provided for in paragraphs l (b), 2 (b), and 3 (b) of this Article.
(b) United States military authorities shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over United States personnel subject to the military law of the United States in relation to:
(1) offenses solely against the property or security of the United States or offenses solely against the property or person of United States personnel; and
(2) offenses arising out of any act or omission done in performance of official duty.
(c) The authorities of either government may request the authorities of the other government to waive their primary right to exercise jurisdiction in a particular case.
(d) Recognizing the responsibility of the United States military authorities to maintain good order and discipline among their forces, Philippine authorities will, upon request by the United States, waive their primary right to exercise jurisdiction except in cases of particular importance to the Philippines. If the Government of the Philippines determines that the case is of particular importance, it shall communicate such determination to the United States authorities within twenty (20) days after the Philippine authorities receive the United States request.
(e) When the United States military commander determines that an offense charged by authorities of the Philippines against United States personnel arises out of an act or omission done in the performance of official duty, the commander will issue a certificate setting forth such determination. This certificate will be transmitted to the appropriate authorities of the Philippines and will constitute sufficient proof of performance of official duty for the purposes of paragraph 3(b)(2) of this article. In those cases where the
Government of the Philippines believes the circumstances of the case require a review of the duty certificate, United States military authorities and Philippine authorities shall consult immediately. Philippine authorities at the highest levels may also present any
information bearing on its validity. United States military authorities shall take full account of the Philippine position. Where appropriate, United States
...Article V, VFA military authorities will take disciplinary or other action against offenders in official duty cases, and notify the Government of the Philippines of the actions taken.
(f) If the government having the primary right does not exercise jurisdiction, it shall notify the authorities of the other government as soon as possible.
(g) The authorities of the Philippines and the United States shall notify each other of the disposition of all cases in which both the authorities of the Philippines and the United States have the right to exercise jurisdiction.
4. Within the scope of their legal competence, the authorities of the Philippines and the United States shall assist each other in the arrest of United States personnel in the Philippines and in handing them over to authorities who are to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with the
provisions of this article.
5. United States military authorities shall promptly notify Philippine authorities of the arrest or detention of United States personnel who are subject to Philippine primary or exclusive jurisdiction. Philippine authorities shall promptly notify United States military authorities of the arrest or detention of any United States personnel.
6. The custody of any United States personnel over whom the Philippines is to exercise
jurisdiction shall immediately reside with United States military authorities, if they so request, from the commission of the offense until completion of all judicial proceedings. United States military authorities shall, upon formal notification by the Philippine authorities and without delay, make such personnel available to those authorities in time for any investigative or judicial proceedings relating to the offense with which the person has been charged. In extraordinary cases, the Philippine Government shall present its position to the United States Government regarding custody, which the United States Government shall take into full account. In the event Philippine judicial proceedings are not completed within one year, the United States shall be relieved of any obligations under this paragraph. The one year period will not include the time necessary to appeal. Also, the one year period will not include any time during which scheduled trial
procedures are delayed because United States authorities, after timely notification by Philippine authorities to arrange for the presence of the accused, fail to do so.
7. Within the scope of their legal authority, United States and Philippine authorities shall assist each other in the carrying out of all necessary investigations into offenses and shall cooperate in providing for the attendance of witnesses and in the collection and production of evidence, including seizure and, in proper cases, the delivery of objects connected with an offense.
8. When United States personnel have been tried in accordance with the provisions of this article and have been acquitted or have been convicted and are serving, or have served their sentence, or have had their sentence remitted or suspended, or have been pardoned, they may not be tried again for the same offense in the Philippines. Nothing in this paragraph, however, shall prevent United States military authorities from trying United States personnel for any violation of rules of discipline arising from the act or omission which constituted an offense for which they were tried by Philippine authorities.
9. When United States personnel are detained, taken into custody, or prosecuted by Philippine authorities, they shall be accorded all procedural safeguards established by the law of the Philippines. At the minimum, United States personnel shall be entitled:
(a) To a prompt and speedy trial;
and to have reasonable time to prepare a defense;
(c) To be confronted with witnesses against them and to cross examine such witnesses;
(d) To present evidence in their defense and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses;
(e) To have free and assisted legal representation of their own choice on the same basis as nationals of the Philippines;
(f) To have the services of a competent interpreter;
(g) To communicate promptly with and to be visited regularly by United States authorities, and to have such authorities present at all judicial proceedings. These proceedings shall be public unless the court, in accordance with Philippine law, excludes persons who have no role in the proceedings.
10. The confinement or detention by Philippine authorities of United States personnel shall be carried out in facilities agreed on by appropriate Philippine and United States authorities. United States personnel serving sentences in the Philippines shall have the right to visits and material assistance. 11. United States personnel shall be subject to trial only in Philippine courts of ordinary jurisdiction, and shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of Philippine military or religious courts.
US v SWEET, 1 Phil. 8 FACTS:Philip K. Sweet was employed by the United States military who committed an offense against a POW. His case is filed with the Court of First Instance, who is given orginial jurisdiction in all criminal cases for which a penalty of more than six months is imposed. He is now contending that the courts are without jurisdiction because he was acting in the course of his duty.
Crime Committed:Offense by a military person upon a prisoner of war. Lack of jurisdiction to try the case.
Contention of the People:In the United States Philippines Commission Act No. 136, Section 56 (6), CFI‘s are given original jurisdiction in all criminal cases in which penalty of more than 6 months imprisonment or a fine exceeding S100 may be imposed because it violated the general penal provision.The Spanish Military Code, which exempts a military person from being tried before civil tribunals for offenses against POW‘s, in no longer in force and are not applicable to the United States Army.The fact that the act was done to execute his military superior‘s order and in line of duty, even if true, does not affect the right of the court to take jurisdiction but may only help by way of defense during the trial.
Contention of the Accused:The appellant claims that Court of First Instance in Manila has no jurisdiction over this case since the offense was committed by a military person to a prisoner of war and is not an offense under the revised Penal Code. He also stated that according to the Spanish Military Code, military character sustained by the person charged at the time of its commission exempts him from the ordinary jurisdiction of the civil courts, and lastly, that the fact that the alleged offense was done in obedience to the order of military superiors.
RULING:The Court of the First Instance has the jurisdiction over the case against Philippi K. Sweet even though he is a military person.
SCHNECKENBURGER v MORAN 63 PHIL 249 FACTS:Schneckenburger, who is an honorary in consul in Uruguay at Manila, was subsequently charged in CFI – Manila with the crime of falsification of a private document. He objected to this saying that under the US and Philippine Constitution, the CFI has no jurisdiction to try him. After this objection was overruled, he filed a petition for a writ of prohibition to prevent the CFI from taking cognizance of the criminal action filed against him. Aside from this, he contends that original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors and consul is conferred exclusively upon Supreme Court of the Philippines.
Crime committed:Falsification of a private document by an accredited consul in a country he works and resides.
Contention of the People: That the case does not involved the question of diplomatic immunity. It is well established that a consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunity of an ambassador or minister but is subject to the laws and regulations of the country to which he is accredited. The question raise is about jurisdiction and contented that:
There is no merit that Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America governs the case.
It remains to consider whether the original jurisdiction thus conferred upon this court by constitution over cases affecting Ambassadors either public ministers or consuls are exclusive.
The laws in force in the Philippines prior to the inauguration of the commentaries conferred upon the CFI original jurisdiction in all criminal cases to which a penalty of more than six months imprisonment or a fine exceeding S100 might be imposed such jurisdiction includes the trial of the criminal action brought against the consul for, as it was already indicated that consuls are not entitle to privileges and immunity. Contention of the Accused:Both the Constitution of the United States of America and the Philippines has no jurisdiction to try him.
HELD:The CFI – Manila has no jurisdiction to try the petitioner.
LIANG v PEOPLE 232 SCRA 652 FACTS:Petitioner is an economist working with the Asian Development Bank (ADB). He was charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong City with two counts of grave oral defamation.
Crime Committed:Two counts of grave oral defamation.
Contention of the Petitioner:Petitioner believes that his is covered by immunity under the agreement and that no preliminary investigation was held before the criminal cases were filed in court.
Contention of the Respondents:The DFA‘s determination that a certain person is covered by
immunity is only preliminary which has no binding effect in courts. Under Sec. 45 of the agreement, the immunity mentioned is not absolute but subject to the exception that the acts were done in official capacity. Suffice is to say that preliminary investigation is not a matter of right in cases cognizable by the Metropolitan Trial Court.
HELD:Petition is denied.
B.PROSPECTIVITY OF CRIMINAL LAW
Article 21, RPC Penalties that may be imposed- no felony shall be punishable by a penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission.
Article 22, RPC Retroactive effect of Penal Laws- Penal Laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws, a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same
Article 62, RPC
Effect of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating circumstances and of habitual
delinquency. — Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken
into account for the purpose of diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity with the following rules:
1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially punishable by law or which are included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty.
2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such a degree that it must of necessity accompany the commission thereof.
