Criminal Law, defined.
Criminal l aw is t h at branch or division of l aw whi ch defines crimes , tr e at s of their nature , and provides for thei r puni shment . (12
129)
Crime, defined.
Crime is an act committed or omitte d in violation of a public law forbidding or c om m an d i n g it. (I Law Dictionary, Rawle's Third Revision, 729)
Sources of Philippine Criminal Law.
1. The Revised P e n al Code (Act No. 3815) and its amend-m e n ts .
2. Special P e n al Law s p as s e d by th e Philippine Commission, Philippine Assembly, Philippine Legislature, National As-sembly, th e Congress of t h e Philippines , and the Batas an g
3. Pena l Presidential Decree s i ssue d during Martial Law.
No common law crimes in the Philippines.
The so-called common l aw crimes, k n own i n the Uni ted States and England as th e body of principles, u s a g e s and rules of action, which do not rest for their authority upon any express and positive declaration of the will of th e legislature, are not recognized in this country. U n l e s s there be a particular provision in the penal code or special penal law that defines and puni shes the act, even if it be socially or morally wrong, no criminal liability is incurred by its com-mission. (See U.S. vs . Taylor, 28 Phil. 599, 604)
Court decisions are not sources of criminal law, because they merely explain the m e ani ng of, and apply, the law as enacted by the legislative branch of the government.
Power to define and punish crimes.
The State has the authority, under its police power, to define and punish crimes and to lay down the rules of criminal procedure. States, as a part of their police power, have a large m e asur e of discretion in creating and criminal offenses. (People vs. Santiago, 43 Phil. 120, 124)
The right of prosecution and p u n i s h m e nt for a crime is one of the attributes tha t by a natural law belongs to th e sovereign power instinctively charged by th e common will of the members of society to look after, guard and defend the i nterest s of the community, the individual and social rights and the liberties of every citizen and the guaranty of the exercise of hi s rights. (U.S. vs. Pablo, 35 Phil. 94, 100)
Limitations on the power of the lawmaking body to enact
penal legislation.
The Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution imposes the following limitations :
No post facto l aw or bill of attainder shall be enacted .
(Art. Sec. 22)
2. No person shall be he l d to a n s w e r for a criminal offense withou t due process of law. (Art. Sec.
The first limitation prohibits th e p a s s a ge of retroactive l aws which are prejudicial to the accused.
An ex post facto l a w is one which:
m a k e s criminal an act done before the p as s age of the law and whi ch w a s innocen t w h e n done, and p u n i s h es such an act;
(2) aggravate s a crime, or m a k e s it greate r t h a n it w a s , w h e n committed ;
changes the p u n i s h m e nt and inflicts a greater puni shmen t t h a n the law anne xe d to th e crime w h e n committed; (4) alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction
upon less or different te sti m ony t h a n the law required at the ti m e of the commission of the offense;
(5) a s s u m e s to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect i m p os es penalty or deprivation of a right for something whi ch w h e n done w a s lawful; and
(6) deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection to whi c h he h a s become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of am ne s ty. (In re: Kay Vi l l egas Kami, Inc., 35 SCRA 429, 431)
Congress is also prohibited from p a s s i ng an act which would inflict p u n i s h m e n t wi th ou t judicial trial, for t h at would constitute a bill of attainder.
A 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. (People vs. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382, 395)
Example:
Congress passes a law which authorizes the arrest and imprisonment of communists without the benefit of a judicial trial.
To give a law retroactive application to the prejudice of the
accused is to make it an ex post facto law.
The penalty of mayor medium, or eight years and
one day to ten years, imposed by Presidential Decree No. 818, applies only to swindling by means of issuing bouncing checks committed on or after October 22, 1985. That increased penalty does not apply to estafa committed on October 16, 1974 because it would make the decree an ex post facto law. Its retroactive application is prohibited by Articles 21 and 22 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 12, Article IV (now Sec. 22, Art. of the 1987 Constitution). (People vs. Villaraza, 81 SCRA 95, 97)
The second limitation requires that criminal laws m ust be of general application and m u s t clearly define the acts and omissions punished as crimes.
Constitutional rights of the accused.
Article III, Bill of Rights, of the 1987 Constitution provides for the following rights:
All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administra-tive bodies. (Sec. 16)
2. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. (Sec.
3. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by wh e n evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailabl e by sufficient sureties, or be release d on recognizance as m ay be provided by law.
The right to bail shall not be impaired even w h e n the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended .
Excessive bail shall not be required. (Sec. 13)
4. In all criminal prosecutions, th e accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy th e right to be heard by h i m s e lf and counsel, to be informed of the nature and c aus e of th e accusation agai nst him, to h a ve speedy, impartial, and public trial, to m e et the w i t n e s s e s face to face, and to h a v e compulsory process to secure th e atte ndanc e of w i t n e s s e s and th e production of evidence in h i s behalf. However , after arraignment, trial m a y proceed n otwi th s tan d i n g th e absence of the accused provided t h at he h a s b e e n duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. (Sec.
5. No pe r son s h a l l be c om pe l l e d to be a w i t n e s s a g a i n s t himself. (Sec. 17)
Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall h a v e th e right to be informed of his right to remai n si l ent and to h a v e competent and independent counsel preferably of h i s o w n choice.
If th e person cannot afford th e services of counsel, he m u s t be provided w i t h one.
Th e se rights cannot be waived except in writing and in th e presence of counsel. (Sec.
No torture, force, threat, intimidation, or any other m e a n s which vitiate the free will shall be used agains t hi m. Secret de te nti on places , solitary,
or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. (Sec
An y confession or adm i ssi on obtained in violation of thi s or Section hereof shall be inadmissibl e in evidence agai n s t him. (Sec.
6. Exc e ssi ve fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or i n h u m a n p u n i s h m e n t inflicted. (Sec.
7. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of p u n i s h m e nt for t h e s a m e offense. If an act is puni s he d by a l aw and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for t h e s a m e act. (Sec. 21)
8. Free ac c e ss to t h e courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assi stanc e shal l not be denied to any person by reason of poverty. (Sec.
Statutory rights of the accused.
Section 1, Rule 115, of th e Revised Rul es on Criminal Procedure provides t h a t i n all c r i m i nal p r os e c u ti on s, t h e accuse d shal l be entitled:
1. To be p r e s u m e d i n n o c e n t u n til t h e contrary is proved beyond reasonabl e doubt.
2. To be informed of th e nature and caus e of th e accusation agai nst hi m.
3. To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of th e x x x
4. To testi fy as a w i t n e s s in h is own b e h alf but subject to c r o s s e x a m i n a t i o n on m a t t e r s covered by direct exami -nati on . H i s si l e nc e s h all not i n any m a n n e r prejudice hi m .
To be exempt from being compelled to be a wi tness agains t himself.
6. To confront and cross-examine the wi tnesse s against him at the x x x
To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of w i t n e s s e s an d production of oth e r e vi de nce in h i s behalf.
8. To have a speedy, impartial and public trial.
To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law.
Rights of the accused which may be waived and rights which
may not be waived.
A right whi ch m a y be wai ve d is th e right of the accused to confrontation and cross-examination. A right which m ay not be waived is the right of the accused to be informed of th e nature and cause of the accusation agai nst
The reason or principle underlying the difference betwee n rights which may be waived and rights which m a y not be waived is that those rights which m ay be waived are personal, whi l e those rights whi ch may not be waived involve public i nte r e st whi ch m a y be affected. (2
Rules of Court, 1952 Edition, 748)
Characteristics of criminal law.
Criminal l aw h a s three m a i n characteristics: (1) general, (2) territorial, and (3) prospective.
I . G E N E R A L , i n t h a t c r i m i n al l a w i s b i n d i ng on all p e r s o n s w h o live or sojour n in P h i l i p p i n e territory . (Art. 14, n e w Civi l Code)
In a case whe re th e accused contended t h a t being an American citizen, he cannot be prosecuted for, m u c h l e s s convicted of, the crime of illegal possession of firearms, be c aus e it is a constitutional right of the citizens of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s of America "to k e e p and bear
without an y ne ed of applyin g and securi n g a gove r nm e nt license therefor, the Court of Appeal s held:
"The P h i l i p p i n e s i s a s o v e r e i g n s t a t e w i t h t h e obligation and t h e right of every gove r n m e n t to uphold its l a ws and m a i n t a in order wi th i n i ts domain, and w i th the general jurisdictio n to p u n i s h pe r sons for offenses committed withi n its territory, regardless of the nationality
of the offender. and Yap, Public International Law, p. No foreigner enjoys in t h is country extra-territoria l right to be exempted from its l aws and jurisdiction, with the exception of h e a d s of s tate s and diplomatic representative s who, by virtue of the customary l aw of nations , are not subject to th e Philippin e territorial jurisdiction." (People vs. Galacgac , 54 O.G. 1027)
As a general rule, the jurisdiction of the civil courts is not
affected by the military character of the accused.
U.S. vs. Sweet (1 Phil. 18)
Facts: Swe et was an employee of the U.S. Army in the
Philippines. He assaulted a prisoner of war for which he was charged with the crime of physical injuries. Sweet interposed the defense that the fact that he was an employee of the U.S. military authorities deprived the court of the jurisdiction to try and punish
Held: The case is open to the application of the general principle
that the jurisdiction of the civil tribunals is unaffected by the military or other special character of the person brought before them for unless controlled by express legislation to the contrary.
Civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with general
courts-martial over soldiers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
Civil courts hav e jurisdiction over murder case s committed by persons subject to militar y law. The civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction wi th the military courts or general courts-martial over
soldiers of the Armed Forces of th e Philippines.
Civil courts have jurisdiction over the offense of malversation (Art. 217) committed by an army finance officer. (People vs. Livara, G.R. No. April 20, 1954)
Even in times war, the civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction
with the military courts or general courts-martial over soldiers of the Philippine Army, provided that in the place of the commission of the crime no hostilities are in progress and civil courts are functioning. (Valdez vs. Lucero, 76 Phil. 356)
The Revised Penal Code or other penal law is not applicable
when the military court takes cognizance of the case.
When the military court takes cognizance of the case involving a person subject to military law, the Articles of War apply, not the Revised Penal Code or other penal law.
"By their acceptance of appointments as officers in the Area from the General Headquarter s of the 6th Military District, the who were civilians at the outbreak of the war, became members of the Philippine Army amenabl e to the Articles of War." (Ruffy, et al. vs. Chief of Staff, et 75 Phil. 875)
Jurisdiction of military courts.
Section 1 of Rep. Act No. 7055 reads in full:
"Section Members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and other persons subject to military law, including members of the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical U n i t s , who commit crimes or offenses penalized under the Revised Penal Code, other special penal laws , or local gove r nm e nt ordinances, regardless of whe the r or not civilians are co-accused, victims, or offended parties which m a y be natural or juridical persons, shall be tried by the proper civil court, except w h e n th e offense, as determined before arraignment by th e civil court, is service-connected, in which case the offense shal l be tried by court-martial : Provided, That th e President of the Philippine s m ay , in the interest of justice, order or direct at any ti m e before arraignment that any
such crimes or offenses be tried by th e proper civil courts. "As u s e d in t h i s S e c t i o n , s e r v i c e - c o n n e c t e d c r i m e s or offenses shall be limite d to thos e in Articles 54 to 70, Articles 72 to 92, and Articles 95 to 97 of Commonweal th Act No. 408, as amended.
"In i mposi ng th e penalty for such crimes or offenses, the court-martial m ay tak e into consideration the penalty prescribed therefor in the Revised Penal Code, other special laws, or local government ordinances."
The second paragraph of the above provision explicitly specifies w h at are considered "service-connected crimes or offenses" unde r Commonwealth Act No. 4 08 (CA 408), as amended, also known as the
Articles of War, to wit: those unde r Articles 54 to 70, Articles 72 to 92, and Article s 95 to 97 of Com m on we al t h Act No. 408, as amended.
Rep. Act No. 7055 did not divest the military courts of jurisdiction to try case s involving violations of Articles 54 to 70, Articles 72 to 92 and Articles 95 to 97 of th e Articles of War as t h e se are considered "service-connected crimes or offenses." In fact, it m an d ates tha t thes e shall be tried by the court-martial.
In vi ew of th e clear m a n d a t e of Rep. Act No. 7055, the Regional Trial Court cannot divest th e Genera l Court-Martial of its jurisdic-tion over t h ose charged w i t h violajurisdic-tions of Articles 63 (Disrespect Toward the Pr e si de nt etc.), 64 (Disrespect Toward Superior Officer), 67 (Mutiny or Sedition), 96 (Conduct Unbe c om i ng an Officer and a Ge ntl e m an) and 97 (General Article) of the Articles of War, as these are specifically included as "service-connected offenses or crimes" unde r Se c ti on 1 thereof. P u r s u a n t to t h e s a m e provision of law, th e military courts h a ve jurisdiction over t h e s e crimes or offenses. (Naval e s, et. al. vs. Abaya, et. G.R. Nos . 162318-162341, Oct. 25, 2004)
The prosecution of an accused before a court-martial is a bar
to another prosecution of the accused for the same offense.
A court-martial is a court, and th e prosecution of an accused before it is a criminal , not an administrativ e case, and therefore it would be, under certain conditions, a bar to another prosecution of the accused for th e s a m e offense, because th e latte r would place the accused in double jeopardy. (Marcos and Concordia vs. Chief of Staff, AFP, 89 Phil. 246)
Offenders accused of war crimes are
by military
com-mission.
The petitioner is a Filipino citizen though of a Japanese father, and associating himsel f wi th Jap a n in the war against the United State s of America and the Philippines , committed atrocities against unarmed and non-combatant Filipino civilians and looted Filipino property. He is, indeed, a war criminal subject to the jurisdiction of the military commission. (Cantos vs. Styer, 76 Phil. 748)
Executive Order No. 68 of the Presiden t of the Philippines establishing a National War Crimes Office and prescribing rules
and regulations governing the trial of war criminal s is valid and constitutional , th e P r e s i de nt of the P h i l i p p i n es h avi n g acted i n conformity with the generally accepted principles and policies of international law which are part of our Constitution. The promulgation of said executive order is an exercise by the Presiden t of his powers as Commander-in-Chief of all our armed forces.
"War is not ended simply because hostilities have ceased. After cessation of armed hostilities, incidents of war m a y remain pending which should be disposed of as in time of A military commission "has jurisdiction so long as a technical state of war continues." This includes the period of an armistice, or military occupation, up to the effective date of a treaty of peace. (Kuroda vs. Jalandoni, et 83 Phil. 171; Cowles, Trial of War Criminals by Military Tribunals, American Bar Association, J u n e , 1944)
Exceptions to the general application of Criminal Law.
There are case s whe re our Criminal Law does not apply eve n if the crime is committed by a person residing or sojourning in the Philippines. These constitute the exceptions.
The opening sentenc e of Article 2 of th e Revised Penal Code says that the provisions of thi s Code shall be enforced wi thin th e Philippine Archipelago, "except as provided in th e treaties and laws
of preferential
Article 14 of th e n e w Civil Code provides t h at penal l a w s and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in Philippine territory, subject to the principles public international law and to treaty stipulations.
Treaties or treaty stipulations.
An exampl e of a treaty or treaty stipulation , as an exception to the general application of our criminal law, is th e B a s e s Agr e e m e nt entered into by and b e t w e e n th e Republic of the Philippines and the Unite d S tate s of Americ a on March 14, 1947 (which expired on 16 September 1991), stipulating t h a t Philippines consents t h at the Uni ted State s hav e th e right to exercise jurisdiction over the fol-lowing offenses:
(a) Any offense committed by any person wi th i n any base, except where th e offender and the offended party are both
Philippine citizens (not m e m be r s of the armed forces of the U n i t e d S t a t e s on active duty) or th e offense is agains t the security of th e Philippines;
(b) Any offense committed outside the bases by any membe r of the armed forces of th e Un i te d State s in which the offended party is also a m e m b e r of t h e armed forces of the Uni ted State s; and
(c) An y offense committed outside th e bases by any member of t h e arme d forces of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s agai nst the security
t h e U n i t e d States."
Unde r the Agreemen t be twe en th e Un i te d State s of America and the Republic of t h e Phi l i ppi nes Regarding t h e Tr e atm e nt of Uni ted S t a t e s Arme d Forces Vi s i ti n g t h e Philippine s whi ch w a s signed on 10 February 1998 Vi s i ti ng Forces Accord"), the Philippines agreed that:
(a) US military authorities shall h a v e the right to exercise wi th i n t h e Phi l i ppi nes all criminal and disciplinary juris-diction conferred on t h e m by th e military l aw of the US over US personnel i n RP;
(b) US a u t h o r i t i e s e xe r c i se e x c l u s i v e juri sdi cti on over U S p e r s o n n e l w i t h r e s p e c t to offe nse s, i n c l u d i ng offenses relatin g to t h e security of th e US punishable unde r the l aw of t h e U S , but not under th e l aws of RP;
(c) US military authoritie s shall have the primary right to e xe r c i se ju r i s d i c ti on over U S pe r sonnel subject to th e military l aw of th e US in relation to: (1) offenses solely a g a i n s t t h e property or securi t y of th e US or offenses solely a g a i n st t h e property or person of US personnel; and (2) offenses arising out of any act or omission done in performance of official duty.
Law of preferential application.
Example of a law of preferential application.
Rep. Act No. 75 may be considered a law of preferential application in favor of diplomatic representative s and their domestic servants.
It is a law to penalize acts which would impair the proper observance by the Republic and inhabitants of the Philippines of the immunities, rights, and privileges of duly accredited foreign diplomatic r e pr e se ntati ves in th e Philippines. Its pertinent provisions are:
"SEC. 4. Any writ or process issued out or prosecuted by any person in any court of the Republic of the Philippines, or by any judge or justice, whereby the person of any ambassador or public minister of any foreign State, authorized and received as such by the President , or any domestic or domestic servant of any such ambassador or minister is arrested or imprisoned, or his goods or chattels are distrained, seized or attached, shall be deemed and every person by wh om the sam e is obtained or prosecuted, wh e th e r as party or as attorney, and every officer concerned in executing it, shall, upon conviction, be punishe d by imprisonment for not more t h a n three years and a fine of not exceeding two hundre d pesos in th e discretion of the court."
Exceptions:
"SEC. 5. The provisions of Section four hereof shall not apply to an y case whe r e th e person agai ns t whom the process is issued is a citizen or inhabitant of the Republic of the
in the service of an ambassador or a public minister, and th e process is founded upon a debt contracted before he entered upon such service; nor shal l th e said section apply to any case where the person agai ns t w h o m the process is i ssue d is a domestic servant of an ambassador or a public minister, u n l e ss the n a m e of the servant h a s, before th e i s s u i n g thereof, been registered in the De par tm e nt of Foreign Affairs, and transmitted by th e Secretary of Foreign Affairs to th e Chief of Police of the City of Manila, who shall upon receipt thereof post the s a m e in some public place in his office. All persons shall have resort to the list of n a m e s so posted in th e office of th e Chief of Police, and m a y tak e copies wi thout fee."
Not applicable when the foreign country adversely affected does not provide similar protection to our diplomatic representa-tives.
The provisions of thi s Act shall be applicable only in case s where th e country of the diplomatic or consular
repre-s e ntati ve adverrepre-sely affected h a repre-s provided for repre-similar protection to duly accredited diplomati c or consular representative s of the Republic of t h e Philippines by prescribing like or similar penal-ti es for like or similar offenses he r e in
Persons exempt from the operation of our criminal laws by
virtue of the principles of public international law.
The following are not subject to the operation of our criminal laws:
Sovereign s and other chiefs of state .
(2) Am bassador s , m i n i s te r s plenipotentiary, mi ni ster s resi-dent, and charge s d'affaires.
It is a w e l l - e s t a b l i s h ed pri nci pl e of i n t e r n a t i o n a l l aw t h a t diplomatic representati ves , s u ch as am bassador s or public ministers and t h e i r official r e t i n u e , p o s s e s s i m m u n i t y from t h e c r i m i nal jurisdiction of the country of their sojourn and cannot be sued, arrested or puni she d by th e l a w of t h a t country. (II Hyde , International Law, 2nd 1266)
A consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunities of
an ambassador or minister.
It is well-settled t h at a consul is not entitled to the privileges and i m m u n i t i e s of an a m b a s s a d o r or m i n i s t e r , but is subject to the l a w s and regulations of the country to which he is accredited.
vs . Moran, 63 Phil. 250)
In the absenc e of a treaty to the contrary, a consul is not exempt from criminal prosecution for violations of the laws of the country where he resides.
Consuls, vice-consuls and other commercial representatives of foreign nations do not posses s the s tatu s of, and cannot claim the privileges and i m m uni ti es accorded to ambassadors and ministers. (Wheaton, International Law, Sec. 249)
II. TERRITORIAL, in t h at criminal l a w s undertak e to punish crimes committed within Philippine territory.
The principle of territoriality m e a n s that as a rule, penal laws of the Philippines are enforceable only within its territory.
Extent of Philippine territory for purposes of criminal law.
Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the provisions of said code shall be enforced within t h e Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior water s and maritime zone.
Article I of the 1987 Constitution provides that the national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Phi l i ppi nes h a s sove r e i gnt y or jurisdiction, consi sti ng of i t s terrestrial, fluvial , and aerial domains , including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, th e insular she l ve s, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between , and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.
Exceptions to the territorial application of criminal law.
The s a m e Article 2 of the Revised P e n al Code provides t h at its provisions shall be enforced outsi d e of t h e jurisdiction of t h e Philippines agai nst those who:
1. Should commit an offense whi l e on a Philippine shi p or airship;
2. Should forge or counterfeit an y coin or currency note of the Philippines or obligations and securities i ssued by th e Government of th e Philippines;
Should be liable for acts connected w i t h the introduction i n to t h e P h i l i p p i n e s o f t h e o b l i g a t i o n s and s e c u r i t i e s mentioned i n t h e preceding number ;
4. While bein g public officers or em pl oyees, should commit an offense in t h e exercise of thei r functions; or
Should commit any of t h e crimes agai ns t national security and th e l aw of nati ons, defined in Title One of Book Two of the Revised P e n al Code.
III. P R O S P E C T I V E , i n t h a t a p e n a l l a w c a n n ot m a k e an act punishable in a m a n n e r in whi c h it w a s not punishable w h e n committed. As provided in Article 366 of the Revised Penal Code, crimes are puni she d under the l a ws in force at th e time of their commission.
Exceptions to the prospective application of criminal laws.
Whe ne ver a n ew s tatu t e deal i ng w i t h crime e stabl i shes con-ditions more lenient or favorable to th e accused, it can be given a retroactive effect.
Bu t t h i s exception h a s no application:
Where th e n e w l aw is expressly m ade inapplicable to pend-ing actions or e xi s ti ng c a u s e s of action. (Tavera vs. Valdez, 1 Phil. 4 6 3 , 470-471)
2. Wher e the offender is a habi tual criminal under Rule 5, Article 6 2 , Revise d P e n al Code. (Art. 22 , RPC)
Different effects of repeal of penal law.
1. If t h e repea l m a k e s t h e penalty lighter in t h e n e w law, t h e n e w l aw s h al l be applied, e xc e pt w h e n th e offender is a h ab i t u a l d e l i n q u e n t or w h e n t h e n e w l aw is m ade n ot appl i c able to p e n d i n g acti on or e x i s t i n g c a u s e s of action.
2. If the n e w l aw i m p os e s a heavier penalty, the law in force at t h e t i m e of t h e c o m m i s s i on of t h e offense s h a l l be applied.
3. If t h e n e w l aw totally repeals th e e xi sti ng law so t h at the act whi c h w a s penalized under the old law is no longer punishable, the crime is obliterated.
When the repeal is absolute the offense ceases to be
crimi-People vs.
(61 Phil. 225)
Facts: The accused was prosecuted for and convicted of a violation
of an ordinance. While the case was pending appeal, the ordinance was repealed by eliminating the section under which the accused was being prosecuted.
Ruling: The repeal is absolute. Where the repeal is absolute, and not a or repeal by implication, the ceases to
But repeal of a penal law by its reenactment, even without a saving clause, would not destroy criminal liability. (U.S. vs. Cuna, 12 Phil. 241)
When the new law and the old law penalize the same offense,
the offender can be tried under the old law.
U.S. vs. Cuna (12 Phil. 241)
Facts: The accused was charged with selling opium in violation
of Act No. 1461 of the Philippine Commission. During the pendency of the case, Act No. 1761 took effect repealing the former law, but both Act No. 1461 and Act No. 1761 penalize offenses against the opium laws.
Ruling: Where an Act of the Legislature which penalizes an
of-fense repeals a former Act which penalized the same ofof-fense, such repeal does not have the effect of thereafter depriving the courts of jurisdiction to try, convict, and sentence offenders charged with violations of the old law prior to its repeal.
The penalty prescribed by Act N o. 1761 is not more favorable to the accused t h an t h at prescribe d in Act N o. 1461 , the penalty in both Acts being th e s am e .
When the repealing law fails to penalize the offense under
the old law, the accused cannot be convicted under the new
law.
People vs. Sindiong and Pastor (77 Phil. 1000)
Facts: The accused was prosecuted for neglecting to make a return
of the sales of newspapers and magazines within the time prescribed by certain sections of the Revised Administrative Code. Said sections of the Revised Administrative Code were repealed by the National Internal Revenue Code which does not require the making of return of sales of newspapers and magazines.
Ruling: The court loses jurisdiction where the repealing law
the old law. The accused, charged with violations of the old law prior to the repeal, cannot be legally prosecuted after such repeal.
The provisions of said sections of the Revised Administrative Code were not reenacted, even substantially, in the National Internal Revenue Code.
A person erroneously accused and convicted under a repealed
statute may be punished under the repealing statute.
The accused w a s charged w i t h h avi n g failed to pay th e salary of Cabasare s w h o m he employed as m as te r fisherman in h is motor launch from J u n e 26 to October 12, 1952. He w a s convicted under Com. Act No. 3 0 3 , whi c h w a s repeale d by Rep. Act No. 602, approved on April 16, 1951 , and be c ame effective 120 days thereafter. The subject-matter of Com. Act No. 3 03 is entirely covered by Rep. Act No. 60 2 w i t h whi c h i ts provisions are inconsistent. It w a s held that the fact t h at th e offender w a s erroneousl y accused and convicted under a s tatu t e whi c h h a d already be e n repealed and therefore no longer existed at th e ti me the act complained of w a s committed does not prevent conviction unde r t h e repealin g s t a t u te whi ch puni she s the s a m e act, provided t h e accused h a d an opportunity to defend himself agai nst th e charge brought agai n s t hi m. (People vs. Bae sa, C.A., 56 O.G. 5466)
A new law which omits anything contained in the old law
dealing on the same subject, operates as a repeal of anything
not so included in the amendatory act.
T h e A g r i c u l t u r a l L a n d R e f o r m C o d e s u p e r s e d e d t h e Agricultural T e n a n c y Law (excep t as qualified in S e c ti on s 4 and 35 of t h e Code). T h e Code i n s t i t u t e d t h e l e a s e h o l d s y s t e m and abol i shed s h a r e t e n a n c y subject to c e r t ai n condi ti ons indicated i n Se c ti on 4 thereof. It is significant t h a t Se c ti on 39 is not reproduced in t h e Agri cul tura l Land Reform Code w h o s e Se c ti on 172 repeal s "all l a w s or part of an y l aw i n c on s i s t e n t with" i ts provisions. Under the l e as e h ol d s y s t e m , t h e prohibition a g a i n s t pr e -thr e shi n g h a s no more etre b e c a u s e t h e l e s s e e is obligate d to pay a fixed
rental as prescribe d i n Se c ti on 34 of th e Agricultural Land Reform Code, or t h e Code of Agr ar i a n Reforms, as r e d e s i gn ate d in R.A. No. 6 3 8 9 w h i c h took effect on S e p t e m b e r 10, 1971 . Thus , the legal m axi m , cessante ratione cessat ipsa lex (the reason for the law
ceasi ng, t h e l aw i ts e l f also c e as e s ) , applies to t h i s case. (People vs. A l m u e te , 69 SCRA 410)
Self-repealing law.
The anomalous act attributed to Pedro de Reyes as described in the information is undoubtedly a violation of Republic Act No. 650 being a "material misrepresentation in any document required" by said Act "or the rules and regulations issued thereunder" and was committed while said Act w a s in force. It w as punishabl e under Section 18 of said Act wit h fine or imprisonment, or both, and with forfeiture of the goods or commoditie s imported in violation thereof. (Sec. 18, R.A. No. 650) But since Rep. Act No. 650 expired by its own limitatio n on Ju n e 30, 1953, the forfeiture therein provided could no longer be subsequently enforced. And, as correctly state d by the Undersecretary of Justice in his Opinion No. 138, dated July
"the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs to proceed wi th the forfeiture of goods and commodities imported in violation of the Import Control Law w a s lost and t h at all proceedings of forfeiture, as well as criminal actions pendi n g on J u n e 30, 1953, abated wi th the expiration of Republic Act No. 650."
The falsification or misrepresentation allegedly committed on the import license could no longer be a basis for the penalty of forfeiture at the time of the releas e of goods. Where an act expires by its own limitation, the effect is the sam e as though it had been repealed at the tim e of its expiration; and it is a recognize d rule in this jurisdiction that the repeal of a law carries w i t h it th e deprivation of the courts of jurisdiction to try, convict and s e n t e n c e persons charged w i t h violation of the old law prior to the repeal. (People vs. Jacinto, C.A., 54 O.G. 7587)
Construction of penal laws.
Penal l a w s are strictly construed agai ns t the Government and liberally in favor of th e accused. (U.S. vs. Abad Santos, 36 Phil. 243; People vs. Yu Hai, 99 Phil. 728) The rule t h at penal s t a t u t e s should be strictly construed agai nst th e Stat e m a y be invoke d only whe re the law i s ambiguous and ther e is doubt as to its interpretation. Where the law is clear and unambi guous, ther e is no room for the applica-tion of the rule. (People vs. Gatchalian , 104 Phil. 664) 2. In the construction or interpretation of th e provisions of
because it w a s approved by th e Philippine Legislature in its S p a n i sh text. (People vs. Manaba, 58 Phil. 665 , 668)
People vs. Garcia (94 Phil. 814, 815)
Facts: Accused Garcia was prosecuted for having sold tickets for
"Have" races of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes, in violation of Act 4130, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 301, which penalizes any person who, without being a duly authorized agent of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes, sold tickets of said corporation. The tickets sold by the accused were different from, and not, the tickets issued by said corporation. The law relied upon does not include tickets for Sweepstakes races.
Held: The accused must be acquitted, the act imputed to him not
being punished by Act 4130, as amended.
N o p e r s on s h ou ld b e b r o u g h t w i t h i n t h e t e r m s of criminal s t a t u t e s w h o i s n ot cl earl y w i t h i n t h e m , nor shoul d an y act b e pronounced criminal whi c h is not clearly m ade so by th e statute . (U.S. vs. Abad Santos , 36 Phil. 2 4 3, 246)
People vs. Mangulabnan (99 Phil. 992, 998)
Facts: During the robbery in a dwelling house, one of the culprits
fired his gun upward in the ceiling, not knowing that there was a person in the ceiling of the house. The owner of the house who was up in the ceiling was hit by the slug that passed through it and was killed.
Art. 294, par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code provides, according to its English text, that the crime is robbery with homicide "when by reason or on occasion of the robbery the crime of homicide shall have been committed."
The Spanish text of the same provision reads, as follows: "Cuando con o con ocasion del robo homicidio."
Held: In view of the Spanish text which must prevail, the crime
committed is robbery with homicide, even if the homicide supervened by mere accident.
While the English text of Art. 294 , par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code s e e m s to convey th e m e a n i n g t h at the homicide should be
oOo
-intentionally committed, the Spanish text m e an s that it is sufficient that the homicide shall have resulted, eve n if by mere accident.
Other cases of incorrect translation of the Spanish text into
the English text.
1. "sosteniendo combate" into in war" in Art. 135. (People vs. 100 Phil. 90, 95-96)
2. privacion de into "imprisonment" in Art. 157. (People vs. Abilong, 82 Phil. 172, 174)
delito" into crime" in th e headnote of Art. 160. (People vs. Yabut, 58 Phil. 499, 504)
4. "semilla into "cereal" in Art. 303. (People vs. Mesi as , 65 Phil. 267, 268)
5. "filed" in th e third paragraph of Art. 3 44 whi ch is not found in th e S p an i s h text. (People vs. Manaba, 58 Phil. 665, 668)
(Act No.
as amended)
AN ACT REVISING THE PENAL CODE
AND OTHER PENAL LAWS
Be it enacted by th e S e n a t e and H ou se of Representati ve s of the Philippine s in Legislatur e asse m bl e d and by the authority of th e sam e .
PRELIMINARY ARTICLE - This law shall be known T h e Revised P e n al Code."
BOOK ONE
General Provisions Regarding the Date of
En-forcement and the Application of the Provisions of
this Code, and Regarding the Offenses, the Persons
Liable and the Penalties
Preliminary Title
DATE OF
AND APPLICATION
OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE
History of the Revised Penal Code.
This Code is called "Revised Penal Code," because the Committee which was created by Administrative Order No. 94 of the Department
of Justice, dated October 18, 1927, composed of Diaz, as chairman, and Quintin Paredes , Guillermo Guevara, Alex Reye s and Mariano H. de Joya, as members, w a s instructed to revise the old Penal Code, taking into consideration th e existin g conditions, the special penal law s and the rulings laid down by the Supreme Court.
The Committee did not undertake the codification of all penal laws in the What the Committee did wa s merely to revise the old Penal Code and to include in the draft the other penal l aws related to it.
The Revised Penal Code does not embody the lates t progress of criminal science, as th e result s of the application of advanced and radical theories "still remai n to be
The old Penal Code, whi c h w a s revised by th e Committee, took effect in the Philippines on J u l y 14, 1887, and w a s in force up to Decembe r 3 1, 1931 .
In th e c a s e of U.S. vs. 31 Phil. 3 2 1 , 3 2 3 , t h e Supr e me Court traced t h e hi stor y of t h e old P e n al Code, as fol-lows:
"The royal order date d D e c e m b e r 17, 1886, directed th e executi on of t h e royal decree of S e p t e m b er 4, 1884 , wh e r e i n it w a s ordered t h a t th e P e n a l Code in force i n th e P e n i n s u l a , as a m e n d e d in accordance w i t h t h e r e c om m e n d ati on s of th e code c om m i tte e, be publ i she d and applied in t h e Philippin e Isl ands (This l aw) h a v i n g b e e n p u b l i s h ed i n th e Official Gazette of Mani la on March 13 a n d 14, 1887, b e c ame effective four m o n t h s thereafter."
The Revised P e n al Code, as e nac ted by t h e Philippine Legisla-ture, w a s approved on Decembe r 8, 1930. It took effect on January
1, 1932. Felonies and m i s d e m e an or s, committed prior to January 1, 1932, were puni she d in accordance w i t h th e Code or Acts in force at the time of their commission, as directed by Art. 366 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Revised Penal Code consists of two books.
The Revised Penal Code consists of two books, namely: Book One, and (2) Book Two.
Book One consists of two parts: (a) basic principles affecting criminal liability (Arts. 1-20), and (b) th e provisions on penalties including criminal and civil liability (Arts. 21-113).
I n Boo k Tw o ar e d e f i n e d f e l o n i e s w i t h t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g penalties, classified and grouped under fourteen different titles (Arts. 114-365) .
Date of Effectiveness.
A r t i c l e 1. Time when Act takes effect. — T h i s C o d e s h a l l t a k e e f f e c t o n t h e f i r s t d a y o f J a n u a r y , n i n e t e e n h u n d r e d a n d t h i r t y - t w o .
The Revised Penal Code is based mainly on principles of the
classical school.
This R e vi s e d P e n a l Code c on t i n u e s , like th e old P e n al Code, to be b as e d on t h e principles of t h e old or classical school, although s o m e p r o v i s i o n s o f e m i n e n t l y p o s i t i v i s t i c t e n d e n c i e s ( t h o s e h a v i n g referenc e to t h e p u n i s h m e n t of i mpossi ble crimes, juve ni l e delinquency, etc.) w e r e incorporated in th e p r e s e nt Code.
Two theories in Criminal Law.
There are two important theories in criminal law: (1) the classical theory, and (2) th e theory.
Characteristics of
classical theory.
1. The basis of criminal liability is h u m a n free will and the
purpose of the penalty is retribution.
2 . T h a t m a n i s e s s e n t i a l l y a m o r a l c r e a t u r e w i t h a n a b s o l u t e l y free wi l l to c hoos e b e t w e e n good and evil, t h e r e b y p l a c i ng more s t r e s s upon t h e effect or result of t h e fe l oni ous act t h a n upon th e m a n , t h e criminal himself.
3. It h as endeavored to establish a mechanical and direct
4. There is a scant regard to th e h u m a n element. (Basic Principles, Rationale, p. 2, by the Code Commission on Code of Crimes)
Characteristics of the positivist theory.
That m an is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon which constrains h i m to do wrong, in spite of or contrary to his volition.
That crime is essentially a social and natural phenomenon, and as s uc h , it c annot be tr e ate d and checked by th e application of abstract principles of law and jurisprudence nor by the imposition of a punishment, fixed and determined
a but rather through the enforcement of individual measures in each particular case after a thorough, personal and individual i nvesti gati on conducted by a competent body of psychiatrists and social scientists.
(Basic Principles, Rationale, pp. 2 and 3, by the Code Commission on Code of Crimes)
A r t . 2. Application of its provisions. — E x c e p t as p r o v i d e d
i n t h e t r e a t i e s a n d l a w s o f p r e f e r e n t i a l a p p l i c a t i o n , t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s C o d e s h a l l b e e n f o r c e d n o t o n l y w i t h i n t h e P h i l i p p i n e A r c h i p e l a g o , i n c l u d i n g i t s a t m o s p h e r e , i t s i n t e r i o r w a t e r s a n d m a r i t i m e z o n e , b u t a l s o o u t s i d e o f i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n , a g a i n s t t h o s e w h o : S h o u l d c o m m i t a n o f f e n s e w h i l e o n a P h i l i p p i n e s h i p o r a i r s h i p ; 2 . S h o u l d f o r g e o r c o u n t e r f e i t a n y c o i n o r c u r r e n c y n o t e o f t h e P h i l i p p i n e I s l a n d s o r o b l i g a t i o n s a n d s e c u r i t i e s i s s u e d b y t h e G o v e r n m e n t o f t h e P h i l i p p i n e I s l a n d s ; 3 . S h o u l d b e l i a b l e f o r a c t s c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n i n t o t h e s e I s l a n d s o f t h e o b l i g a t i o n s a n d s e c u r i t i e s m e n t i o n e d i n t h e p r e c e d i n g n u m b e r ; 4 . W h i l e b e i n g p u b l i c o f f i c e rs o r e m p l o y e e s , s h o u l d c o m -m i t a n o f f e n s e i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f t h e i r f u n c t i o n s ; o r
5 . S h o u l d c o m m i t a n y o f t h e c r i m e s a g a i n s t n a t i o n a l s e c u r i t y a n d t h e l a w o f n a t i o n s , d e f i n e d i n T i t l e O n e o f B o o k T w o o f t h i s C o d e .
Scope of the application of the provisions of the Revised
Penal Code.
The provisions of th e Revise d P e n al Code shall be enforced not
only within th e Philippin e Archipelago, but also outside of i ts
juris-diction in certain
Th e five paragraphs of Art. 2 treat of t h e application of th e Revised P e n al Code to acts committed in th e air, at sea, and even in a foreign country w h e n suc h acts affect the political or economic life of th e nation .
In what cases are the provisions of the Revised Penal Code
applicable even if the felony is committed outside of the
Philippines?
They are applicable i n th e following cases:
1. W h e n th e offender should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship.
The Philippine vessel, al though beyond thre e mile s from the seashore, is considered part of the nationa l territory.
T h u s , a n y p e r s on w h o c o m m i t t e d a crim e on board a Phi l i ppi ne s h i p or ai rship w h i l e the s a m e is outside of th e P hi l i ppi n e territory can be tried before our civil courts for violation of th e Pena l Code.
Bu t w h e n the Philippine vessel or aircraft is in the territory
of a foreign country, the crime committed on said vesse l or
aircraft is subject to the l aws of tha t foreign country.
A Philippine vessel or aircraft m u s t be understood as that which is registered in the Philippine Bureau of Customs.
It is the registration of the vessel or aircraft in accordance with the law s of the Philippines, not the citizenship of its owner, which m akes it a Philippine ship or airship. A vessel or aircraft
which is unregistered or unlicensed does not come within the purview of paragraph No. 1 of Art. 2.
Thus, if a crime is committe d t e n mi l es from the shores of the Philippines on board a v e s s e l belonging to a Filipino, but the s a me is not registered or licensed in accordance wi th the l aws of th e Phi l i ppi nes, paragraph No. 1 of Art. 2 is not applicable.
The Philippine court h as no jurisdiction over the crime of theft committed on the high seas on board a vessel not registered
or licensed in the Philippines. (U.S. vs. Fowler, 1 Phil. 614)
2. W he n the offender should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of t h e P h i l i p p i n e s or obligation s and securities i ssued by th e Government.
Thus, any person who m a k e s false or counterfeit coins (Art. 163) or forges treasury or bank note s or other obligations and securities (Art. 166) in a foreign country m a y be prosecuted before our civil courts for violation of Art. or Art. 166 of th e Revised Penal Code.
W hen th e offender should be liable for acts connected w i t h the introduction into th e Philippine s of th e obligations and
securities m e nti oned in th e preceding number.
Th e r e a s o n for t h i s pr ovi si on is t h a t t h e i ntroducti on of forged or counterfeited obligations and securities into th e Philippines is as dangerous as th e forging or counterfeiting of the sam e, to the economical i nterest of the country.
4. When th e offender, while being a public officer or employee, should commit an offense in t h e exercise of hi s functions. The crimes t h a t m a y be committe d in th e exercise of public functions are direct bribery (Art. 210), indirect bribery (Art. frauds agai ns t th e public treasury (Art. 213), possession of prohibited i nterest (Art. 216), m al ve r sati on of public funds or property (Art. 217), failure of accountable officer to render accounts (Art. 218), illegal us e of public funds or property (Art. 220), failure to m a k e deliver y of public funds or property (Art. and falsification by a public officer or employe e committed wi th abuse of his official position. (Art. 171)
W hen any of t h e se felonies is committed abroad by any of our public officers or e m pl oye es while in th e exercise of hi s
he can be prosecuted here.
W he n th e offender should commit any of the crimes agains t th e national security and th e law of nations.
The crimes agai n s t th e national security and th e law of nations are treason (Art. conspiracy and proposal to commit tr e ason (Art. 115), e spi onag e (Art. 117), inciting to war and giving moti ves for reprisals (Art. violation of neutrality (Art. correspondence w i t h hostile country (Art. 120), flight to country (Art. 121), and piracy and mutin y on the high s e as. (Art. 122)
The crimes punishable in the Philippines under Art. 2 are
cognizable by the Regional Trial Court in which the charge
is
The crimes committe d outside of th e Philippine s but punishable therei n under Article 2 of th e Revised P e n al Code shal l be cognizable by th e Regional Trial Court in w h i c h t h e charge is firs t filed . (Rule
110, Sec. 15[d], R e vi s e d R u l e s of Criminal Procedure)
R e g i o n a l Tr i al C o u r t s (formerl y h a v e or i gi nal ju r i s d i c-t i o n over all c r i m e s a n d o f f e n s es c o m m i c-t e d on c-t h e h i g h s e a s o r be yon d t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of a n y c ou n try on board a s h i p or warcraf t of a n y k i n d r e g i s t e r e d o r l i c e n s e d i n t h e P h i l i p p i n e s i n accord-anc e w i t h i t s l a w s . (Se c . 4 4 [ g ] , J u d i c i a r y Ac t of 1 9 4 8 , Rep. Act N o . 2 9 6 )
IMPORTANT WORDS A N D P H R A S E S IN ART. 2
1. "Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential
application."
This phrase m e a n s that while the general rule is that the provisions of the Revised Penal Code shall be enforced agains t any person who violates any of its provisions while livin g or sojourning in th e Philippines , the exceptions to that rule m ay be provided by the treaties and laws of
preferential applications, like the RP-US Visiting Forces
Accord, the Military Bases Agreement between the Republic
of the Philippines and the United States of America, and the provisions of Rep. Act No. 75.
2. "its atmosphere."
The sovereignty of the and therefore its penal l aws extend to all the air space which covers its territory, subject to the right of w ay or e ase m e nt in favor of foreign aircrafts.
3. "interior waters."
The phrase "interior waters" includes creeks, rivers, l akes and bays, gulfs, straits, coves, inlet s and roadsteads lying wholly wi thi n th e three-mile limit.
4. "maritime zone."
The S tate s by m e a n s of treati e s have fixed its length to three mi l e s from the coastline, startin g from the low wate r mark.
It includes thos e parts of the sea or recesse s in th e coastline w h o se wi dth at their entrance is not more t h a n twe l v e m i l e s m e a s u r e d in a straight line from headlan d to headl and, and all straits less than six
mi l es wide.
For thos e straits h a v i n g more than that width, the space in the center outside of th e m ar i ne league limits is considered as open sea. (Opinion of Attorney General, Jan.
Crimes committed on board foreign merchant ship or airship.
J u s t as our m e r c h a n t shi p is an e x t e n s i o n of our territory, foreign merchant ship is considered an e xte ns i on of th e territory of the country to whi ch it belongs. For t h is reason, an offense commited
on the high seas on board a foreign merchant vessel is not triable by
our courts. (U.S. vs. Fowler, 1 Phil. 614)
Continuing offense on board a foreign vessel.
B u t a c o n t i n u i n g c r i m e c o m m i t t e d on board a N o r w e g i a n merchan t vessel sailin g from Formosa to the Philippines , by failing
to provide stal ls for a n i m a ls in tr ansi t in violation of Act No. 55, is triable in th e Philippines.
The offense of failing to provide suitable m e a n s for securing an i m al s whi l e transporting t h e m on a (foreign) ship from a foreign port to a port of th e Philippines is wi th i n th e jurisdiction of the courts of the Philippines w h e n th e forbidden conditions existed during the ti m e th e ship w a s wi th i n territorial w ate r s , regardless of the fact that th e s a m e conditions e xi ste d w h e n th e ship sailed from th e foreign port and whi l e it w a s on the h i gh s e a s . (U.S. vs . Bull, 15 Phil. 7)
Offense committed on board a foreign merchant vessel while
on Philippine waters is triable before our court.
Since th e Philippine territory e xt e n ds to three mi l e s from the headlands, w h e n a foreign merchant vessel enters this three-mile limit, th e ship's officers and crew become subject to th e jurisdiction of our courts. The space wi th i n 3 m i l e s of a line drawn from th e headland s which embrace th e entrance to Manila Bay is withi n territorial
(U.S. vs. Bull, 15 Phil. 7, 17-18)
Rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard foreign
merchant vessels.
There are two rule s as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard merchan t v e s s e ls wh i le in th e territorial wate r s of another country.
French Rule. — Such crimes are not triable in the courts of that
country, u n l e ss their commission affects the peace and security of the territory or th e safety of th e s tate is endangered.
English Rule. — Suc h crimes are triable in that country, unless
they merely affect things withi n the vessel or they refer to the internal m a n a g e m e n t thereof.
In thi s country, we observe the Englis h Rule.
According to the French theory and matters happening on board a merchant ship which do not concern the tranquility of the port or persons foreign to the crew, are justiceable only by the courts of the country to which the vessel belongs. The French courts therefore claim exclusive jurisdiction over crimes committed on board French merchant ve sse ls in foreign ports by one member of the crew against
